A Glaring Example of Our Fallen Morals in the Recent Georgia Election

/0 Comments/in , , /by

As far as I can tell, the comment received virtually no response from the media, nor was it deemed worthy of a response. After all, what’s the big deal about a political candidate casually mentioning that he’s living with his longtime girlfriend? Don’t some of our favorite TV couples live together out of wedlock? And don’t some of our friends and neighbors and family members live together out of wedlock?

They certainly do.

And that illustrates the point I’m making. We’ve come a long way in the last 50 years, and where we find ourselves today is far from good.

And that was that. No big deal, no eyebrows raised, and no suggestion that this was anything other than normal.

When congressional candidate Jon Ossoff was asked if he lived in the district in which he was running for office, he explained that he had moved out of the district to support his girlfriend while she finished medical school: “I’ve been living with my girlfriend, Alicia, for 12 years now down by Emory University where she’s a full-time medical student,” he said. “As soon as she concludes her medical training, I’ll be 10 minutes back up the street in the district where I grew up.”

At least one TV commentator did ask playfully when they were getting married. After all, 12 years is a long time to live together without marriage. But the fact they live together and that he’s running for political office wasn’t even worthy of a yawn.

Why should it be?

Today we have gay political leaders, bisexual political leaders, and transgender political leaders, not to mention a president who has been married three times.

We also have leaders like Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has been going with his girlfriend Sandra Lee since 2005, with plans to marry “some day.” Does anyone imagine that they are not sleeping together?

But once again, that’s the point I’m making.

What is the Meaning of Marriage in Our Culture Today?

It’s not that Ossoff is a terrible filthy sinner because he lives with his girlfriend. After all, it appears that they’ve been in a steady relationship for a dozen years, which means they’ve stayed together a lot longer than many married couples.

It’s just another reflection on the fallen state of our culture. After all, if you can live together for years without being married (and even have kids out of wedlock), and then, once you’re married, divorce for any reason, what’s the meaning of marriage?

For me personally, it was jarring to hear Ossoff’s comments, but not because they were so shocking. It’s because they weren’t shocking at all. That’s what jarred me afresh.

Can you imagine Ronald Reagan running for president (or, governor, for that matter) while living with Nancy rather than being married to her? Or George H. W. Bush living with Barbara? Or Bill Clinton living with Hillary? Or George W. Bush living with Laura? Or Barack Obama living with Michelle? Or even Donald Trump living with Melania?

Even so, how long will it be before an Andrew Cuomo can run for president while not being married to his girlfriend? It surely didn’t stop him from running for governor, and it’s not a big jump from having a longtime girlfriend to living with her.

Again, my point is not to say, “Look at how evil these people are! They are committing the unpardonable sin!”

My point is to say, “Wake up America! Our morals are collapsing before our eyes, and marriage is becoming increasingly meaningless.”

What Happens When We Discount the Sanctity of Marriage

Recent studies confirm what we have known for years: cohabitation is harmful more than helpful.

An April 1 report from the U.K.’s Marriage Foundation announced that, “Cohabiting couples now account for over half of family breakdown despite making up only a fifth of parents.”

A March 21 article noted that, “The level of doubt and mistrust among informal couples is two-and-a-half times the amount of concern about commitment detected among married couples.”

This indicates that something really happens when couples commit to marry, even in our divorce ridden cultures.

Yet it’s not just the couples who are affected. Another March article, summarizing a major, international study, reported that,

According to a recent sociological study, cohabitation has a notably deleterious impact on one particular group: kids. “As marriage becomes less likely to anchor the adult life course across the globe, growing numbers of children may be thrown into increasingly turbulent family waters,” writes Bradford Wilcox in Foreign Affairs.

These are significant findings, and they remind us that there is a large, ripple effect when we tamper with the sanctity of marriage. So, when we hear about a famous, unmarried athlete who is about to have his or her first child, we shouldn’t just think, “How wonderful!” For the sake of that child, we should think, “How much better it would be if the mom and dad were already committed in marriage.”

A Similar Scenario, 70 Years Ago

Writing about events taking place in 2014, Ann Coulter noted that, “In 1947, it was a scandal when Brooklyn Dodgers manager Leo Durocher was alleged to have been having an affair with a married actress, Laraine Day.”

She explains,

Durocher himself was not married, but Day, a Mormon who never smoked or drank, divorced her husband and married Durocher the day after being granted a provisional divorce decree. The divorce wasn’t final, so the judge who signed the decree ordered Day and Durocher to live separately in California. (Yes, this was so long ago, the institution of marriage was still respected in California.)

And they did. She lived with her mother in Santa Monica and Durocher moved into a nearby hotel.

Yet and still, the Catholic Youth Organization withdrew its support for the Brooklyn Dodgers and advised its members to boycott the team as long as Durocher remained manager.

As CYO director Rev. Vincent J. Powell explained in a letter, Durocher was not the sort of person “we want our youth to idealize and imitate,” adding that the CYO could not be “officially associated with a man who presents an example in contradiction to our moral teachings.”

Yes, that was New York City in the late 1940’s. Need I say more?

Acknowledging Our Culture’s Broken Condition

In my forthcoming book, Saving a Sick America, I do lay out a plan for moral and cultural reformation. But that plan for the future starts with one essential ingredient today: We must realize how sick we are.

Mr. Ossoff’s recent comment, as benign as it may have seemed, is another reminder of our broken condition.

Call me Puritanical and prudish if you like. My words will be vindicated over time. (For more from the author of “A Glaring Example of Our Fallen Morals in the Recent Georgia Election” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump to Announce ‘Tremendous Things’ for Veterans Health Care

/0 Comments/in , /by

Some veterans organizations don’t think a bill President Donald Trump signed Wednesday expanding private care options for veterans goes far enough.

Trump seemed to agree, which is why he said more announcements are coming next week regarding veteran care.

“There is still much work to do. We will fight each and every day to deliver the long-awaited reforms our veterans deserve and to protect those who have so courageously protected each and every one of us,” Trump said in the Roosevelt Room Wednesday after signing the Veterans Choice Program Extension Act.

The bill allows veterans to get private health care treatment outside the Department of Veterans Affairs system, but it will still be paid for by the VA.

Trump said he and Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin will announce more steps to improve veterans’ health care at a press conference on April 27. The press conference, highlighting one of his key issues, comes near Trump’s 100-day mark since taking office.

“We’re going to have a news conference with David and some others to tell you about all of the tremendous things that are happening at the VA, what we’ve done in terms of progress and achievement,” Trump said.

Trump made improving health care for veterans a major theme during his 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump’s signing extends a law that was about to sunset, put in place as an emergency response to the VA waiting list scandal that first came to light in 2013, when veterans were often denied care, and in some cases even died.

“The veterans have poured out their sweat and blood and tears for this country for so long and it’s time that they are recognized and it’s time that we now take care of them and take care of them properly,” Trump said.

Trump noted the legislation allows veterans to see “the doctor of their choice” without being required to travel a long distanced to receive care.

“It’s not going to happen anymore,” Trump said.

This is only a good first step, said Mark Lucas, the executive director of Concerned Veterans for America, who attended the signing ceremony.

“The Choice Program was passed as a quick fix to the wait list manipulation scandal that broke three years ago, and while it’s helped, too many veterans still are forced to seek care at failing VA facilities,” Lucas said in a public statement. “Congress now has some time to work with Secretary Shulkin on broader, more permanent choice reforms that will truly put the veteran at the center of their health care and remove VA bureaucrats as the middlemen.”

The Choice Program was initially created by the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014. It provided the VA an additional $10 billion in emergency funding to expand veterans’ access to care, but came with a three-year sunset clause. That meant the VA had to either use or lose the $1 billion remaining.

The new bill that Trump signed into law on Wednesday addressed some issues that veteran groups such as Veterans of Foreign Wars had expressed concerns about. The new law eliminates the secondary payer requirement, clarifying that VA is the payer of care, not veterans. It also makes it easier to share medical documentation with Choice Program providers, so veterans don’t have to face unnecessary delays when scheduling appointments.

Though more announcements are coming at next week’s press conference, the VA secretary didn’t want to minimize the new law.

“This is a good day for veterans,” Shulkin said at the Roosevelt Room signing ceremony. “This is a great day to celebrate not only what veterans have contributed to this country but how we are making things better for them, and by working together, we’re going to continue this progress.”

Also, attending the event were Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., and Senate Veterans Affairs Chairman Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., as well as Florida Gov. Rick Scott and House Veterans Affairs Chairman Phil Roe, R-Tenn. (For more from the author of “Trump to Announce ‘Tremendous Things’ for Veterans Health Care” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

After State Department Snub, Senators Look to ‘Other Means’ to Investigate Tax Dollars Propping up Soros Work

/2 Comments/in , /by

Republican senators could investigate U.S. tax dollars funding liberal billionaire George Soros’ networks abroad “through other means” if the Trump administration’s State Department doesn’t provide answers.

Six GOP senators wrote Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in March to ask for a State Department probe into how the federal grants are being used by Soros-funded Open Society Foundations, specifically in Macedonia and Albania, to promote progressive causes and undermine conservative and moderate political leaders in those countries. The State Department Bureau of Legislative Affairs responded not by addressing the question of a probe, but defending the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID.

Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Ted Cruz of Texas, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and David Perdue of Georgia made the initial inquiry to Tillerson. Lee hoped for more in the response.

“Sen. Lee was not satisfied with the letter and believes the matter needs to be reviewed by Secretary Tillerson,” Lee spokesman Conn Carroll told The Daily Signal in a statement. “If the State Department is unwilling to give this a serious look, we will look at options to force the issue through other means.”

Neither the State Department nor USAID responded to inquiries from The Daily Signal for this story.

The Open Society Foundations also did not respond to request for comment on this story.

The March 14 letter from the senators to Tillerson asks the department to “investigate all funds associated with promoting democracy and governance and review the programs, accounts, and multiplicity of U.S. entities involved in such activities.”

The letter also states that the U.S. must “review how all our tax dollars are being utilized in order to halt activities that are fomenting political unrest, disrespecting national sovereignty and civil society, and ultimately undermine our attempts to build beneficial international relationships.”

When members of a president’s own party write to a Cabinet secretary, a more direct response might be anticipated. In this case, a career State Department employee signed a letter in response—which didn’t satisfy Lee. Joseph E. Macmanus, the State Department’s executive secretary, signed a March 23 letter that never directly responded to the call for an investigation.

“USAID issues clear guidelines to its missions and implementing partners that USAID assistance programs must adhere to the principle of supporting representative, multiparty systems, and must not seek to determine election outcomes,” the Macmanus letter said.

The response continues: “U.S. policy in Macedonia is to support the country’s Euro-Atlantic integration and the reforms necessary to advance that goal. … In Albania, U.S. policy supports the country’s accession to the European Union and the reforms necessary to advance that goal. This includes funding and support for judicial reform, for fighting corruption and organized crime and countering violent extremism.”

The senators highlighted the countries mentioned above in their original letter to Tillerson, which said:

As the recipient of multiple grant awards and serving as a USAID contractor implementing projects in this small nation of 2.1 million people, our taxpayer funding foreign aid goes far, allowing Foundation Open Society-Macedonia (FOSM) to push a progressive agenda and invigorated the political left.

USAID has provided the Soros-funded Open Society Foundation $4.8 million in Macedonia, according to Judicial Watch.

In conducting its own investigation, obtaining documents, and doing interviews with officials from the U.S. and Macedonia, Judicial Watch announced in a press release Wednesday that it has learned:

The Open Society Foundations has established and funded dozens of leftwing, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Macedonia to overthrow the conservative government. One Macedonian government official interviewed by Judicial Watch in Washington D.C. recently, called it the ‘Soros infantry.’ The groups organize youth movements, create influential media outlets, and organize violent protests to undermine the institutions and policies implemented by the government. One of the Soros groups funded the translation and publication of Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’ into Macedonian.

In Albania, corruption and crime includes drug trafficking. Soros is a known supporter of relaxed drug laws, and is also leading the country’s effort in judicial reforms, which GOP senators say could be designed to boost the country’s socialist prime minister, Edi Rama.

Foundation Open Society-Albania (FOSA) and its experts, with funding from USAID, have created the controversial Strategy Document for Albanian Judicial Reform. Some leaders believe these “reforms” are ultimately aimed to give the Prime Minister and left of center government full control over judiciary power.

(For more from the author of “After State Department Snub, Senators Look to ‘Other Means’ to Investigate Tax Dollars Propping up Soros Work” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Poll Says Cruz Could Lose in 2018? Not So Fast

/0 Comments/in , /by

Don’t freak out at a new poll showing Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, losing to a potential Democratic challenger. At least, don’t freak out yet.

The statewide poll conducted by Texas Lyceum shows Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, with 35 percent support from Texas adults polled. Sen. Cruz receives 31 percent in the theoretical head-to-head matchup. Joaquin Castro is the twin brother of Julian Castro, President Obama’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development — who was widely viewed as a potential vice-presidential candidate for Hillary Clinton. The Castro brothers, if you will, are rising stars among the radical Left.

Rep. Castro has not yet declared his candidacy for U.S Senate. He is, however, traveling the state in a “call to action” tour prelude to his official declaration, which KRISTV reports is expected at the end of this month.

A matchup between Cruz and declared candidate Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, shows a 30 percent tie.

Now there are a few important caveats to this poll. 37 percent of registered Texas voters said haven’t given any thought to the 2018 election. What this means is “Don’t know” actually lead the poll — which is why you shouldn’t freak out if you want to see Sen. Cruz reelected.

“Ballot tests conducted this far in advance of an actual election are, at best, useful in gauging the potential weaknesses of incumbents seeking re-election,” said poll conductor Dr. Daron Shaw, a Lyceum Alumnus and Professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “But the substantial percentage of undecided respondents—coupled with the conservative, pro-Republican proclivities of the Texas electorate in recent years— suggest a cautious interpretation.”

The last Texas Democrat to win a U.S. Senate seat was Lloyd Bentsen, and that election was in 1988 — 29 years ago. In 2012, Senator Cruz crushed his Democratic opponent by over one million votes, winning 56.4 percent to 40.1 percent.

It is difficult to imagine a situation where Sen. Cruz loses to a Democratic challenger. But the Texas senator is not taking anything for granted. In fact, he is warning his fellow Republicans that failure to keep their campaign promises could put a Democrat in the White House and wipe out Republican majorities in Congress.

“If we screw all this up, you better believe the American people could elect President Elizabeth Warren,” Cruz said of Republican promises. “If we deliver on all this,” it doesn’t matter who they nominate — we win.”

Those comments echo what Cruz said shortly after President Trump won election.

“If we’re given the White House and both houses of Congress and we don’t deliver, I think there will be pitchforks and torches in the streets,” Cruz said last November. “And I think quite rightly. I think people are so fed up with Washington, this election was a mandate with change and the most catastrophic thing Republicans could do is go back to business as usual.” (For more from the author of “New Poll Says Cruz Could Lose in 2018? Not So Fast” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Addicted to the Swamp: Markwayne Mullin Mulling a Violation of Term-Limit Pledge

/0 Comments/in , /by

Remember the Oklahoma congressman who told a group of constituents it’s “bullcrap” to suggest that taxpayers pay his salary? Well, he is evidently so addicted to power that he is now entertaining the idea of breaking his pledge to serve only three terms.

In 2012, Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) ran as the ultimate outsider, a hometown boy who would stick it to the elites. He also pledged to serve no more than six years. However, like most Republican politicians who lack a core conservative foundation, Mullin quickly became addicted to the leadership table and the establishment elites. Instead of fighting the liberal leaders in both parties, Mullin became a conduit for leadership, offering excuses back home in his district for every betrayal on the major legislative and budget battles. He is very proud of being a member of the Ryan/McCarthy/Scalise whip team.

Now, after reportedly breaking his pledge and filing to run for a fourth term, Mullin has put out a statement saying he has not made a final decision and is still “praying” about it. But if he really intended to keep his pledge, why would he file paperwork with the FEC? Another Oklahoman, Rep. Jim Bridenstine, was also elected in 2012 on a pledge to serve no more than six years, and he has not filed to run for re-election.

Why the equivocation?

In 2012, Mullin was unambiguous about his term-limit pledge: “‘I don’t want to be up there (in Washington) and become part of the problem,’ said Mullin, 34, owner and CEO of Mullin plumbing. ‘If we can’t accomplish anything in six years, it’s a waste of time anyway.’”

In 2011, Mullin rhetorically asked a radio show host, “How many times do we send politicians up there that sound great on the radio, they sound great when they are talking, but when they get there their actions don’t match it? They get lost in their fight, we will not get lost.… We’re going up there for six years…. During that six years we’re going to give it everything we got.”

Indeed, Mullin has accomplished a lot in six years. He has sided with the swamp leaders on every major issue, including backing a bill to permanently enshrine Obamacare, violating his most basic campaign promise in 2012.

To anyone who knew Mullin from day one, this is no surprise. This is a man who was caught during the 2012 campaign telling voters that single-payer was the solution to our health care crisis. It is this basic lack of foundational principles that plagues so many members; it’s just that Mullin has a double dose of the GOP duplicity disease.

Amidst a devastatingly disappointing primary season last year, one bright spot was when Jarrin Jackson, a young veteran who is deeply grounded in conservative principles, challenged Mullin and received 37 percent of the vote despite lacking funds and media attention. Jackson told me over the phone that he’s exploring another run at Oklahoma’s 2nd Congressional District, especially if Mullin decides to break his term-limit pledge. “America needs leaders with courage and integrity. If we fail in character, we fail in leadership. Rep. Mullin’s decision to break his word is more than dishonorable, it’s a disservice to the American people and an obstacle to making America great again,” said Jackson.

Unfortunately, Tom Coburn was the only major state Republican who had the courage to support Jackson during the 2016 primary. As always, money and name ID win the day, which is why Republicans like Mullin feel invincible enough to break a term-limit pledge. This will continue to happen until conservatives push for primary reform and restore candidate selection to the convention process that existed before the progressive era.

It’s time for conservatives to focus on primaries

Conservatives are facing a nightmare scenario. As evidenced by last night’s special congressional election in suburban Atlanta, the Democrat base is energized, Independents are trending Democrat, and Republicans are caught in the most awkward position of having all the power but accomplishing nothing. In fact, we now have the continuation of Obama’s amnesty, the continuation of the Iran deal, and the continuation of Obamacare (including the illegal subsidies), yet Democrat voters are in full rage mode, as if we are accomplishing right-wing agenda items. Hence, we are left with all the political vices of controlling government but none of the policy benefits.

While Trump and congressional Republicans are moving further left, we continue to nominate new Republicans in special elections who stand for nothing and will not align with the Freedom Caucus. We have Republicans who downright love Obamacare but still run (deceitfully) against Obamacare. At the same time, nobody has bothered to sort out this party divide during the candidate selection process of these special elections. Conservatives need to re-energize the base and recapture independent voters with a meaningful message that actually speaks to the issues of our time. While Democrats are looking toward GA-6 to recapture their momentum, conservatives should watch OK-2 carefully for game-changing momentum. We badly need an interception. (For more from the author of “Addicted to the Swamp: Markwayne Mullin Mulling a Violation of Term-Limit Pledge” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Professor Who Tweeted ‘Trump Must Hang’ Takes Paid Leave of Absence

/0 Comments/in , /by

The professor who tweeted “Trump must hang” and that two Republicans should be executed for each immigrant deported is taking a paid leave of absence for the rest of the spring semester.

Professor Lars Maischak of California State University, Fresno agreed upon the leave of absence with the university, according to The Fresno Bee.

The professor’s paid leave of absence comes after The Daily Caller News Foundation reported on threatening tweets sent from his Twitter account (since deleted), including the following:

Daily-Caller-Lars-Maischak-5-620x474

Maischak’s five American history courses will be taught by a substitute teacher. Fresno State Provost Lynnette Zelezny told The Fresno Bee that 213 students will be affected.

“The agreement for the paid leave was reached in accordance with provisions in the collective bargaining agreement with the California Faculty Association, the union that represents all faculty,” said Joseph Castro, Fresno State’s president, in a statement obtained by The Fresno Bee. “During his leave of absence, Dr. Maischak will no longer have a teaching role, but will be conducting research off campus.” (Read more from “Professor Who Tweeted ‘Trump Must Hang’ Takes Paid Leave of Absence” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Disappointing Flip-Flop on the Export-Import Bank

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump has apparently changed his mind about eliminating the crony Export-Import Bank, opting to “reform” the swamp rather than drain it.

As bad as this flip-flop is, his excuses for doing so are downright pitiful.

As a candidate in August 2015, Trump categorized the bank as “feather bedding,” adding, “I don’t like it. I think it’s a lot of excess baggage. I think it’s unnecessary. And when you think about free enterprise, it’s really not free enterprise.”

He was right, of course, but that was then.

On Friday, the president announced his intention to nominate former New Jersey Rep. Scott Garrett as bank president and former Rep. Spencer T. Bachus III to the Ex-Im board.

If the two are confirmed, the bank will return to full operation after 21 months without a board quorum—which prohibited deals exceeding $10 million.

And that means billions of taxpayer dollars to foreign firms and foreign governments with which to purchase exports from favored multinational companies such as Boeing, General Electric, and Caterpillar.

The best course of action would be to eliminate the bank altogether. There is no shortage of private export financing, and the subsidies distort credit and labor markets.

Perhaps worst of all, unsubsidized American companies are placed at a competitive disadvantage compared to the foreign firms collecting Ex-Im subsidies. (Delta, for example, loses out when Air India gets a sweetheart deal from Boeing by way of Ex-Im.)

A Meritless Flip-Flop

The White House is making much of the fact that Garrett has been a critic of Ex-Im, twice voting against renewal of the bank charter. That supposedly portends reform, although Congress has previously tried to do so without appreciable effect.

No amount of bureaucratic tinkering can shield taxpayers from bailouts in the event that bank reserves run dry—as occurred in the 1980s—nor protect American businesses from the disadvantages of the U.S. government subsidizing their foreign competitors.

In an April 12 interview with The Wall Street Journal, Trump acknowledged that he had been “very much opposed” to the bank but changed his mind because “lots of small companies will really be helped.

“But also maybe more importantly,” he said, “other countries give it, and … we lose a tremendous amount of business.” He also added, “So instinctively you would say it’s a ridiculous thing but actually it’s a very good thing and it actually makes money. You know, it actually could make a lot of money.”

All of which is nonsense.

Bank proponents focus on small firms to deflect attention from the fact that the vast majority of Ex-Im beneficiaries are titans of industry that are well-positioned to prosper without Ex-Im subsidies.

They do not lack access to private capital, and most have billions of dollars of backorders with which to keep production going.

In recent years, the bank supported less than half of 1 percent of small businesses—which in many cases aren’t so small.

(The bank’s definition of “small business” includes manufacturers with as many as 1,500 employees and service firms and retailers with as much as $20.5 million in annual revenues.)

On their own, businesses with fewer than 500 employees account for 98 percent of all firms exporting goods, and exports have reached high levels in recent years. In fiscal year 2016, for example, U.S. exports totaled $2.2 trillion, with Ex-Im supporting just 0.22 percent ($5 billion).

That makes one thing very clear: Export financing obviously is not a problem for small firms in the aggregate.

This is further validated by the fact that small businesses ranked “Exporting My Products/Services” as the least problematic of 75 business problems assessed in the 2016 annual survey by the National Federation of Independent Business Research Foundation.

(The cost of health care ranked as the most severe problem. The president would do well to focus on that rather than resuscitate Ex-Im.)

In the event that a small business cannot access private capital, it can seek to export through wholesalers or associate its business operations with larger firms or with global supply chains.

The real beneficiaries are the big boys like Boeing (market cap $110 billion), and the extent to which the bank caters to the company is staggering.

As of March 2014, at least 28 percent ($32 billion) of Ex-Im’s total portfolio was devoted to financing wide-body jets. In 2013, the bank authorized financing for the purchase of Boeing aircraft in 25 countries, including China, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Subsidies for air transport, in general, comprised more than 45 percent of all export subsidies that year.

General Electric (market cap $256 billion) is another top Ex-Im beneficiary. The company began 2017 with a record backlog of $321 billion. Likewise, Caterpillar (market cap $54 billion) posted a backlog of $12 billion at the end of 2016.

Ex-Im Doesn’t ‘Level the Playing Field’

The claim that U.S. companies will lose sales to foreign competitors without Ex-Im financing is also drivel.

Economist Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center has documented that only about a third of Ex-Im financing—which benefits just 2 percent of all U.S. exports—is designated in bank records as necessary to counter subsidized foreign competition.

A whopping 66 percent of the financing classified as necessary to counteract foreign competition went to Boeing.

In other words, Ex-Im Bank financing counteracts foreign subsidies for less than 1 percent of U.S. exports—with more than half the benefit accruing to Boeing.

Finance costs are only one among a variety of factors that affect a purchaser’s choice of supplier. Availability, reliability, and stability all play significant parts in purchase decisions. There should be no question that U.S. firms are capable of competing successfully without corporate welfare.

The claim of “competitive disadvantage” is further belied by the agreement among 31 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to abide by a set of financing rules covering loan term limits, minimum fees, and other practices.

There is rarely such a thing as a “level playing field” in trade. Every country has advantages that others lack.

The ingenuity and drive of American companies can, in many instances, trump the export subsidies doled out by foreign governments—assuming, of course, that tax and regulatory barriers do not further restrict free enterprise.

It is silly for Ex-Im advocates to cite China’s massive subsidies as proof that Ex-Im is necessary. Do they really want America to emulate a country in which all the largest enterprises are owned by the state?

As reported in The Wall Street Journal, almost 14 percent of China’s listed, nonfinancial companies’ profits are attributable to government support, according to an analysis by Wind Info.

And let’s not forget that Trump campaigned on challenging China’s trade practices. He cannot now claim with any credibility that we must match its subsidies to stay competitive.

An Anti-Market Institution

Perhaps most disappointing, though, is the president’s defense of Ex-Im based on its potential to “make money.” That statement, out of all his others, insults the very concept of free enterprise and limited government.

By that rationale, Washington should assume control of all profitable companies to feed its insatiable appetite for spending.

In any event, the claim that Ex-Im is profitable is illusory: The bank uses “accrual” accounting, which does not factor in the risk of defaults related to bank financing.

For example, under current accounting methods, bank officials claim that Ex-Im will return a $14 billion surplus to taxpayers in the next decade.

But the Congressional Budget Office reported in 2014 that Ex–Im programs, if subjected to the fair value accounting methods required of private banks, actually operate at a deficit that will cost taxpayers some $2 billion over 10 years (in addition to the bank’s operating costs).

Ex-Im advocates offer myriad excuses for maintaining government interference in export financing, including job creation, gaps in private investment, and government subsidies lavished on foreign firms.

Such justifications do not stand up to the facts, and the purported benefits—if any—are not commensurate with the risk to taxpayers.

The president has made a huge mistake on Ex-Im, but it isn’t too late for him to change direction—back to where he was in the first place. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Disappointing Flip-Flop on the Export-Import Bank” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watchdog Sues for Records on Tax Dollars Funding ‘Soros Infantry’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Judicial Watch is suing to obtain government records regarding almost $5 million in U.S. tax dollars flowing to the “Soros infantry” that is disrupting Macedonia’s political system.

What’s more, the government watchdog group says it wants to know why President Donald Trump hasn’t replaced President Barack Obama’s ambassador to Macedonia, Jess L. Baily.

The United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, is an appendage of the State Department. It has given $4.8 million to the Open Society Foundation-Macedonia, part of liberal billionaire George Soros’ vast network of global nonprofits, between Feb. 27, 2012, and Aug. 31, 2016, according to Judicial Watch.

“The Obama administration seemed to bust taxpayer budgets in an effort to fund the Soros operation,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The Trump State Department and USAID should get their act together and disclose the details of the Obama-Soros spigot.”

The USAID website links to the Soros website, and said the project trained hundreds of young Macedonians “on topics such as freedom of association, youth policies, citizen initiatives, persuasive argumentation, and use of new media.”

A Judicial Watch press release on Wednesday said:

The Open Society Foundation has established and funded dozens of leftwing, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Macedonia to overthrow the conservative government. One Macedonian government official interviewed by Judicial Watch in Washington D.C. recently, calls it the ‘Soros infantry.’ The groups organize youth movements, create influential media outlets, and organize violent protests to undermine the institutions and policies implemented by the government.

Members of Congress have inquired about the USAID dollars going to Soros.

In a March 23 letter responding to inquiries from Republican senators, Joseph E. Macmanus, executive secretary with the State Department, said the USAID goal in Macedonia is for “democratic reform and civic engagement, for strengthening of the rule of law.” (For more from the author of “Watchdog Sues for Records on Tax Dollars Funding ‘Soros Infantry'” please click HERE)

Watchdog Sues for Records on Tax Dollars Funding ‘Soros Infantry’

UC Berkeley Rewards Liberal Violence by Not Allowing Coulter Speech

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Apparently the lesson University of California, Berkeley learned from the violent protests surrounding writer Milo Yiannopoulos’ speech earlier this year was … you shouldn’t let controversial figures give speeches.

The Associated Press reported Wednesday that commentator Ann Coulter’s upcoming speech had been canceled “for security concerns.”

“UC Berkeley officials say they were ‘unable to find a safe and suitable’ venue for the right-wing provocateur who was invited to speak by campus Republicans on April 27,” the AP report added.

This shouldn’t be acceptable.

UC Berkeley canceled Yiannopoulos’ Feb. 1 speech. The level of violence and destruction that greeted Yiannopoulos—who was rightly condemned shortly after the Berkeley violence for remarks he made months earlier about teens, adults, and sexual relationships—was astonishing. Just look at these pictures:

No doubt it’s quite a headache for a university to figure out how to cope with thugs who are willing to act like this, just because they want someone silenced. Although the fact that UC Berkeley appears to have arrested only one person in the aftermath of the protests suggests a lack of seriousness about holding protesters accountable for their actions.

(Update: In an email to me received after publication, Sgt. Sabrina Reich, a public information officer at University of California, Berkeley Police Department, wrote: “To date, there have been two arrests and one student is facing school discipline … but the investigative efforts continue.”)

The point is, no college should reward violent protesters by refusing to allow controversial speakers to appear.

Because this isn’t really about Coulter or Yiannopoulos or author Charles Murray, who was greeted by violent protests when he arrived to speak to Middlebury College in Vermont.

It’s about whether we as a society protect free speech—or not.

Yes, free speech can make some people, including college students, feel sad or threatened or dozens of other unpleasant emotions.

But it can also force them to realize a new insight or perspective that might challenge their values, might make them re-think their views on a certain issue. Or sometimes it works the other way: The weakness of the opposition’s argument makes someone surer that her own perspective is right.

Regardless, if we believe in a reason-driven society—one where arguments, not violence, drive our perspective—we need to allow a diversity of voices to communicate their views. We need to let people, hopefully guided by reason and a good education, to decide what they think is right—not force them, by silencing some perspectives, to adopt a certain viewpoint by default.

College students, like all Americans, deserve a chance to hear a variety of views—and then make up their own minds.

Once, colleges understood that. But U.C. Berkeley’s decision here suggests that at least this university is prioritizing some views over others. (For more from the author of “UC Berkeley Rewards Liberal Violence by Not Allowing Coulter Speech” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Most Controversial DNA Test You’ve Never Heard Of

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A vote on whether to approve a proposal that would allow familial DNA searching in certain criminal cases has been delayed by New York state’s Forensic Science Committee. The controversial proposal has been sent back to a special subcommittee to “tighten up the language.” If approved, the new policy would allow police to investigate family members of New Yorkers whose DNA closely matches DNA found at crime scenes.

Because familial searching has gotten little to no coverage in mainstream media, many people have no idea what it is — or that it’s already being used in California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Ohio.

The FBI describes the investigatory process as follows:

Familial searching is an additional search of a law enforcement DNA database conducted after a routine search has been completed and no profile matches are identified during the process. Unlike a routine database search which may spontaneously yield partial match profiles, familial searching is a deliberate search of a DNA database conducted for the intended purpose of potentially identifying close biological relatives to the unknown forensic profile obtained from crime scene evidence. Familial searching is based on the concept that first-order relatives, such as siblings or parent/child relationships, will have more genetic data in common than unrelated individuals. Practically speaking, familial searching would only be performed if the comparison of the forensic DNA profile with the known offender/arrestee DNA profiles has not identified any matches to any of the offenders/arrestees.

Though familial searching is already being used in ten states and has led to the arrests of numerous violent criminals, it is not always accurate.

“Anyone who knows the science understands that there’s a high rate of false positives,” Erin Murphy, a New York University law professor and the author of Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA told Wired magazine.

Further, civil liberties experts have expressed concern that the method violates personal privacy. According to comments from the New York Civil Liberties Union, “criminal suspicion will attach to innocent persons merely because of their biological relation to a person whose DNA is in the state’s databank.”

David Loftist, the attorney in charge of post-conviction and forensic litigation at the Legal Aid Society, told Gothamist:

You are creating a ‘suspect class’ of citizens. If you have a family member that has been convicted of fare beating, his DNA is in the database. Now all of his family members would be subject to searching in perpetuity.

He also pointed out that the state DNA bank is disproportionately black and Latino, adding, “This creates a dragnet for the entire community now…all of their relatives are possible suspects. It’s a genetic stop and frisk.”

Queens District Attorney Richard Brown, however, is a huge advocate for familial DNA searching. “This technology has proven effective at generating important DNA investigative leads in cold cases,” he said. “We have an obligation to use every means at our disposal to identify the murderer.”

The Forensic Committee decided last week that the requirements for initiating a familial search are too broad at this point. It has postponed the vote until a new draft can be completed. The next official meeting is set for June 16th. (For more from the author of “The Most Controversial DNA Test You’ve Never Heard Of” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.