Do Women Wearing Bikinis Deserve to Be Sexually Assaulted?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A teenager in Australia pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting 9 women and girls but was not sentenced to prison. Instead, he was put on two-years’ probation. Why? The judge reasoned that, as a Muslim who had immigrated from Afghanistan, “seeing girls in bikinis is different to the environment in which he grew up.”

Seriously? This young man assaults 9 different women and girls on a beach in Australia, and the court finds him not guilty because he came from a different culture?

A Closer Look at the Case

I understand that in Afghanistan, women are required to be completely covered. And so, it would be quite a shock for a Muslim teen raised in that country to come to Australia and see so much flesh.

It’s for that very reason that some believers who come from conservative religious backgrounds avoid going to crowded beaches. They’re not into the bikini culture.

I can relate to that personally, which is why I avoid crowded beaches myself. I’m no more comfortable surrounded by women in bikinis than I’d be surrounded by women in their underwear.

But I fully understand that these women are not asking to be sexually assaulted, no matter how they’re dressed. And it would never dawn on me in a million years that I had the right to assault them because of their scanty attire. God forbid.

You might say, “But you were raised in America, so this is not foreign to you. You understand the culture, which is similar to Australia.”

That’s true.

But do you mean to tell me that this 17-year-old teenager from Afghanistan thought that what he was doing was fine? That, as he swam in the water and “spent two hours grabbing women, aged between 15 and 24 years,” he had no idea he was upsetting them?

The court was told that the “defendant grabbed his victims on their bottoms, breasts and, in three cases, their vaginas.” And the Crown attorney, Nick McGhee “said the defendant was seen swimming up to his victims ‘in quite a predatory manner’.”

And he had no idea this was a bad thing? He had no idea he was at a beach where these girls went to swim, not get assaulted? And, after the first girl reacted to him, he still thought they were inviting his predations?

The judge also noted that the young man had a difficult background, having lost his father in 2011.

But how, exactly, does this lessen his guilt before the court? How, precisely, does this mitigate his responsibility?

It is all too common for convicted criminals to have troubled pasts, and our prisons would be nearly empty if judges looked the other way because the guilty party was raised without a dad. (I don’t mean to sound uncaring here. I’m simply talking about a judge doing his or her duty.)

Let’s Take the Judge’s Decision to Its Logical Conclusion

As for the idea that the teen came from a different culture and therefore was not fully responsible, how far will the courts take such logic?

“Your honor, I killed my daughter because she disgraced the family by dating a non-Muslim boy.”

“Your honor, I poisoned by son because he apostasized from the Islamic faith and became a Christian.”

“Your honor, I burned down the TV station because one of the hosts made disparaging comments about the Quran.”

“Your honor, I butchered the cartoonist because he mocked the prophet Muhammad.”

“Your honor, that’s just what we do in our culture. Please understand I wasn’t used to your way of doing things, and I’ll do better next time.”

Would the judge accept arguments like these? Hardly. (Or perhaps this same judge would accept such arguments. That’s what is really scary.)

What if you came from a cannibalistic culture where tribal disputes were settled with knife fights, and the winners ate the losers? How would this play out in court?

“Your honor, yes, it’s true that I roasted and ate my neighbor, but it’s a cultural thing. If I had lost the fight, I assumed he would have done the same to me. So, can I go home now?”

The Message It Sends

It’s bad enough that these girls and women have to deal with the trauma of being assaulted and groped. It’s even worse when the court sympathizes with their attacker rather than with them, finding a reason to look the other way. And what kind of message does this send to other Muslim immigrants, who will surely hear of this court case in the days to come?

Ironically, if an Australian woman living in Afghanistan decided to dress as she did in her home country, she’d be lucky to escape a mob assault on the streets, let alone experience leniency from the court. Yet in Australia, a young man guilty of multiple sexual assaults is let off the hook because of his Muslim background.

This is being open-minded to the point of utter foolishness. It sets a very dangerous precedent too. (For more from the author of “Do Women Wearing Bikinis Deserve to Be Sexually Assaulted?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Elizabeth Warren: A Factory of Bad Ideas

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the fallout of President Donald J. Trump’s historic victory, the Democratic Party is in a state of panic. They suffered record-breaking defeats across the country. Now they’re trying to clean up the mess caused by Hillary Clinton, a candidate who explored uncharted depths of political corruption.

One of the Democrats’ biggest problems is how their grassroots base was ignored by elites who used a complicated process of “Superdelegates” to steal the primary election from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

Now, there’s new leadership at the Democratic National Committee. Chairman Tom Perez on a “Unity Tour” has committed himself to bringing back the “Bernie Bros” and embracing a far-left agenda. In the latest rebranding effort, the official DNC website now sells t-shirts with Perez’ vulgar words printed: “Democrats Give a S*** About People.”

Bad Ideas

But all the marketing and tacky clothing will not save them from the looming disaster known as “Elizabeth Warren.” The Massachusetts Senator, who once received more than $400,000 to teach a single class at Harvard, has made a name for herself as a shrill defender of income redistribution. Now, she is quickly emerging as the most likely 2020 Presidential candidate.

In the United State Senate, Warren has been a factory of bad ideas. She wants to raise corporate-tax rates, which scares companies out of the country. She protests crony capitalism in the financial markets, yet supports the Import-Export bank. She wants to lower student interest rates which only encourages more irresponsible borrowing. She supports taxpayer-funded, late-term abortion. She wants to raise the minimum wage to $22 per hour and have IRS prepare your taxes. The list of her bad big-government ideas is endless.

When it comes to health care, Warren is a staunch defender of Obamacare. As premiums skyrocket, conservatives in Congress are trying to negotiate a new health care law to get rid of Obamacare’s heavy-handed mandates. But Warren and her fellow Democrats are standing in the way.

Targeting the Hard of Hearing

One of the more unusual ways Warren is keeping health care expenses high involves regulating over-the-counter hearing aids. Warren has introduced a special-interest backed bill to increase FDA regulations for over-the-counter hearing devices.

The stated goal of the legislation is to “increase access” to hearing devices. But in practice, imposing new regulations on existing over-the-counter devices would restrict access to auditory health care. The bill would drastically disrupt the doctor-patient relationship.

The problems with these new, complicated regulations would be immediate and severe. For example, veterans and Medicaid patients could potentially no longer receive health coverage for doctors’ visits to diagnose and treat hearing loss, as preemption language in the bill would likely prompt insurers to drop audiology screenings and fittings. This would overrule state laws while incentivizing states to drop hearing aid and audiology coverage entirely. Then, by removing doctors from auditory health equation, it would leave the most vulnerable patients uninformed and untreated.

Elizabeth Warren: Move Over

In short, Warren’s bill does two things: drastically increases FDA regulations, and eliminates states’ rights to govern their Medicaid systems as they see fit. Why would Republicans support that?

And why is Warren so intent on pushing a bill on behalf of big corporations? Perhaps she is taking the Hillary Clinton-route by signaling to major donors that she is willing to sell-out to the highest bidder?

It seems like bizarro world on Capitol Hill. But this is a classic example of why the process of repealing and replacing Obamacare is so complicated. Americans deserve more market innovation to provide quality health coverage at lower prices. It is time for special interests and Elizabeth Warren to get out of the way. (For more from the author of “Elizabeth Warren: A Factory of Bad Ideas” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Opens Doors on Oil Exploration, but Deeper Reforms Still Needed

/0 Comments/in , /by

In another move to free up domestic energy supplies, President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday aimed at lifting the Obama administration’s offshore drilling restrictions.

For decades, bad policies have blocked access to America’s abundance of domestic resources, yet America has still managed to be a global energy leader. Trump’s executive order, “Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy,” could unleash further success in the energy sector.

The economic potential sitting just off America’s coasts is enormous. The Outer Continental Shelf is awash with natural resources, containing an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Realizing that potential could create nearly a million American jobs, and the increased energy supplies that would result would put money back into the bank accounts of American families. It would also generate new prospects for investment and job creation, as cheap energy lowers the cost of business operations across all sectors, not just energy.

The federal government has placed various bans on offshore drilling for decades. Last November, the Obama administration’s Department of Interior finalized some of the most restrictive leasing programs to date.

The Interior Department’s final 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program was best known for the areas it placed off limits, rather than what it made available to lease for energy exploration.

It excluded lease sales in the oil-rich Beaufort or Chukchi seas off the coasts of Alaska, as well as areas off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The Interior Department also restricted opportunities in the Gulf of Mexico and the Cook Inlet off south central Alaska.

Critics of Trump’s decision to free up leasing are making the same arguments they’ve made for years: “Oil prices are too low, so the decision won’t spur more oil exploration. Drilling offshore takes too long, so it’s not going to have any immediate impact.”

But those arguments ignore the biggest drivers of investment. Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis were spot on in writing for The Washington Post, “[L]ocal political considerations and the global energy market are likely to influence future exploration far more than an executive order in Washington.”

While Trump’s executive order will open more doors for exploration, it won’t automatically trigger an energy boom. That’s the way it should be.

Oil prices are long-term and, as history has shown, can increase rather quickly. Industry makes investment decisions looking decades into the future, not simply based on short-term projections.

Although it certainly is possible that low oil prices could prohibit offshore production, that’s a decision for the private sector to consider. Businesses are much better equipped and flexible to deal with changing economic circumstances than shortsighted politicians in Washington.

Another battle cry for of those who oppose offshore drilling is: Do we really want to risk another Deepwater Horizon spill?

The Deepwater Horizon spill of 2010, which caused environmental degradation in the Gulf of Mexico, was a rare and isolated incident, not a result of any systemic problem associated with offshore oil and gas operations.

That’s not to say flaws don’t exist in the current system or that improvements can’t be made.

In fact, after Deepwater Horizon, Congress examined the government-imposed offshore liability cap but never implemented any prudent solution.

Current law states that oil or gas companies do not have to pay more than $75 million in liability costs for accidents they cause—no matter how great the damages.

Additional fees can be paid out of a government-mandated trust fund (the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund), which effectively socializes the risk of offshore oil and gas activities.

Congress should reform the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and remove the $75 million liability cap, replacing it with a new system that assesses the risks of offshore oil and gas operations and appropriately assigns those risks to industry operators.

A new approach would accurately assign risk to all offshore operations, including exploratory drilling, production, and tanker movements.

Such a system should also hold operators fully liable for their actions and guard against frivolous lawsuits. It should rely on market-based mechanisms and be built around private insurers and professional risk assessors.

Environmental activists aren’t the only ones opposed to Trump’s executive order. Some members of the tourism industry have also voiced concerns about expanded drilling off the Atlantic.

But the energy industry has worked in perfect harmony with other industries. Just look to the Gulf Coast. Every year, residents of the Gulf come to Morgan City, Louisiana, to celebrate the lifeblood of the region’s economy: seafood and oil.

Morgan City’s Shrimp and Petroleum Festival emphasizes “the unique way in which these two seemingly different industries work hand-in-hand culturally and environmentally in this area of the ‘Cajun Coast.’”

While the Deepwater Horizon spill affected all industries in the Gulf Coast, the majority of seafood and tourism companies supported the oil industry throughout the ordeal.

In fact, in many respects, the spill has strengthened the bond between the oil and seafood industry. Shrimpers and fishers were as vocal as anyone in lifting the offshore drilling ban after the spill.

Drilling off the Atlantic coasts could welcome the same symbiotic relationship, which already exists in the Gulf and in the state of Alaska.

Furthermore, states should collect more royalty revenue for offshore production.

Currently, states receive 50 percent of the revenues generated by onshore oil and natural gas production on federal lands, and Congress should apply this allocation offshore as well.

Drilling off states’ coasts and allowing them a larger share of the royalty revenue would encourage more state involvement in drilling decisions.

Offshore drilling would also promote state and local government participation in allocating funds, helping them to close their deficits, enabling coastal restoration and conservation, and shoring up funds for schools.

Trump’s executive order is a welcome step to increasing access to domestic resources, but the back-and-forth of banning resource exploration and then undoing it is a sign that wholesale reform is necessary.

The politicization of the leasing program and the static central planning process that has stifled a dynamic, constantly changing energy market points to the need for legislative action. It is time for a fundamental reconsideration of how the U.S. manages offshore resource development.

Congress should amend the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Act and get rid of this antiquated, piecemeal leasing approach. (For more from the author of “Trump Opens Doors on Oil Exploration, but Deeper Reforms Still Needed” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Spending Deal Near After Congress Gives Itself a Few More Days to Craft Package

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hours before the federal government’s spending authority expired Friday at midnight, the Senate advanced a one-week continuing resolution by voice vote, putting spending on autopilot and avoiding a looming government shutdown.

The Senate action followed a 382-30 House vote to pass the one-week extension. Without the measure, the government would have run out of money as Friday turned to Saturday.

Update: Congressional negotiators agreed late Sunday on a broad spending plan to fund the government through September, The Washington Post reported, citing several aides who also said Democrats got their way with Republicans in key policy areas. Congress is expected to vote within days on the roughly $1 trillion package, which the newspaper said includes $12.5 billion in new military spending and $1.5 billion more for border security, but not to begin constructing a wall.

The makeshift spending agreement allowed lawmakers in the House and Senate another week to negotiate and pass a huge, omnibus spending bill to fund the government through the rest of fiscal year 2017, which ends Sept. 30.

“It really bothers me that we’re so late in getting this thing done,” Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., said of the 11th-hour spending resolution in an interview Friday with The Daily Signal.

Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., a member of the House Appropriations Committee, told The Daily Signal before the weekend that the omnibus bill, expected to be introduced Monday, was progressing well.

“My understanding is that the omnibus bill is nearly complete, that … we may actually be able to combine all the separate appropriations bills into that omnibus bill, and that’s good news,” Harris said in an interview.

President Donald Trump signed the stopgap spending measure later Friday, the White House announced.

Votes on the omnibus bill were expected Thursday.

Funding for Trump’s promised border wall is not included. Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate have said they prefer to put off a fight with Democrats over beginning to pay for the wall until the fall, rather than as part of funding the government for the rest of the current fiscal year.

“Full border wall funding can’t be there at this point,” Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., a supporter of the wall, said in a recent interview with The Daily Signal. “It’s not designed, prototypes have not been created.”

Authorization of the new border-security money requires that the Trump administration use it only for technology and repairs to existing fencing and infrastructure, The Post reported.

Biggs said he was preparing an amendment to defund Planned Parenthood for inclusion in the omnibus spending bill. He said it mirrors Vice President Mike Pence’s amendment to defund Planned Parenthood that the House passed in 2011, when Pence was a Republican congressman from Indiana.

Update: According to The Post’s report Sunday night, the legislation as drafted would ensure that Planned Parenthood continues to receive federal funding through September. The newspaper reported that Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., “boasted that they were able to force Republicans to withdraw more than 160 unrelated policy measures, known as riders, including those that would have cut environmental funding and scaled back financial regulations for Wall Street.”

The Post quoted Schumer as saying: “The bill ensures taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fund an ineffective border wall, excludes poison pill riders and increases investments in programs that the middle class relies on, like medical research, education and infrastructure.”

National defense must be a priority in the omnibus bill, Harris told The Daily Signal on Friday.

“I look forward to a very lively discussion for the next year’s appropriations bills on the president’s plan to begin to prioritize funding within the nonmandatory side of the ledger and to re-emphasize defense of the nation and homeland security as a top priority,” Harris said.

Pelosi earlier had predicted a battle between Democrats and Republicans over the omnibus bill.

“There are probably still 70 poison pills in the bill that we can’t live with,” Pelosi said Wednesday on CNN.

“One party now controls the White House and both chambers of Congress,” Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, said in a prepared statement about the one-week extension. “It is incumbent upon them to ensure that the government of the American people stays open and is fully funded.”

Biggs sounded cautiously optimistic about what those crafting the omnibus would present to fellow lawmakers.

“I hope they produce something in writing soon because I don’t know how they expect people to vote on stuff they don’t have time to read,” the Arizona Republican said. (For more from the author of “Spending Deal Near After Congress Gives Itself a Few More Days to Craft Package” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Conservatives Fight for Free Speech at a Far-Left College

/0 Comments/in , /by

There seems to be a serious disconnect nowadays between what conservatives are, and what they are accused of being.

Campus leftists thoughtlessly dub conservatives “racists” and “homophobes,” and regularly fling those epithets on both conservative students and right-leaning speakers who come to campus.

This misunderstanding of conservative values is deeply unfortunate, and it comes amid a growing tendency on American college campuses to shut down debate and villainize those with whom the status quo disagrees.

One campus conservative group, the Hood College Republicans, decided to push back on the trend and to re-engage their campus.

In an attempt to reopen dialogue and clearly convey their beliefs, the group’s members created a display on campus with various quotes and graphics describing conservative values.

The display admittedly hit on some controversial issues. Students and faculty were particularly concerned over a quote from conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, which stated of transgender people, “Biology is biology; men can’t magically become women and women can’t magically become men.”

Students and faculty members called the display “hateful” and “propaganda.” The president of Hood College wrote in an email that a review will take place to see if the display violates college rules, citing that it is possible for the Hood College Republicans to receive sanctions.

In a statement released by Hood College Republicans, the group expressed deep concern over the administration’s response to its display:

The handling of the situation by the school has demonstrated the extreme bias against free speech and diversity of thought for conservative views on campus, saying that the espousing of such views was offensive and dangerous. The administration has also tried to claim that we have been committing harassment and discrimination simply by expressing such views on paper. Our members have personally received violent threats from members of the Hood Community and have been regularly targeted online, with many on and off campus citing us as a hate group.

This story, like so many others we hear from college campuses today, underscores the true extent to which the First Amendment is under attack at American universities.

The reality of politically correct campus culture does not always come in large violent protests as we saw at Berkeley or Middlebury. The more frequent reality is conservative viewpoints, such as those advertised by Hood College Republicans, being quietly forced out.

For example, Peter Wood recently wrote for The Federalist that a professor at Springfield College is being forced out for teaching a course on “Men in Literature,” which did not sit well with campus feminists.

It should go without saying that students at Hood College, and at every college, must have their First Amendment rights protected. This basic freedom guaranteed by our Constitution should be respected in all areas of American life.

Teaching the importance of such freedoms should be a top priority for our American universities, which used to serve as laboratories for democratic thought and factories of an educated citizenry.

But today, our universities’ main product appears to be thought-followers, not thought-leaders.

As students and faculty appear to be doubling down on their war against free speech, university administrators must stand firm to protect the most basic constitutional rights of their students.

After all, the true test of free speech is how well we tolerate those we most disagree with. (For more from the author of “Conservatives Fight for Free Speech at a Far-Left College” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

You Can Defend Bin Laden at Berkeley, but Not Conservatism

/0 Comments/in , /by

With UC Berkeley’s unwillingness to provide actual security measures for conservative speakers, the school has made it crystal clear that there is no room for free expression on its campus.

The academic institution has, however, welcomed prominent radical Islamists with open arms. Speakers who have openly called for violence and bigotry are granted space at Berkeley, so long as they fit within the accepted political framework.

Since the turn of the century, the California school has become a cesspool of radical indoctrination that is rampant with Islamic supremacists. The school has not only turned into America’s chief promulgator of anti-American ideals, it also has become a breeding ground of anti-Semitism.

April 13 marked the 10-year anniversary of an overtly pro-Osama bin Laden speech hosted by the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at Berkeley.

The shocking audio, in which the speaker demands that fellow Muslims not condemn the international terrorist, has been preserved by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

“Osama bin Laden … I don’t know this guy. I don’t know what he did. I don’t know what he said. I don’t know what happened. But we defend Muslim brothers and we defend our Muslim sisters to the end. Is that clear?” Amir Mertaban, the former MSA West president, said at a MSA conference of the now-dead al Qaeda chief.

“If you sit here and you start saying ‘jihad is only an internal this and that,’ you are compromising on your faith,” he added.

In 2004, a Berkeley MSA conference hosted Amir Abdel Malik Ali, who called for fellow “mujahids” (warriors for Islam) to take up arms and form a Muslim theocracy. The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center has described him as “a charismatic imam who promotes anti-Semitism, violence and conspiracy theories that blame the U.S. government and Jews for attacks by Islamic terrorists.”

Two years later, Mr. Ali spoke at a UC Irvine pro-Hezbollah (which is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization) conference and was received by chants of “Allahu Akbar!”

Later that year, to commemorate Holocaust Remembrance Day, Islamic supremacists at Berkeley held an anti-Semitic hate fest, shouting for the destruction of Israel.

The UC’s Islamic supremacy complex is far from a thing of the past.

In 2015, Berkeley hosted Omar Barghouti, leader of the anti-Semitic BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement against the state of Israel. Today, Berkeley continues to be a cesspool of Islamic supremacist indoctrination.

The California school partners with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror financing trial in American history, and a suspected Hamas front group – on annual “Islamophobia” reports and conferences.

The annual confab, which took place last week, featured Zahra Billoo. She is the director of CAIR’s San Francisco-Bay Area chapter. Billoo has, in the past, accused U.S. soldiers of engaging in terrorism and has advised her allies to thwart FBI investigations.

The Berkeley-CAIR “Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project” was started by Dr. Hatem Bazian, a professor at the school. Bazian is the founder of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), an anti-Semitic hate group that seeks to eliminate the Jewish state of Israel. Bazian has, in the past, called for an intifada (violent uprising) in America.

Berkeley’s indoctrination efforts have clearly had an effect on the individuals matriculating there. Check out this shocking video released in 2014 by filmmaker Ami Horowitz. It highlighted how students reacted much more negatively to an Israeli flag than to an Islamic State flag.

Berkeley is no place for conservatism, yet the school seemingly has no issue with radical Islamists who seek to overthrow the country and impose a theocracy on America. (For more from the author of “You Can Defend Bin Laden at Berkeley, but Not Conservatism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Good Economics Matters Now More Than Ever

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a newsletter published in 1970, economist Murray Rothbard wrote, “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

This is an oft-quoted platitude within circles of libertarian philosophy and Austrian economics.

Today, we are seeing the embodiment of Rothbard’s fears. The woeful state of economic understanding has reached a critical mass. Economics has taken a back seat to issues deemed more important. What’s worse is that when economics is discussed, millennials tend to lean socialist.

I have a vested interest in seeing economics and sound money flourish as I work in the field. Yes, I believe that tying a nation’s currency to gold keeps government spending in check. This is hardly professional bias though, as we all have a vested interest in seeing economics and sound money championed, many just don’t recognize it. This piece is aimed at anyone with a vested interest in maintaining a standard of living higher than that of the depression-era breadline vagabond. Economics transcends race, gender, and political identification.

Let’s begin by examining the first of two reasons that good economics is paramount.

Good Economics Is Important Because We Are Seeing a Rise in Bad Economics

Despite the corruption and backhanded actions of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign to win the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders experienced a meteoric rise reminiscent to that of Ron Paul’s, whose 2008 presidential campaign trained his supporters’ focus on economics. Paul championed policies in the spirit of economists that I personally revere: Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Nobel Prize Laureate Friedrich Hayek, among others.

Bernie Sanders’s 2016 campaign had an equal but opposite effect. From teenagers to senior citizens, many loved Sanders’s critique of the broken system that favors the wealthy and stifles the poor. His “solutions” are abysmal, yet despite the countless examples of current (and more importantly, collapsed) socialist-Marxist/Leninist calamities, a self-described socialist found a foothold in the United States.

The revolution inspired by Sanders is anti-intellectual. The “economics” that stemmed out of the Sanders campaign was not economics at all. His school of economics was built on people shouting about their feelings and promoting egalitarianism for the sake of egalitarianism.

Good economics is grounded in axiomatic truths and empirical facts about the world around us. Sound money keeps governments and central banks (called the Federal Reserve in the US) from endless money printing and devastating inflation. Yes, that means the government won’t be able to provide every service that one desires. That is a good thing. Government is the bastion of inefficiency and the epitome of waste. Strictly from an economics standpoint, the market is far better suited at providing products and services.

The espousal of socialist policies in economics is dangerous and irresponsible. Fortunately, it doesn’t take much intellectual firepower to write off socialism as wildly inefficient. But it does take some. Socialism falls apart quickly when one understands the economic calculation problem, which explains the importance of prices based in subjective value in a free market system and explains how centrally planned economies, devoid of market prices, are doomed to suffer from inefficiencies in the form of widespread shortages and surpluses. Without these rudimentary economic blocks, “free college, health care for everyone, and massive taxation on the 1 percent to pay for these policies” sounds desirable.

We must learn, though. We must strive for intellectual growth. We must take the lessons we’ve learned from history and apply them to the word we live in today: socialism does not work. Socialism kills. (Even Scandinavian socialism isn’t as great as socialists say it is).

Socialism has been proven to be a terrible economic policy repeatedly. At some point, the value of human lives outweighs the desire for a politician to conduct a social experiment on how quickly he or she can rid their country of any and all valuable resources. That point is now. We must understand that socialism is an exercise in futility and inefficiency. Understanding good economics kills off the allure of central planning that continues to be peddled by politicians on the left. In fairness, understanding good economics helps wade past the bad economics posited by the right as well.

For a multitude of reasons, it’s a good idea to take a politician’s statements with grains of salt. As far as economics goes, economist Thomas Sowell said it better than I ever could.

The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.

Sound economics based in sound money policies make it possible to eat reasonably priced meals because inflation tends to be lower in countries that practice these policies. Sound money policies make enacting socialist policies difficult. Understanding fundamental economics is the linchpin to cultivating an environment conducive to having meaningful debate on other social issues. Which brings us to the second reason why economics is crucial.

Economics Is the Most Important Social Issue of Our Time

We should start by understanding that economics is a social issue. In fact, economics is the social issue. No issue influences individuals (read: all the individuals) within a society more than its economic practices.

Living in the United States in 2017 means exposure to all sorts of social issues including – but not limited to – same sex marriage, police brutality, safe spaces, drug legalization, and firearms ownership. To be sure, these issues are important and should be examined with sober eyes. But the issue of economics supersedes this list and every other list.

I believe consenting individuals should be allowed to do whatever their hearts desire so long as they aren’t violating the rights of another. I stand in solidarity with those who favor legalized same-sex marriages. I stand with those who want to see marijuana legalized nationwide and those who want to own automatic weapons.

But herein lies the danger of ignoring economics at the expense of other issues: Being “allowed” to smoke marijuana legally seems insignificant when a loaf of bread costs a month’s salary and your loved ones are dying of starvation, doesn’t it? I concede the subjective nature of this evaluation, but if I had to choose between the legality of same sex marriages and economic stability, I would choose economic stability without pause. Not because I don’t value personal freedom to do as one wishes, but because I understand that with economic stability comes the ability to fight another day for other issues.

Brazil, according to Bloomberg, was the second-worst economic performer of 2016. The other side of the coin is more uplifting: Brazil recognizes same-sex unions; allows same-sex marriages; allows adoptions by same-sex couples; allows individuals who identify as LGBT to serve in the military; and so on. Brazil’s removal of the proverbial shackles on homosexuals to live as they see fit is a big win for personal liberty, undoubtedly.

But one can’t help but wonder if the married same-sex couple in Brazil suffering from the terrible economic policies enacted by their country thinks, “13.2 percent of our entire country’s population is unemployed. That’s close to what the US faced between 1930-1931 as the Great Depression destroyed their economy. We can’t afford to feed ourselves or our family and we’re subjected to danger and crime as others are desperate to obtain food and money. But hey, at least the government recognizes our marriage!”

Greece is another example of the result of poor economic policies. Riots and crippling tax hikes to pay for irresponsible economic policies are commonplace in Greece, but hey, at least small amounts of cannabis have been decriminalized, right?

I don’t mean to belittle the importance of issues such as these. But as millennials, as members of the citizenry, and as people with a stake in the economic health of the nation we inhabit, our efforts are often misplaced. Sound economic policies should be pursued with at least the same amount of fervor as the myriad issues that don’t potentially end in economic collapse, death, crime, and general hysteria.

America finds itself on the cusp of revolution, but not necessarily the kind you might imagine. The revolution we are headed towards is an intellectual one. Good economics lies at the heart of this revolution.

Without good economics, we are powerless against the abuses of the Federal Reserve, the central bank that intentionally devalues the money in your bank account while it finances foreign wars and domestic programs that the government wouldn’t have the means to pay for otherwise. Without good economics, we are defenseless against the bad economic policies that lead to extreme levels of pillaging that socialists lovingly refer to as taxation. Without good economics, we subject ourselves to tangible, real-life danger and lose the opportunity to bring about the changes we wish to see. (For more from the author of “Why Good Economics Matters Now More Than Ever” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Meet the Men Vying to Become Iran’s Next President

/0 Comments/in , /by

Around 1,600 people filed to run for president of Iran and challenge Hassan Rouhani, who is seeking a second four-year term. Only six of them have been allowed on the ballot for election day.

The role of president of Iran varies. Some see him as no more than a figurehead, while others see him as the bridge between the supreme leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) and the people living under his rule.

In post-1979 Islamist Iran, the supreme leader maintains unchecked veto power over all of the nation’s affairs, and dominates foreign policy matters. Still, the president has considerable influence over domestic affairs.

It also must be noted that Iranians who seek the nation’s highest elected office must first be vetted by the 12-man, unelected Guardian Council, which is primarily made up of individuals appointed by the supreme leader. This year, the Guardian Council has granted only six individuals (denying requests from about 1,600 other aspiring candidates) clearance to run for president. All 137 women who registered to run were disqualified (the council has never cleared a woman to run for president)

The mainstream media in America often position some of these individuals as “reformists” and others as “hardliners,” but this distinction is misleading at best. All of the candidates not only have to be personally approved by the nation’s theocratic body, they are also positioning their platform as the best way to advance the interests of a caliphatist regime hell-bent on disrupting global order. With that in mind, here’s a look at the six candidates in Iran’s presidential “election.”

HASSAN ROUHANI:

Hailed as a “moderate” by The New York Times, the incumbent president helped Iran set the prestigious world record for most executions per capita.

Rouhani is known to use more pragmatic language than his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who infamously promised to “wipe Israel off the map.” Still, Rouhani is a Holocaust-denier who encourages terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to export Iran’s brand of Islamic totalitarianism throughout the region.

Rouhani played a key role in garnering international support for the Iran nuclear deal between Tehran and the P5+1 world powers (United States, United Kingdom, China, France, Germany, Russia). The deal gave Iran a major cash windfall and allowed for the regime to continue to finance its terrorist proxies in the Middle East.

Several analysts believe Rouhani has a good chance at reelection, as polls indicate that a large percentage of Iranians view him somewhat favorably.

EBRAHIM RAISI:

Portrayed in international media as the hardline option to Rouhani, Raisi is the main threat to unseat Rouhani. Raisi is also rumored as a potential successor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei (who is in his late 70s and suffering from several ailments). A Shiite cleric, Raisi wears a black turban, indicating that he is a descendant of Islam’s founder, Muhammad.

As part of his foreign policy platform, Raisi said he would consider engaging in diplomatic relations with every country “except the occupying regime of Israel.”

Raisi’s radicalism is exemplified by his views on the 2009 “Green Movement” protests that saw thousands of Iranians march into the streets to demand reform. The regime viciously cracked down on the protests, killing dozens of innocents (with estimates as high as 150), wounding hundreds more, and arresting thousands of dissenters.

Describing the protests as “sedition,” Raisi commented in 2014: “The Islamic System has treated the heads of the sedition with mercy. Those who sympathize with the heads of sedition must know that the great nation of Iran will never forgive this great injustice.”

Additionally, Raisi served on Iran’s 1988 “Death Commission,” which was responsible for exterminating thousands of political prisoners.

Khamenei recently appointed him to serve as the leader of Iran’s largest foundation. It is an extremely prominent post given that the endowment has an estimated value of around $15 billion, according to the Washington Post.

MOHAMMAD BAGHER GHALIBAF:

The current mayor of Tehran, Ghalibaf is the former commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) Air Force. He was a distant runner-up to Rouhani in the 2013 election.

Ghalibaf, who has spearheaded efforts to revitalize and modernize Tehran infrastructure, is known for his iron-fisted methods.

He has boasted about personally engaging in violence to repress student protests. Ghalibaf once said of one such student protest that occurred in 1999:

“Photographs of me are available showing me on back of a motor bike … beating them [the protestors] with wooden stick … I was among those carrying out beatings on the street level and I am proud of that. I didn’t care I was a high ranking commander.”

MOSTAFA MIRSALIM:

The 70-year-old is Iran’s former minister of culture and Islamic guidance. Mirsalim has criticized the Iran nuclear deal as an objection to Rouhani’s leadership, saying the deal did not do enough to boost the Iranian economy. His statement comes as recent polls show that economic woes remain the most important issue to Iranians. One such poll showed 42 percent of respondents stating unemployment is the most pressing matter in Iran.
From 1981 to 1989, Mirsalim served as an advisor to the supreme leader.

ESHAQ JAHANGIRI:

Rouhani’s vice president has made it clear that he is not a serious contender. He initially registered to run for election as concerns floated around regarding whether Rouhani would be disqualified by the Guardian Council. Jahangiri is running to “stand by Rouhani and complement him.” He is almost certainly going to drop out of the race so as not to split votes with the man he serves under.

MOSTAFA HASHEMI TABA:

Like Jahangiri, he is expected to soon throw his full weight behind Rouhani’s candidacy. Hashemi Taba once served as Iran’s vice president and also headed the country’s Olympic committee. He ran for president in 2001, but came in dead last of the 10 approved candidates, accumulating only 0.1 percent of the vote.

WHAT’S NEXT?

Iranians will head to the ballots on May 19. Local elections will occur on the same day to decide members of city and town councils. Parliamentary elections, however, do not happen on the same day as the presidential election. Iran’s last parliamentary elections were in early 2016 and are held every four years.

Depending on the year, reported turnout varies from around 51 percent to 85 percent, according to the BBC.

On numerous occasions, watchdog groups have called into question Iran’s elections as free and fair. In 2009, the regime allegedly rigged ballots in favor of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (For more from the author of “Meet the Men Vying to Become Iran’s Next President” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obamacare Repeal Is Crashing and Burning Because of RINO Cowards

/0 Comments/in , /by

With the Freedom Caucus on board for the MacArthur amendment to the GOP’s lousy Obamacare reform bill, all eyes are on the Republican moderates of the House. At their current rate, they are going to kill the bill because they believe it repeals too much of Obamacare. Cowards.

The Hill’s whip list currently has 21 Republicans voting “no” on the legislation. If the GOP loses one more vote, there will not be enough Republicans to get the bill to 217 (with every Democratic member voting against Obamacare reform).

While some members like Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., refuse to vote for the bill because it breaks the Republicans’ promise to fully repeal Obamacare, the majority of no votes are centrists who think the repeal legislation goes too far.

With the bill’s failure likely imminent, the vote has been delayed.

Just what do the moderates want, short of keeping Obamacare in its current form? The Freedom Caucus bent over backward to find a compromise that they could vote for. When the original promise was full repeal, conservatives compromised to just repealing the insurance regulations driving up premiums. When that fell through, they settled on the current plan to give some states waivers to make repeal of those regulations optional. How do the moderates want to drag the bill further to the left?

By protecting entitlement programs.

Speaking to the Washington Examiner, Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y., said that the moderates could potentially be swayed to vote yes if some changes to Medicaid were undone.

“I think we understand that the MacArthur language is the language,” he said about the amendment made public this week that would allow states to opt out of certain Obamacare requirements. “But there are a couple of other tweaks that could occur on the Medicaid side to help in some extent, without it being such a huge issue that it would lose anybody.”

Centrists opposed to the current version have noted that the bill would cut $880 billion from Medicaid, saying they are concerned about taking coverage away from low-income constituents. Collins said they are worried about provisions in the legislation that would allow states to change their Medicaid funding to a block grant or to a system that would place a per-capita cap on funding, structures that would limit spending but also give states more flexibility about how to use federal dollars.

The sticking point for RINOs is an $880 billion cut to government spending on the Medicaid entitlement program that has repeatedly proved itself to be an abject failure. Seven years of campaign promises from Republicans down the toilet because there are too many members of Congress afraid of touching entitlement programs.

By now it should’ve been clear that the Republican Party had no intention of fully repealing Obamacare. But the concessions demanded by too many Republicans are enlightening.

If Republicans cannot achieve moderate entitlement reform to Obamacare now, what can voters expect from the GOP regarding other pledges — e.g. entitlement reform for the likes of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid writ-large? These are the programs that are driving the mass majority of government spending.

If the Republican Party is the party of smaller government, and its members in power refuse to shrink the size of government, what is the GOP’s raison d’être?

And why should small-government conservatives belong to the Republican Party? (For more from the author of “Obamacare Repeal Is Crashing and Burning Because of RINO Cowards” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Planned Parenthood’s Health Services Decline as Abortions, Tax-Payer Funding Rise

/0 Comments/in , /by

Planned Parenthood is receiving more government funding and performing more abortions than it did 10 years ago. Meanwhile, non-abortive services like cancer screenings are on the decline.

Pro-life activist group Live Action summarized the data in a new video released Monday. (Scroll down to watch.)

The abortion provider is attempting to stave off a heated effort to strip its tax-payer funding. Earlier this month, President Donald Trump signed a bill allowing states to defund Title X of the Public Health Services Act, which funds family planning services. The bill was passed by the Senate in March with a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence.

An obvious swipe at Planned Parenthood, the bill was called a “major pro-life victory” by House Speaker Paul Ryan. Democrats decried the action, claiming it would rob women of critical health care.

Planned Parenthood defenders often point to the fact that federal law already prohibits tax-payer funding of abortions. They also cite numbers claiming abortion makes up only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s work. But that hasn’t stopped pro-life activists and Conservative lawmakers from fighting it.

Planned Parenthood currently receives over $500 million in government funding. That’s reportedly up from $272 million in 2004, as Live Action pointed out in its new video. Despite the bump in tax-payer dollars, Planned Parenthood’s clientele is the smallest it’s been in a decade. Live Action reports that the number of Planned Parenthood clients has dropped by half a million in six years. In the last 10 years, the organization closed over 200 facilities.

Also in the last decade, Planned Parenthood’s annual breast exams have dropped by 60 percent. It now does less than 2 percent of the nation’s breast exams. Pap tests have dropped by 77 percent, now accounting for less than 1 percent of all pap tests in the nation. Abortions, however, increased by 27 percent between 2004 and 2014. Today, Planned Parenthood performs nearly 35 percent of America’s abortions.

LifeSite News listed the exact numbers, which come straight from Planned Parenthood’s own reports.

“America’s women and children deserve better,” Live Action president Lila Rose told LifeSite. “Washington must ensure that taxpayer money spent on health care for women is actually spent on health care, not on keeping the doors to America’s largest abortion chain open.”

(For more from the author of “Planned Parenthood’s Health Services Decline as Abortions, Tax-Payer Funding Rise” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.