After Maricopa Voting Debacle, Arizona Must Reform its Election Laws thumbnail

After Maricopa Voting Debacle, Arizona Must Reform its Election Laws

/in , , , /by

By Peter Parisi

If Arizona is genuinely interested in enacting much-needed state election reforms — and it should be, especially after this month’s voting debacle in Maricopa County, the state’s largest county — it’s now or never. Or at least for the next four or eight years.

Term-limited outgoing Republican Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey should call a lame-duck special session of the Legislature for the sole purpose of enacting voting reforms before the presumptive governor-elect, Democrat Katie Hobbs, can take office on Jan. 2 — after which it definitely won’t get done.

(Ms. Hobbs leads her Republican opponent, Kari Lake, by 0.6 of 1%, or 17,150 votes, out of more than 2.55 million counted. The race has been called by the news media in the Democrat’s favor, but Ms. Lake has yet to concede.)

“The way they run elections in Maricopa County is worse than in banana republics around this world,” Ms. Lake was quoted as saying by London’s Daily Mail newspaper, adding: “I believe at the end of the day that this will be turned around.”

The Daily Mail reported that Arizona Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Wright on Nov. 19 wrote to one of Maricopa County’s top election officials that “detailing reports of a string of irregularities from printer problems that stopped ballots being tabulated, to confusion about procedures for transferring voters to alternate sites if they were unable to vote at the first location.”

*****

Continue reading at The Washington Times.

Hillsdale Imprimis: Education as a Battleground thumbnail

Hillsdale Imprimis: Education as a Battleground

/in , , , , /by

By Larry P. Arnn

The following is adapted from remarks delivered on November 3, 2022, at a Hillsdale College reception in Santa Clara, California.

If you want to see the problem with American education, look at a chart illustrating the comparative growth in the number of students, teachers, and district administrators in our public schools in the period between 2000 and 2019. (See the chart below.) The number of district administrators grew by a whopping 87.6 percent during these years, far outstripping the growth in the number of students (7.6 percent) and teachers (8.7 percent).

In illustrating the difference in these rates of growth, the chart also illustrates a fundamental change that has come over our nation as a whole during this period—a change in how we govern ourselves and how we live. To say a change is fundamental means that it concerns the foundation of things. If the foundation changes, then the things built on it are changed. Education is fundamental, and it has changed radically. This has changed everything else.

One way of describing the change in education today is that it provides a different answer than we have ever known to the question: who owns American children? Of course, no one actually owns the children. They are human beings, and insofar as they are owned, they own themselves. But by nature, they require a long time to grow up—much longer than most creatures—and someone must act on their behalf until they mature. Who is to do that?

Not many people raise this question explicitly, but implicitly it is everywhere. For example, it is contained in the question: who gets to decide what children learn? It is contained more catastrophically in the question: who decides what we tell children about sex?

Are these decisions the province of professional educators, who claim to be experts? Or are they the province of parents, who rely on common sense and love to guide them? In other words, is the title to govern children established by expertise or by nature as exhibited in parenthood? The first is available to a professionally educated few. The second is available to any human being who will take the trouble.

The natural answer to this question is contained in the way human beings come to be. Prior to recent scientific “advances,” every child has been the result of a natural process to which people have a natural attraction. “Natural” here does not mean what every single person wants or does—it means the way things work unless we humans intervene.

In its essence, “nature” means the process of begetting and growth by which a mature, living thing comes to be. Not quite every human being is attracted to the natural process of human reproduction, but nearly all are—and when the process works to produce a baby, it works that way and no other way.

This process of human reproduction and growth works for two reasons. The first is that human beings, when mature, are capable of so much more than other creatures. Almost from birth we learn to talk, a rational function that indicates decisive differences from other creatures. Because of reason and speech we are moral beings, capable of distinguishing among kinds of things and therefore of knowing and doing right and wrong. Also because of them we are social beings, able to understand and explain things to one another that other creatures do not understand and cannot discuss. This draws us closer together than even herd or swarm animals.

We are unique in possessing these capacities, and it is in this specific respect that our nation’s founders declared that “all men are created equal.” This equality has nothing to do with the color of anyone. Its source is the unique, immaterial, rational soul of the human being. One of my teachers used to respond to the claims of animal rights advocates that one must not be cruel to any creature, but that only those who can talk are entitled to vote.

The second reason in nature that makes human reproduction unique is our especially long period of maturation. For months, human babies are simply helpless; without constant attention they will starve. For years afterwards they must develop the skills and knowledge that are uniquely available to the human being. Both the skills and the knowledge are natural, meaning all human beings can obtain them, but both take time. Each child does the work of obtaining them, but each child needs help. Modern educators often mistake the work of helping them to learn for actually doing the learning for them. The second is impossible.

The skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic are direct exercises of the rational faculty. They are in principle the same thing as talking, and in principle every child will learn much of them unassisted. Just watch a child grow up to the age of two. He or she begins very early to respond to things with comprehension. Words soon follow. Children copy adults for the use of words, but they are doing all the work of learning. Little wonder that human beings take a long time to mature: they have so much to learn.

Raising a child has always been difficult and expensive. With rare exceptions, it has always been true that the parents who conceive the child raise him the best. And throughout American history, it has been thought that the family is the cradle of good citizenship and therefore of free and just politics. Public education is as old as our nation—but only lately has it adopted the purpose of supplanting the family and controlling parents.

***

The political successes of Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida, Governor Glenn Youngkin in Virginia, and many other politicians in other states have largely been won on this battleground of education. One can look in history or in literature to see the danger of where the idea of supplanting the family might lead. Study the education practices that existed in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and that exist today in Communist China. Or read the terrifying account in Orwell’s 1984. They tell us that children, by distorting their natural desire to grow up and end their dependence, can be recruited to the purposes of despotic regimes, even to the extent of denouncing their parents to the state.

We do not yet have this in America. But we do have children being turned against their country by being indoctrinated to look on its past—of which all parents, of course, are in some way a part—as a shameful time of irredeemable injustice. We also increasingly have children being encouraged to speak of their sexual proclivities at an age when they can hardly think of them.

To cite just one example, Christopher Rufo has discovered, on the website of the Michigan Department of Education, detailed instructions for how teachers should open the question with students of their sexual orientation—or maybe I should say sexual direction, since “orientation” implies something constant, whereas children are now being taught that sexuality is “fluid” and can take them anywhere.

Also on the website are detailed instructions on how to keep this activity from the parents. And as we learned last year, when parents get angry and complain of things like this, the FBI is likely to become interested.

Who “owns” the child, then? The choice is between the parents, who have taken the trouble to have and raise the child—and who, in almost all cases, will give their lives to support the child for as long as it takes and longer—or the educational bureaucracy, which is more likely than a parent to look upon the child as an asset in a social engineering project to rearrange government and society.

***

The revolutionary force behind this social engineering project is a set of ideas installed in just about every university today. Its smiting arm is the administrative state, an element of America’s ruling class. The administrative state has something over 20 million employees, many of them at the federal but most at the state level. Directly and indirectly, they make rules about half the economy, which means they affect all of it.

Most of the bureaucrats who staff the administrative state have permanent jobs. The idea behind this was that if they do not fear dismissal and have excellent pay and benefits that can’t be reduced, then they will be politically neutral. Today, of course, the public employee unions that represent this administrative state are the largest contributors in politics and give overwhelmingly to one side. They are the very definition of partisanship.

The fiction is that these bureaucrats are highly trained, dispassionate, nonpartisan, and professional, and that therefore they can do a better job, of almost anything, than somebody outside the system can do. They proceed by rules that over time have become ever more hopelessly complex. Only they can read these rules—and, for the most part, they read them as they please.

Judges have up to now, for the most part, given deference to the bureaucrats’ reading of their own rules. It is a rare happy fact that this judicial practice is under challenge in the courts. If it should ever become settled doctrine that the bureaucracy is constrained by the strict letter of the laws made by elected legislators and enforced by elected executives, that will exercise some restraint upon the administrative state. That explains why, after decades of defending judicial supremacy, progressives are beginning to question the authority of the courts and speak openly about packing the Supreme Court.

***

Public education is an important component of the prevailing administrative system. The roots of the system are in Washington, D.C., and the tendrils reach into every town and hamlet that has a public school. These tendrils retain some measure of freedom, especially in red states where legislatures do not go along automatically. In some red states, the growth of administrators has been somewhat slower than average. But this growth has been rapid and large everywhere. In every state, the result has been to remove authority and money away from the schools where the students learn. In every state, the authority and money drained from the schools have flowed toward the bureaucracy.

The political battle over this issue is fraught with dishonesty. Any criticism of public education is immediately styled as a criticism of teachers. But as the numbers show, the public education system works to the detriment of teachers and for the benefit of bureaucrats. The teachers unions themselves, some of the largest of the public employee unions, claim to be defending teachers and children. That cannot be more than half true, given that they are defending an administrative system that has grown by leaps and bounds while the number of teachers has grown very little.

Worse even than this is the tendency the system sets in all of us. Bureaucracy is a set of processes, a series of prescribed steps not unlike instructions for assembling a toy. First this happens, then that happens, and then the next thing. The processes proceed according to rules. It is a profession unto itself to gain competence in navigating these rules, but nobody is really competent. Today we tend too much to think that this kind of process is the only thing that can give legitimacy to something. A history curriculum is adopted, not because it gives a true account of the unchangeable things that have already happened, but because it has survived a process. The process is dominated by “stakeholders”—mostly people who have a financial or political interest in what is taught. They are mostly not teachers or scholars but advocates. And so we adopt our textbooks, our lesson plans, and our state standardized tests with a view to future political outcomes once the kids grow up.

I have said and written many times that the political contest between parents and people who make an independent living, on the one hand, and the administrative state and all its mighty forces on the other, is the key political contest of our time. Today that seems truer than ever. The lines are clearly formed.

***

As long as our representative institutions work in response to the public will, there is thankfully no need for violence. As the Declaration of Independence says, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.”

The Declaration guides us in our peaceful pursuits, too. In naming the causes of the American Revolution, it gives a guide to maintaining free and responsible government. The long middle section of the Declaration accuses the King of interfering with representative government, violating the separation of powers, undermining the independence of the judiciary, and failing to suppress violence.

And in an apposite phrase, it says of the King: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

So it is today. And so it is our duty to defend our American way of life.

*****

Larry P. Arnn is the twelfth president of Hillsdale College. He received his B.A. from Arkansas State University and his M.A. and Ph.D. in government from the Claremont Graduate School. From 1977 to 1980, he also studied at the London School of Economics and at Worcester College, Oxford University, where he served as director of research for Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Winston Churchill. From 1985 until his appointment as president of Hillsdale College in 2000, he was president of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. From October 2020 to January 2021, he served as co-chair of the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission. He is the author of several books, including The Founders’ Key: The Divine and Natural Connection Between the Declaration and the Constitution and Churchill’s Trial: Winston Churchill and the Salvation of Free Government.

Your Thanksgiving Feast Is 20 Percent More Expensive Thanks To Bidenflation thumbnail

Your Thanksgiving Feast Is 20 Percent More Expensive Thanks To Bidenflation

/in , , , /by

By Jordan Boyd

The cost to host a Thanksgiving dinner for your closest friends and family members is 20 percent more expensive this year, and President Joe Biden’s administration is to blame.

According to a report from the American Farm Bureau Federation, the average cost to serve 10 of your guests a classic Thanksgiving dinner including turkey, stuffing, sweet potatoes, rolls with butter, peas, cranberries, a veggie tray, pumpkin pie with whipped cream, coffee, and milk is $64.05.

That’s $10.74 more expensive than last year’s average of $53.31 and up more than $17 from just before Biden assumed office.

If it wasn’t evident last year that Biden’s policies, such as bloating the American economy with trillions in federal dollars, are to blame for inflation including hikes in Thanksgiving food prices, then it certainly is now.

After another year of excessive spending, including sending $66 billion in taxpayer dollars overseas and funneling billions toward legislation that will definitively do more economic damage, Americans will have to pay significantly more to feed their families during the holiday season.

Thanksgiving gatherers who want to do more than the bare minimum by adding ham, russet potatoes, and frozen green beans to their menus are expected to pay $81.30, up 18 percent from 2021.

The feast centerpiece, a 16 lb. bird, is up 21 percent from last year for an average cost of $28.96. That price, AFBF noted, might fall thanks to store discounts the week of Thanksgiving. Shoppers interested in bags of cubed stuffing mix, which increased in price by a whopping 69 percent, frozen pie crusts (26 percent), whipping cream (26 percent), frozen peas (23 percent), and dinner rolls (22 percent), however, are still paying much higher due to months of record-high inflation.

In October alone, consumers paid 7.7 percent more for goods. The largest price increases recorded were found in household necessities such as shelter, food, and energy, which saw much higher increases.

“General inflation slashing the purchasing power of consumers is a significant factor contributing to the increase in average cost of this year’s Thanksgiving dinner,” AFBF Chief Economist Roger Cryan confirmed in a press release.

In addition to paying more for food, Americans who travel to see loved ones and give thanks over the next week will be paying more at the pump, where gasoline is currently averaging $3.66 per gallon.

*****

This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce Fights Wokeness, the Left’s ESG Agenda thumbnail

American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce Fights Wokeness, the Left’s ESG Agenda

/in , , , , /by

By Robert Bluey

Editors’ Note: We are glad to see real competition arriving to counter the legacy “chamber of commerce”. Too often over the past few election cycles, what passes as representatives of free enterprise have sided with the Big Government Left.  Like other institutions, they seemed to have been captured by progressive socialist forces. As is necessary for so many other areas of life, new institutions will have to be founded to replace the old. This new organization you should be made aware of, especially if you work in business or are a business owner. You cannot expect any longer that the “old” Chamber of Commerce will reflect your interests or that of the free enterprise system.

American corporations are increasingly taking sides on political issues—and it seems they’re often embracing socialist ideas rather than the free market.

That led former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad and others to create the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce. The group launched earlier this year to put the focus back on pro-business policies and limited government—rather than woke ideas pushed by activists on the left.

Gentry Collins, CEO of the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce, comes to the job after serving as the national political director at both the Republican Governors Association and the Republican National Committee. He spoke to “The Daily Signal Podcast” about the organization. A lightly edited transcript is below.

Rob Bluey: What led [former Iowa Gov. Terry] Branstad and you to start the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce?

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution.

Gentry Collins: One big idea, which is that free people and competitive markets have solved more problems, achieved more big dreams, and created more progress and more prosperity than any other system in all of recorded history. And yet, despite those facts, we’re losing a generational battle for the idea that this is the way of the future in America.

And so, we’re committed to making sure that American free enterprise is something that every generation in America can embrace, and that while we’re working on that, that today’s small businesses maintain access to the marketplace where there are more threats than any time in living memory.

Bluey: I’m so glad you talked about it in that context of somebody like myself who has kids and sees the challenges that we’re up against in terms of educating the next generation.

Why is it that so few people understand the truth about free enterprise and the success that it has led in terms of reducing poverty and hunger worldwide in so many countries that otherwise wouldn’t be prospering if it weren’t for the entrepreneurial spirit of the business community?

Collins: I think in part because my generation and older maybe haven’t done our jobs, we took it for granted. [Former President] Ronald Reagan famously said that freedom is never any more than one generation from extinction, it has to be fought for and defended and handed onto the next generation. And I’m not sure that my generation has done that job.

And so part of the mission of the American Free Enterprise is to change that and to put it back on track and to tell this story. I would frequently say the most powerful secular story in all of human history is the story of American free enterprise.

So think about this. Historical evidence shows us that from the beginning of recorded history all the way until 1900, that global human life expectancy was never more than a rounding error away from 30 years old.

For 5,000 years, global human life expectancy stuck at 30. Within those 30 years, every system, political economic system around the face of the globe, led to deprivation and subjugation in its various forms. Until when?

Until one single American century, defined by the idea that we’re all created equal, that the government drives its just power only from the consent of the governed, and that we all have an equal opportunity to access the marketplace, to compete, to demand better in our lives, that set of ideas more than doubled global human life expectancy in one single American century.

And within the doubling of that life expectancy, we will now lose more of our poor, not our rich, we’ll lose more of our poor, for the first time in world history, to diseases of excess than we will diseases of deprivation, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and so forth.

And as big a problem as those may be, that is one heck of an achievement. That is the fruit of American free enterprise. It’s the fruit of this political and economic system. And we have not told next-generation voters that.

One more thought on it, if I may. During that American century that saw such a rise in shared progress and prosperity, never before seen, one ideology scaled three different times to compete with the American century, and it was socialism. First in Germany, and then the Soviet Union and in China. Combined, they murdered 100 million people during the American century. But for the various forms of socialism on the face of the planet last century, we might have been at 83 for global life expectancy instead of 73.

We have not told next-generation American voters and consumers the story of the power of American free enterprise, and we’ve got to change that.

Bluey: Now, as a chamber of commerce, tell us a little bit about how you’re organized, what you’re doing, and who some of the members are that are supporting you.

Collins: Yeah. So, we’re organized as a 501(c)(6), a trade association, that is open to any American business.

And our pricing reflects that, where $99 a year, anybody can afford to join, anybody who shares our values and wants to fight for free enterprise and equal access to the marketplace, maintaining equal access to the marketplace at a time when there are real threats to that in our economy. And so, American businesses of all sizes, but priced in a way that any business can play on a level playing field.

Many other trade associations have a very complicated pricing model, where the big guys get to come in and write a big check and then dictate to the rest of the membership what we believe. And we’ve turned that around. Our model is 180 degrees from that.

We’ve come out with a Free Enterprise Bill of Rights. We’ve made very clear to our members and the public in general what we believe are the foundational principles of American free enterprise, what does it mean to open the possibility of another American century? We’ve promised our members that we’ll fight for those things and only those things, and it’s on that basis that we’ve built our membership.

Bluey: I’m glad you mentioned the Bill of Rights. You have 10 principles that are part of it. You don’t have to go through all 10, but what are some of the key things that you have identified for your members and some of the things that you’ll be out there advocating for?

Collins: There are a variety. Just from a foundational perspective, the right to fail, the right to succeed, the right to operate your business without onerous level of either taxation or regulation.

A fair playing field, one set of rules for all of us, foundational to American free enterprise, and something that not only have we been migrating away from for years, but that migration away from that one set of rules for all of us seems to have increased in the COVID period.

A fair and sound banking system and a whole variety of others, but those are some of the foundational principles that we’ve laid out for our members.

Bluey: Some of the stories that I’ve read about your organization have painted a contrast between it and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Can you talk about some of the differences, maybe not only with that group, but others that may be in the same kind of marketplace?

Collins: We’re in the business of advocating for American free enterprise and we’re not built to compete with any one other organization. I will say broadly, though, that there are a number of organizations that are based here in Washington, D.C., that seem to have been more concerned with what their biggest members, writing very big checks, think about issues rather than foundational principles.

And so we are built specifically to be in a place where foundational principles are what we maintain fidelity to, starting not just with an ideological belief in those principles, but with an operational structure that doesn’t incentivize us to take a look at our big members and say, “Well, we’re going to follow you on an issue even though it compromises on our principles a little bit.”

At $99 per year, per member, not only can anybody afford to participate, but we’re not giving people an opportunity, financially speaking, to sort of compromise on our principles.

Bluey: Speaking of some of those big corporations, we have seen in not the too distant past several of them take steps that I think some conservatives and those who believe in the free market have been concerned about. Whether that’s the embrace of ESG—environmental, social, governance—or woke policies and diversity equity inclusion. You can go down the list of acronyms that the Left has embraced.

What’s your position on those issues and what do you say to those big corporations that may be taking more of a socialist track as opposed to the free market?

Collins: Our position is that everybody ought to be free to compete on a level playing field. And to the extent that ESG and other approaches like it are in the way of a free, fair, open marketplace, then those are things that we’ve got to deal with. And so we’re working aggressively to deal with them.

Now, I want to be careful here. We are not in the business of telling any business how to operate, but what we are very much in the business of is saying that you can’t stand in the way of smaller entrance to the marketplace.

And I think a lot of this ESG agenda, among other things, is designed to crowd out new sort of innovative upstarts that may do it a little better, a little faster, a little cheaper. And I think some of the big guys are using ESG as a way to crowd out the small competitors.

Bluey: It certainly seems like that’s the case. And as we know, as history teaches us, some of those small competitors will themselves become a big giant corporation and disrupt the market.

Collins: And we want to help them disrupt the market, so let’s remove the artificial barriers that some of the legacy players are trying to put up.

Bluey: China obviously poses a significant threat to the United States. I’ve seen you mention that in some of your materials. How are you approaching some of the challenges posed by the Chinese Communist Party?

Collins: No. 1, by calling them out publicly.

No. 2, by tying some of what the big banks are doing on ESG to this very question, that to transition our energy economy to something that relies on rare earth, for example—among other examples, by the way, but we’ll highlight that for a moment—really is shortsighted, not only for all of the other reasons that you might talk about on ESG, but in this case, because it empowers the Chinese communists.

People who have not contributed to the global economy, what we have, who have subjugated their own people, continue to subjugate their own people, who steal intellectual property from American businesses, who crowd us out of the marketplace unfairly.

Those are practices that we call out every day.

By the way, as you may know, our chairman, Terry Branstad, former U.S. ambassador to China, who saw this and lived it firsthand, as is true of anybody who’s been around a communist regime, the closer you’ve seen it, the more convinced you are that it is the wrong pathway. And so our chairman himself is very committed to calling this out.

Bluey: Certainly, Gov. Branstad has significant experience with China, and so hopefully a great asset to your organization.

You mentioned earlier a lot of the organizations, trade associations that are based here in Washington, D.C. You’ve purposefully organized in the Midwest, in Iowa specifically. Why is that important?

Collins: Look, the middle of the country is overlooked and ignored too often in this town. I love Washington. I lived and worked here for more than a decade. There are a lot of things to love about it. But it has a way of drawing people into a certain kind of groupthink, to a sort of an establishment way of thinking that doesn’t understand and then overlooks and downplays the contribution of the great middle of the country.

And I don’t just mean Iowa, my home state, or the Midwest, I mean the middle and the broadest possible way, the middle geographically, the middle economically, the middle ideologically in many ways.

And so we have very intentionally not come to D.C. to form this organization, but stayed at home in Iowa to be close to the middle of the country, to understand, to be in the midst of that every day, to understand their concerns, their hopes, their dreams, and what stands in the way of achieving those hopes and dreams.

And so our view is that by being in Des Moines, we’re a little bit closer. We’ve got a finger on the pulse in a way that is hard to do here in Washington.

Bluey: Do you expect to be engaging not just in those national issues that we’re debating here in Washington, but also in state capitals?

Collins: We expect to engage anywhere barriers to entry to the marketplace emerge. And so I think right now the biggest threats are coming from Washington, D.C., but certainly they come from the states as well.

Or say that more positively, I think there are some states where we’ve got more forward-looking elected leadership that may go on offense on some of these issues rather than just being on defense. So certainly we expect to be active in the states as well.

Bluey: What kind of reaction have you received from Capitol Hill to the creation of the organization?

Collins: The reaction has been overwhelmingly positive, particularly with leadership that has been looking for an alternative. An active, but principled voice for American small businesses has been missing from the debate and it’s been welcomed with open arms.

Bluey: And tell us a little bit more about your team. You’ve recently brought on some big hires, some people with significant experience, not only here in Washington, but who have a vast policy background. Who are some of them and what do you have planned in the short term?

Collins: Our organization is small and lean. Our overhead is very small. We’ve kept it very small and intend to do that. Everybody that’s joined us to help with policy and policy advocacy maintain their own practices.

People come to our operation because they believe in the cause. They believe in the principles that we’ve laid out. They see the need for better advocacy for American free enterprise and small businesses in particular.

But we’ve been gratified by the response. There are a lot of folks that have been around national policymaking that see this as a problem and want to contribute to a solution, so we’ve been very pleased to have a number of them join us.

But again, they’re joining us not on the basis of coming into a full-time salary or being paid a big number, but rather on the basis of belief in the mission and being ready to roll up their sleeves and help.

Bluey: Weeks before the election, obviously, we don’t know what the ultimate outcome is going to be and what the makeup of the next Congress will look like, but there could be a potential opportunity to put forward a pro-growth, a pro-business agenda, particularly in the U.S. House, possibly the U.S. Senate.

Any particular policies that you’re looking at, at the national level, that you think could really supercharge our economy again and get us out of this situation where we’re experiencing record levels of inflation and pain on the American people each and every day?

Collins: Let me answer that in a couple of ways.

One, there are very clearly policy priorities that can help put us back on track, whether it’s recommitting ourselves to American energy independence, whether it is dealing with the weaponization of the federal government in several agencies, including the [Securities and Exchange Commission] and the [Federal Trade Commission], probably most notably weaponized to enforce an ESG agenda that could not pass at the ballot box, that wouldn’t even pass in the normal course of things in the economy.

Pushing back on those things in a variety of ways from a policy perspective, I think, are important objectives.

But let me just say that if we have a conservative majority in one or even both chambers of the Congress, we’ll still be dealing with an administration that has been responsible for weaponizing the federal government to enforce ESG priorities.

And so I think it’s important for free marketeers, for conservatives to be looking at, how do we use a new majority in the Congress to raise these issues in a way that’s relevant in the lives of everyday Americans? How do we make clear in the public discourse that the rise of ESG and weaponizing the federal government to enforce ESG priorities is directly responsible for the pain that they’re feeling at the grocery store and at the pump and at the bank, and in a whole variety of other ways economically in their lives?

I don’t think we’ve done that job fully, and I think that will be part of the job of a new conservative majority.

Bluey: It’s so important, the storytelling aspect, as you indicated, of connecting the dots and helping the American people see how the policies that are enacted here in Washington, D.C., or some cases, but the administrative state in Washington, D.C., and the regulatory state affects the lives of everyday Americans.

Finally, Gentry, share a little bit more about how an organization or a business could become a member of the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce and some of the benefits they get as a result.

Collins: Yes, easy, amfreechamber.com, you can sign up there. It’s $99 a year, and there are a whole variety of benefits. Since we’ve been talking about issue advocacy and policy, we’ll start there.

One, principled advocacy. As you indicated earlier, our 10-point, Free Enterprise Bill of Rights is right there on the website, so exactly what we’re for and why. And so our advocacy will be built around those principles and only around those principles.

Outside of the advocacy realm, there are a number of business tools that are available to our members, from banking services for those who have faced various kinds of debanking issues to merchant payment processing, where there’s been, I’ll say, a small epidemic of businesses that have been deplatformed from merchant payment processing services over the last number of years.

Not only can we help remedy that for legally operating businesses in America, but we can compete on rates as well. I think most small businesses that become members find that even if they don’t face a deplatforming threat, that there’s a competitive advantage to the rate structure that we can offer small businesses.

When you aggregate a number of small businesses, the purchasing power turns out as pretty significant, and so we’re able to save small businesses quite a lot of money on those, as well as providing a principled approach to public policy.

*****

This article was published by the Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

The Other Thanksgiving Story thumbnail

The Other Thanksgiving Story

/in , , , , , /by

By Neland Nobel

It really is about being grateful, which is something too few of our spoiled citizens appreciate.  But since the holiday is being weaponized by “woke culture”, there are some other elements of the story to think about.

The short version, the way it is taught today, is that greedy Pilgrims landed in Plymouth Bay.  Half of the Pilgrims died from disease and starvation the first winter. Befriended by kind Indians, they barely survived and gave thanks to the Almighty.  Then, the Pilgrims went on to colonize the natives.  Today, one of the Indian tribes most closely associated with the Pilgrims regrets they gave them help.

Thus like Columbus Day, much of the meaning of Thanksgiving gets lost in the culture wars of today.  It has been turned into a story about the evils of colonizing and European culture, and an elevation of the indigenous to almost mythical levels.

It really is about being grateful, which is something too few of our spoiled citizens appreciate.  But since the holiday is being weaponized by “woke culture”, there are some other elements of the story to think about.

What are the sheer odds of things coming together the way they did?  If not a product of Devine Providence, the story is remarkable by the extremely low odds things could unfold the way they did.

One of the first is being blown off course and landing precisely at a spot where native people had been wiped out by a plague.  If one had to land in cold Massachusetts, they by chance found a good spot.  They found depopulated villages, mass graves, and a Wampanoag society devasted well before the Pilgrims arrived.  They did not seize native land, it was abandoned.

As to the help they received, the story of Squanto is remarkable just for its improbability.  Taken likely by English sailors fishing the region, he was sold into slavery, wound up in Spain, learned European languages, was befriended by religious monks, and remarkably then returned to his people who had been wiped out. He did not die in slavery, did not succumb to European diseases, and was likely one of the only English-speaking natives in the whole region.  And, he showed up just in the nick of time and preferred to live his life among the English until his death.  What are the odds of that?

His introduction was just as improbable.  Another Indian, who had learned some English named Samoset contacted the Pilgrims.  His first words were reported to be “do you have any beer”, a question that can be appreciated today as well.  It was through this colorful introduction that Squanto met the Pilgrims and helped them learn planting procedures.

Then there is the strategic alliance formed between the Wampanoag and the Pilgrims. 

The Indians of North America had not reached the level of sophistication of their fellow tribesmen in South America.  They did not have the wheel, work metals, a recorded language, or writing.  They were stone age people set on a collision course with a more technologically advanced “alien” civilization.  Wherever that occurred, in Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, or Australia, the outcome would not be good for the natives.

The leader of the Wampanoag, Massasoit, knew his plague-weakened tribe was in serious trouble.  But the threat was not the Pilgrims. An aggressive and more powerful tribe, the Narragansetts, would likely subjugate his people.  It was not uncommon among North American tribes to kill and torture their rivals, seize their land, enslave their women and children, and on occasion, eat them.

Lost by most is the diplomatic maneuvering that occurred.  Massasoit sought out the Pilgrims for a military alliance against another tribe.  The Pilgrims entered into a peace treaty with them.  The treaty provisions basically said that none of Massasoit’s men would harm the Pilgrims, and if they did, they would be sent to the Pilgrims for punishment and if anyone went to war with Massasoit, the Pilgrims and their flintlocks would come to their aid.  Does that sound like colonizing to you?

To be sure, unjust things to native Americans occurred later, but why blame the Pilgrims?

Further, several years later, Massasoit became gravely ill and went blind.  The Pilgrims were sent out to visit him and were told he was dead.

But, they found Massasoit alive but near death, and one Edward Winslow gave him medicine, scraped his throat, and gave him chicken soup (no kidding). The chief regained his eyesight, began to eat once again, and recovered.  

Grateful for the care, Massasoit revealed a plot by other Indians to wipe out the Pilgrims.  Armed with this vital intelligence, Miles Standish, with the help of Massasoit’s men, defeated the plot before it could materialize.  Massasoit remained a friend of the Pilgrims until his death. Does that sound like colonizing to you?

What are the odds that the primitive medicine practiced by the Pilgrims could work such miracles on Massasoit, and that he in turn would reveal a plot by other Indians to destroy the Pilgrims?

Isn’t it interesting that those today who hate the idea of migrants from Europe landing in North America are the ones in favor of migrants displacing the people in Texas and Arizona?

And as to the Indian leaders today who take to the Washington Post to voice their regrets about helping the Pilgrims, both the Post and the Indian leaders are guilty of “presentism”, or view all historical events through the prism of today’s woke ideology.

Both sides cooperated with each other for good reason.  They needed each other for survival. It might not be too much to say that descendants today of the Wampanoag might not be around to criticize the Pilgrims were it not for the alliance formed between Massasoit and the Europeans.

Finally, in the diary of William Bradford, we learn about another challenge the Pilgrims beat.  This is one of their own makings.  It was socialism.

At first, all production was to be shared, regardless of one’s effort.  Individuals farmed collective land.  As a result, production dropped and starvation stalked the land.  There was no incentive to work.  Basically, it was “universal basic income”. Bradford reversed course, allowing private plots and making individuals responsible for themselves.  The Pilgrims were not only saved by Squanto, but by capitalism.

So there is a lot of interesting history in the back story to Thanksgiving to reflect upon if you can get through the distortions so frequently pedaled today.  Even the nature of history itself is a subject of the Thanksgiving experience.  It is said that history is written by the victors.  Today, it is written by the victors on behalf of the losers. 

The Pilgrims put much of their history down in writing.  The natives used oral history.  The quality of the two is not equivalent.  It is hard enough to get the facts straight and interpreted fairly from original written documents. But oral history has no objective tether to the facts.  Just listening to the yarns of relatives should prove that to you.  Ever notice how events you were party to get changed over the years, embellished sometimes beyond recognition?

Try to have an accurate depiction of events passed on down from 400 years ago.  It is just not possible.  This truth is likely painful to those that revere “oral history.”

No, the Pilgrims were not perfect, but they were not devils either.  The treaty with the Wampanoag, initiated by Massasoit is evidence of that, as was their medical care of him.

It is not a good thing for a nation to have every element of its history turned into an evil crime.  A strong civilization should be able to critique itself, but constant exaggeration and selective negative history can undermine belief in one’s country and civilization.  Why defend it, if that is the case?

A nation’s history is not solely defined by its shortcomings, nor is its destiny. The Pilgrims conducted themselves pretty well given the time in which they lived.

Those who want to undermine America use distortions of history for their own purposes.

Thanksgiving is actually a remarkable and improbable story.  It either was divine intervention or one of the most implausible sets of circumstances one can imagine.

Those actually participating in the events were religious and saw their salvation in religious terms.  Their survival hung on a miraculous set of events.

Today, we can look back at the development of a wonderful country that has its warts to be sure, but still remains a beacon to those who want to find a better life.

We have not been wiped out by war, disease, socialism, or starvation.  Lots of people have had that fate.  We haven’t.  Be thankful for that.

The Covid/Crypto Connection: The Grim Saga of FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried thumbnail

The Covid/Crypto Connection: The Grim Saga of FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried

/in , , , , , /by

By Jeffrey Tucker

A series of revealing texts and tweets by Sam Bankman-Fried, the disgraced CEO of FTX, the once high-flying but now belly-up crypto exchange, had the following to say about his image as a do-gooder: it is a “dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shibboleths and so everyone likes us.”

Very interesting. He had the whole game going: a vegan worried about climate change, supports every manner of justice (racial, social, environmental) except that which is coming for him, and shells out millions to worthy charities associated with the left. He also bought plenty of access and protection in D.C., enough to make his shady company the toast of the town.

As part of the mix, there is this thing called pandemic planning. We should know what that is by now: it means you can’t be in charge of your life because there are bad viruses out there. As bizarre as it seems, and for reasons that are still not entirely clear, favoring lockdowns, masks, and vaccine passports became part of the woke ideological stew.

This is particularly strange because covid restrictions have been proven, over and over, to harm all the groups about whom woke ideology claims to care so deeply. That includes even animal rights: who can forget the Danish mink slaughter of 2020?

Regardless, it’s just true. Masking became a symbol of being a good person, same as vaccinating, veganism, and flying into fits at the drop of a hat over climate change. None of this has much if anything to do with science or reality. It’s all tribal symbolism in the name of group political solidarity. And FTX was pretty good at it, throwing around hundreds of millions to prove the company’s loyalty to all the right causes.

Among them included the pandemic-planning racket. That’s right: there were deep connections between FTX and Covid that have been cultivated for two years. Let’s have a look.

Earlier this year, the New York Times trumpeted a study that showed no benefit at all to the use of Ivermectin. It was supposed to be definitive. The study was funded by FTX. Why? Why was a crypto exchange so interested in the debunking of repurposed drugs in order to drive governments and people into the use of patented pharmaceuticals, even those like Ramdesivir that didn’t actually work? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Regardless, the study and especially the conclusions turned out to be bogus. David Henderson and Charles Hooper further point out an interesting fact: “Some of the researchers involved in the TOGETHER trial had performed paid services for Pfizer, Merck, Regeneron, and AstraZeneca, all companies involved in developing COVID-19 therapeutics and vaccines that nominally compete with ivermectin.”

For some reason, SBF just knew that he was supposed to oppose repurposed drugs, though he knew nothing about the subject at all. He was glad to fund a poor study to make it true and the New York Times played its assigned role in the whole performance.

It was just the start. A soft-peddling Washington Post investigation found that Sam and his brother Gabe, who ran a hastily founded Covid nonprofit, “have spent at least $70 million since October 2021 on research projects, campaign donations and other initiatives intended to improve biosecurity and prevent the next pandemic.”

I can do no better than to quote the Washington Post:

The shock waves from FTX’s free fall have rippled across the public health world, where numerous leaders in pandemic-preparedness had received funds from FTX funders or were seeking donations.

In other words, the “public health world” wanted more chances to say: “Give me money so I can keep advocating to lock more people down!” Alas, the collapse of the exchange, which reportedly holds a mere 0.001% of the assets it once claimed to have, makes that impossible.

Among the organizations most affected is Guarding Against Pandemics, the advocacy group headed by Gabe that took out millions in ads to back the Biden administration’s push for $30 billion in funding. As Influence Watch notes: “Guarding Against Pandemics is a left-leaning advocacy group created in 2020 to support legislation that increases government investment in pandemic prevention plans.”

Truly it gets worse:

FTX-backed projects ranged from $12 million to champion a California ballot initiative to strengthen public health programs and detect emerging virus threats (amid lackluster support, the measure was punted to 2024), to investing more than $11 million on the unsuccessful congressional primary campaign of an Oregon biosecurity expert, and even a $150,000 grant to help Moncef Slaoui, scientific adviser for the Trump administration’s “Operation Warp Speed” vaccine accelerator, write his memoir.

Leaders of the FTX Future Fund, a spinoff foundation that committed more than $25 million to preventing bio-risks, resigned in an open letter last Thursday, acknowledging that some donations from the organization are on hold.

And worse:

The FTX Future Fund’s commitments included $10 million to HelixNano, a biotech start-up seeking to develop a next-generation coronavirus vaccine; $250,000 to a University of Ottawa scientist researching how to eradicate viruses from plastic surfaces; and $175,000 to support a recent law school graduate’s job at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “Overall, the Future Fund was a force for good,” said Tom Inglesby, who leads the Johns Hopkins center, lamenting the fund’s collapse. “The work they were doing was really trying to get people to think long-term … to build pandemic preparedness, to diminish the risks of biological threats.”

More:

Guarding Against Pandemics spent more than $1 million on lobbying Capitol Hill and the White House over the past year, hired at least 26 lobbyists to advocate for a still-pending bipartisan pandemic plan in Congress and other issues, and ran advertisements backing legislation that included pandemic-preparedness funding. Protect Our Future, a political action committee backed by the Bankman-Fried brothers, spent about $28 million this congressional cycle on Democratic candidates “who will be champions for pandemic prevention,” according to the group’s webpage.

I think you get the idea. This is all a racket. FTX, founded in 2019 following Biden’s announcement of his bid for the presidency, by the son of the co-founder of a major Democrat Party political action committee called Mind the Gap, was nothing but a magic-bean Ponzi scheme. It seized on the lockdowns for political, media, and academic cover. Its economic rationale was as nonexistent as its books. The first auditor to have a look has written:

“Never in my career have I seen such a complete failure of corporate controls and such a complete absence of trustworthy financial information as occurred here. From compromised systems integrity and faulty regulatory oversight abroad, to the concentration of control in the hands of a very small group of inexperienced, unsophisticated and potentially compromised individuals, this situation is unprecedented.”

It was the worst example of a phony perpetual-motion machine: a token to back a company that itself was backed by the token, which in turn was backed by nothing but political fashion and woke ideology that roped in Larry David, Tom Brady,  Katy Perry, Tony Blair, and Bill Clinton to provide a cloak of legitimacy.

And you can’t make this stuff up anymore: FTX had a close relationship with the World Economic Forum and was the favored crypto exchange of the Ukrainian government. It looks for all the world like the money-laundering operation of the Democratic National Committee and the entire lockdown lobby.

I will tell you what infuriates me about these billions in fake money and deep corruptions of politics and science. For years now, my anti-lockdown friends have been hounded for being funded by supposed dark money that simply doesn’t exist. Many brave scientists, journalists, attorneys, and others gave up great careers to stand for principle, exposing the damage caused by the lockdowns, and this is how they have been treated: smeared and displaced.

Brownstone has adopted as many in this diaspora as possible for fellowships as far as the resources (real ones, contributed by caring individuals) can go. But we cannot come anywhere near what is necessary for justice, much less complete with the 8-digit funding regime of the other side.

The Great Barrington Declaration was signed at the offices of the American Institute for Economic Research, which, apparently, six years prior had received a long-spent $60,000 grant from the Koch Foundation, and thus became a “Koch-funded libertarian think tank” which supposedly discredited the GBD, even though none of the authors received a dime.

This gibberish and slander has gone on for years – at the urging of government officials! – and Brownstone itself faces much of the same nonsense, with every manner of fantasy about our supposed power, money, and influence swarming the darker realms of the social-media dudgeons. In fact, the actual Koch Foundation (probably unbeknownst to its founder) was funding the pro-lockdown work of Neil Ferguson, whose ridiculous modeling terrified the world into denying human rights to billions of people the world over.

All this time – while every type of vicious propaganda was unleashed on the world – the pro-lockdown and pro-mandate lobby, including fake scientists and fake studies, were benefiting from millions and billions thrown around by operators of a Ponzi scheme based on cheating, fraud, and $15 billion in leveraged funds that didn’t exist while its principle actors were languishing in a drug-infested $40 million villa in the Bahamas even as they preened about the virtues of “effective altruism” and their pandemic-planning machinery that has now fallen apart.

Then the New York Times, instead of decrying this criminal conspiracy for what it is, writes puff pieces on the founder and how he let his quick-growing company grow too far, too fast, and now needs mainly rest, bless his heart.

The rest of us are left with the bill for this obvious scam that implausibly links crypto and Covid. But just as the money was based on nothing but puffed air, the damage they have wrought on the world is all too real: a lost generation of kids, declined lifespans, millions missing from the workforce, a calamitous fall in public health, millions of kids in poverty due to supply-chain breakages, 19 straight months of falling real incomes, historically high increases in debt, and a dramatic fall in human morale the world over.

So yes, we should all be furious and demand full accountability at the very least. Whatever the final truth, it is likely to be far worse than even the egregious facts listed above. It’s bad enough that lockdowns wrecked life and liberty. To discover that vast support for them was funded by fraud and fakery is a deeper level of corruption that not even the most cynical among us could have imagined.

*****

This article was published by Brownstone Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Arizona Charter School Students Outperforming Most of Nation thumbnail

Arizona Charter School Students Outperforming Most of Nation

/in , , /by

By Tom Joyce

If Arizona eighth-grade charter school students were a separate state, they would rank first nationally in math.

Arizona’s charter schools, if separated from their public school counterparts, have eighth graders that perform at higher levels than nearly any other state.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress, better known as the Nation’s Report Card, found that Arizona district and charter students scored at approximately the national average in fourth and eighth-grade math and reading NAEP testing.

But, the analysis found that eighth-grade charter school students in Arizona significantly outperformed others. If Arizona eighth-grade charter school students were a separate state, they would rank first nationally in math and second in reading, only behind New Jersey.

“State and federal testing has repeatedly demonstrated that Arizona charter schools and students consistently outperform their district counterparts, despite receiving nearly $2,000 less in per-pupil funding,” Dr. Matthew Ladner, Director of the Arizona Center for Student Opportunity, said in a press release. “The past few years have been difficult for all schools, but we applaud Arizona charter schools for continuing to raise the bar for student achievement in our state.”

The NAEP exam is usually given to a random sampling of fourth and eighth-grade students in every state each year. It was suspended in 2020 and 2021 due to the coronavirus pandemic, but the test resumed in 2022. The results also indicate that there has been a decline in academic progress due to the government’s reaction to the pandemic, particularly in math.

In Arizona, fourth-grade students in both district and charter schools saw a decline in mathematics and reading scores in that stretch.

However, on eighth-grade math and reading, Arizona charter students scored about one full grade level better than their district peers.

“Arizona charter schools helped lead our state’s academic recovery following the Great Recession,” Dr. Ladner said in the release. “The challenges Arizona students now face are arguably even bigger now, but I am confident in the creativity, innovation and expertise of the charter sector to once again lead the way.”

*****

This article was published by Chalkboard Review and is reproduced with permission.

Arizona’s ‘Election Integrity Unit’ Demands Answers From Maricopa County Over Election Day Problems thumbnail

Arizona’s ‘Election Integrity Unit’ Demands Answers From Maricopa County Over Election Day Problems

/in , , , /by

By Allan Stein

The Arizona Attorney General’s Elections Integrity Unit sent a letter to Maricopa County demanding answers on problems that took place with the election on Nov. 8.

In a letter to Civil Division Chief Thomas Liddy of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Wright said the AG’s office had “received hundreds of complaints since Election Day,” and the complaints “go beyond pure speculation [and] include first-hand witness accounts that raise concerns regarding Maricopa County’s lawful compliance with Arizona election law.”

According to Maricopa County election officials, at least 60 of 223 voting locations experienced technical problems related to ballot-on-demand (BOD) printers having “non-uniform” printer configuration settings.

These non-uniform settings resulted in some ballots “unable to be read by on-site ballot tabulators.”

County officials estimate the technical problems may have impacted more than 17,000 ballots on Election Day.

“Based on sworn complaints submitted by election workers employed by Maricopa County, the BOD printers were tested on Monday, Nov. 7, without any apparent problems,” Wright said in the letter (pdf).

“Many of those election workers report that despite the successful testing the night before, the tabulators began experiencing problems reading ballots printed by the BOD printers within the first thirty minutes of voting on Tuesday, November 8, 2022.”

The letter said that based on a “plethora of reports from election workers, poll watchers, and voters, including the county’s admission of widespread printer problems,” the Elections Integrity Unit requested:

  • The specific problems at each voting location
  • Any other issues related to BOD printers and/or tabulators that may have contributed to the problems at voting locations
  • A comprehensive log of all changes to the BOD printer configuration settings (to include the identity of individuals making changes)
  • Maricopa County’s standards for the BOD printer configuration settings
  • The precise time the non-uniform printer configuration settings were found to be the root cause of the problem
  • The method used to update or reconfigure the printer configuration settings at each voting location

The Elections Integrity Unit will also look into election day “check-out” procedures in which affected voters received provisional ballots or instructions to go to another polling location…..

*****

Continue reading at The Epoch Times.

The Politics of the Pelosi Home Invasion thumbnail

The Politics of the Pelosi Home Invasion

/in , , , , /by

By Neland Nobel

Details concerning the attack on the home of Nacy Pelosi and her husband Paul, continue to trickle in and they remain confusing.

As seems standard in these cases, the initial information is fragmented and contradictory.  No one really knows what happened there and that includes The Prickly Pear.  Further, local authorities in San Franciso are so left-wing, one is suspicious of the selective information they are releasing.  For example, there is still no security camera video or police body cam footage for the public to view.

Originally, the police said when they entered they found the two men struggling over a hammer.   If the two men were engaged in a physical tussle, who opened the door to admit the police?  There are no reports they broke the door down.  Obviously, body cam footage could clear up many of these questions.  Why the delay in releasing it?

Now the story is that Mr. Pelosi opened the door, oddly went back to his would-be attacker, and was struck with a hammer.  You would think that if Mr. Pelosi was concerned enough about his safety to call the police, he would get out the door as soon as possible and fall in behind the police for the protection he was seeking.  Instead, he went back to join the burglar who had a hammer. Huh?

We do have the audio of the 911 call, and it seems that Mr. Pelosi knew his attacker by name.  Some say he used his name as a way to calm his attacker who lurked outside his bathroom door while Pelosi was making the 911 phone call.

Honestly, who knows exactly where the perp was and what he heard? If he was right outside the bathroom door, revealing his name to police could just as well infuriate an attacker as now he is known and at risk.  Still, why did he know his name, and why did he not remain in the locked bathroom as a sanctuary until the police arrived, which has been reported to be under three minutes?  It would seem smart to linger in the bathroom a bit longer, feigning digestive issues. As long as the attacker is kind enough to allow you a potty break, why not take advantage of putting a locked door between you and the home invader until the police arrive?

None of this makes much sense.  Pelosi could have stayed in the bathroom, did not rush to the police when he opened the door, and strangely rejoined the attacker after the police arrived.  He then reportedly got hit while the police were there.  Why did the police permit victim and attacker to get close to each other if the home invader was so dangerous?  The fact that the Police got caught flat-footed, and that Pelosi himself went from the door back to Mr. Depape, would indicate neither the Police nor Pelosi thought Mr. Depape was a threat at that time.  If so, why the phone call in the first place?

San Francisco authorities reportedly have said they will not release the body cam footage as it is not in the “public interest.”

This is wrong.  The President, his press secretary, and recently Representative Clyburn, have all used the Pelosi home invasion to smear Republicans, roughly half the country. 

Clyburn further says this is just like before the Nazis took over. Given the serious charges made against Republicans, the body cam footage is very much in the “public interest.”

The FBI is now involved and given its rapidly declining reputation for objectivity and professionalism, it is doubtful things will get any clearer.  The extreme left-wing politics of San Franciso could also infect their police department. Who can be trusted to give us the truth?  The body cam footage is necessary, yet even so, hardly sufficient.

But with all the unanswered questions, only one person knows for sure. According to the President of the United States, the homeless, drug-using illegal immigrant from Canada, who lived in a hippy commune in a school bus, and had LGBTQ flags and Black Lives Matter signage on his residence, is a conservative Republican.  He is ultra MAGA and inflamed by January 6th.

Contradicting the President, both neighbors and the attacker’s ex-“life partner”, do not indicate that Mr. Depape was in fact conservative at all, but rather very much a progressive in his politics.  Would they be in a position to know him better than Biden?

And, just like the criminal who broke into Katie Hobbs’ campaign headquarters, Paul Pelosi’s assailant was also an illegal alien. Both incidents were made possible by Democrat border policy.

In short, with no information to confirm his thesis, other than Depape asking”where’s Nancy” (how do we know that was said), Biden is able to conclude that roughly half the country is responsible for the beating of Paul Pelosi and that it was politically motivated. Peering into the teleprompter with an expression oddly reminiscent of the “banjo boy” from the movie Deliverance, Biden attacks Republicans in the harshest terms, all the while condemning excessive political rhetoric.

We are not among those that excuse the President for constantly misstating facts on a whole range of issues.  He can’t seem to remember where he went to college, and how his eldest son died, and he meets and talks to people who have died before he could have met them.  These are delusional ramblings of a declining intellect. The cabinet should act to remove him from office.

There is a real danger that this tragically sick old man, could mangle his words in such a way as to get us into a major war.  This is serious. He should be constitutionally removed from office.

But Mr. Biden’s latest attack was read from a teleprompter, as usual with a lot of mistakes.  But that indicates the words were written for him, vetted by staff, and therefore cannot be excused as the ramblings of dementia. No, this is THE ADMINISTRATION talking, and the Democrat Party.

These attacks on Republicans then, are not the singular ravings of an old man, but rather the explicit policy of the Democrat Party.

This follows along a previously established line of calling political opponents “deplorable”, semi-fascists, and domestic terrorists.

Democrats are big at calling political speech the “cause” of actual physical violence.  It has been part of their playbook for years. We remember well after the Kennedy assassination, Democrats blamed the city of Dallas, for “creating an atmosphere of hate”, that just happen to “cause” a communist to shoot President John Kennedy. Then as now, there was no connection between what conservatives were saying and the violent act.

Yet when years of race-baiting and anti-American rhetoric from the left is contemporaneous with hundreds of riots in the summer of 2020 and attacks on Republicans and Supreme Court justices, Democrats suddenly can see no connection whatsoever between their rhetoric and how it might influence public opinion.

The Prickly Pear does not think political speech is responsible for the violence.  At the margin, it may influence unstable people to act, but still, individuals are responsible for their actions.

What Biden and his party are doing is inexcusable, to libel Republicans as Nazis.  He wishes to denigrate and divide the American public into warring camps. He diminished the true crimes by Nazis.  And, he does all this under the banner of uniting the country and raising the level of our political discourse.

Republicans, independents, and sane Democrats should turn against this demagoguery. Further, this case is a matter of public interest and officials need to release all relevant data.

As for the Democrats and their hateful demagoguery, there is only one thing we voters can do: In future election, vote them out, every one of them.

Kathy Hoffman Concedes in Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Race thumbnail

Kathy Hoffman Concedes in Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Race

/in , , , /by

By Tom Joyce

Photo Credit: Matt York/AP Photo

Incumbent Democrat Kathy Hoffman conceded in the race for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction on Thursday morning [November 17].

Hoffman trailed Republican Tom Horne by 8,718 votes as of Thursday morning. Horne was leading the race 50.2% to 49.8%, according to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office.

Here is the concession statement Hoffman posted on her Facebook page:

“After a hard-fought race, we came up short. I want to thank my supporters, volunteers, and staff who stood by me during this election. And I especially want to thank my family for all of their love and support.

“Serving as Arizona’s Superintendent of Public Instruction has been among the greatest honors and privileges of my life. I’m proud of the incredible work we did. And I remain more inspired than ever by the amazing students, educators, and schools across our state. Our future is bright because of you.

“Lastly, congratulations to Katie Hobbs, Adrian Fontes for Arizona Secretary of State, Senator Mark Kelly, Yes On 308 and every pro public education school board candidate for their wins. Our state will be in better hands with you all at the helm.”

Hoffman served one term as the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction. She won her 2018 bid for the position before facing this defeat.

For Horne, 77, this is a familiar post.

Previously, Horne served two terms as the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction from 2003 to 2011. Then, he served as Arizona’s Attorney General from 2011 to 2015. However, he lost a primary to fellow Republican Mark Brnovich when running for re-election in 2014.

Horne had not issued any statement on his victory as of Thursday morning.

*****

This article was published by The Center Square – AZ and is reproduced with permission.

DeSantis Delivers in Huge Win for the Anti-Lockdown Cause thumbnail

DeSantis Delivers in Huge Win for the Anti-Lockdown Cause

/in , , , , /by

By Michael Senger

A huge re-election victory vindicates his pandemic policies,” writes the Wall Street Journal. “With runaway win, DeSantis’s political career becomes supercharged,” writes the New York Times. “Ron DeSantis is the new Republican Party leader,” declares Fox News. “Florida’s governor turned his coronavirus policies into a parable of American freedom,” observes the Atlantic.

As well they should. The self-perpetuating lockdowns, mandates, and state of emergency that were imposed across much of the world in response to Covid-19 were a totalitarian aberration incompatible with the values of constitutional democracy. Resisting those mandates wasn’t just a parable of American freedom—it was American freedom.

Unlike some leaders such as South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, DeSantis didn’t initially see through the lockdowns. But he was one of the few political leaders to quickly and publicly recognize his error, vowing that Florida “will never do any of these lockdowns again.”

Where DeSantis really stands out, however, is in his wholehearted embrace, from that point forward, of the anti-lockdown movement in its entirety. He’s consulted and hosted roundtable discussions with prominent anti-lockdown activists and scientists including Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, and appointed Dr. Joseph Ladapo, a strong opponent of Covid mandates, as his Surgeon General.

DeSantis and his team became active within the anti-lockdown movement on social media, and he frequently voiced strong opposition to Covid mandates in his speeches, such as during his State of the State address:


Florida has become the escape hatch for those chafing under authoritarian, arbitrary and seemingly never-ending mandates and restrictions. Even today, across the nation we see students denied an education due to reckless, politically-motivated school closures, workers denied employment due to heavy-handed mandates and Americans denied freedoms due to a coercive biomedical apparatus.

These unprecedented policies have been as ineffective as they have been destructive. They are grounded more in blind adherence to Faucian declarations than they are in the constitutional traditions that are the foundation of free nations.

Florida is a free state. We reject the biomedical security state that curtails liberty, ruins livelihoods and divides society. And we will protect the rights of individuals to live their lives free from the yoke of restrictions and mandates.

DeSantis’s staunch support for the anti-lockdown cause may be explained, in no small part, by the fact that he remains one of the world’s only major political figures to publicly share his belief that the Chinese Communist Party played a key role in influencing the global response to Covid-19:

The (W)est did a lot of damage to itself by adopting some of these policies, which have proven to not work to stop the spread, but to be very economically destructive. I do think there was an information operation angle to this, where they really believed that if they could get these other countries to lock down, and they were willing to do some propaganda along the way, particularly in Europe, that ultimately would help China. And I think it has helped China.

For this, DeSantis effectively became the face of the anti-lockdown movement in the United States. It was a bold political gamble (or, for those who’ve been fighting this fight since early 2020, just plain old common sense), and it drew the consternation of lockdown supporters, media and political elites across the country.

But it paid off big. DeSantis won the race for reelection with a 19-point margin of victory—the widest victory margin in a Florida gubernatorial election since 2002. Even more telling, DeSantis’s odds to win the 2024 presidential election soared by more than 10 percentage points, making him the new frontrunner in the presidential race.

The outsized significance of DeSantis’s victory isn’t so much in the victory itself, which was predicted, or even the margin of that victory. The real significance is that DeSantis outperformed by a wide margin at the same time the Republican Party underperformed across the rest of the country. This unique outperformance vindicates whatever DeSantis did differently than the rest of the GOP. And without a doubt, what DeSantis is best known for is his wholehearted embrace of the anti-lockdown movement.

*****

This article was published by Brownstone Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Home Sales Plunge, Investors Pull Back Too, Prices Drop 8.4% in 4 Months thumbnail

Home Sales Plunge, Investors Pull Back Too, Prices Drop 8.4% in 4 Months

/in , , /by

By Wolf Richter

Sellers are struggling with denial: Priced “right,” a home will sell, but “right” is where the buyers are, and they’re a lot lower.

Sales of all types of previously owned homes – houses, condos, and co-ops – fell by 5.9% in October from September, the ninth month in a row of declines, to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of sales of 4.43 million homes, just a hair above the lockdown-month of April 2020, according to the National Association of Realtors. Compared to the recent free-money peak in October 2020, sales were down 34%.

Year-over-year, sales fell by 28%, the 15th month in a row of year-over-year declines. Beyond April and May 2020, this was the lowest rate of sales since December 2011 (historic data via YCharts):

Sales of single-family houses plunged by 6.4% in October from September, and by 28% year-over-year, to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 3.95 million houses.

Sales of condos and co-ops fell by 2.0% in October from September, and by 30% year-over-year, to 480,000 seasonally adjusted annual rate.

Investors or second-home buyers purchased 16% of the homes in October, down from the 17%-22% range in the spring and winter. In other words, their purchases plunged at an even higher rate than the purchases of regular buyers, as investors too are losing interest in buying at these prices.

This plunge in sales is a sign that potential sellers and buyers are in a standoff. Many potential sellers refuse to accept reality and lower their prices to where the sellers are; instead, they’re thinking, “and this too shall pass,” and they’re hoping or praying for a Fed pivot or for a miracle or whatever and don’t even put their home on the market, or pull it off the market after not getting any traffic at their aspirational asking price. And buyers have lost interest at the current prices.

Homes that are priced right – meaning priced down where the buyers are – are selling. But sellers don’t like to go there. And we see that in the active listings too. But there is some price-cutting going on, as more sellers figure this out.

Price reductions: In October, the number of homes listed with price reductions rose to 327,184 homes, the highest since October 2019, and just a tad below it (data via realtor.com).

*****

Continue reading this article at Wolf Street.

Lake Issues 1st Major Update in Arizona Since Hobbs Declared Victory thumbnail

Lake Issues 1st Major Update in Arizona Since Hobbs Declared Victory

/in , , /by

By Zachary Stieber

Arizona Republican candidate Kari Lake said on Nov. 17 that she’s still fighting in the state governor’s race, in her first major update since Democrat Katie Hobbs declared victory.

“I wanted to reach out to you to let you know that I am still in this fight with you,” Lake, a former television anchor, said in a video statement.

Lake said concerns raised by her campaign about Hobbs, the Arizona secretary of state, overseeing the election and electronic voting equipment turned out to be legitimate. As an example, she pointed to how tabulators across Maricopa County weren’t working properly on Election Day.

Lake said that she spoke with voters who had to wait in line for hours, including a man who went to three different polling sites before he was able to finally cast his ballot.

“Our election officials failed us miserably. What happened to Arizonans on Election Day is unforgivable. Tens of thousands of Maricopa County voters were disenfranchised,” Lake said. As secretary of state, Hobbs is the state’s top election official.

“Now I’m busy here collecting evidence and data. Rest assured I have assembled the best and brightest legal team. And we are exploring every avenue to correct the many wrongs that have been done this past week. I’m doing everything in my power to right these wrongs. My resolve to fight for you is higher than ever.”…..

*****

Continue reading at The Epoch Times.

It Apparently Wasn’t the Economy, Stupid! thumbnail

It Apparently Wasn’t the Economy, Stupid!

/in , , , , /by

By Neland Nobel

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. H. L. Mencken

The recent results of the mid-term elections have a number of pundits puzzled, including ourselves.

It was felt that the economy would be dominant. Inflation is at the worst levels in 40 years, falling markets are chewing up savings and folks’ 401K plans, there are no eggs at Costco, rents are soaring, and only about 21 days of diesel fuel is left in the country.

Crime is out of control in major cities, and the border is wide open for anyone, terrorist or bricklayer, to come into the country.

The Federal Budget is completely out of whack.

Surely, people are feeling this. It is evident at the meat counter, at the gas pump, and on the electricity bill.  There is no way the media can hide this reality from the American people. These are the conditions for a Red Wave. Or, at least, that is what was thought.

We think the American people are feeling the pain, despite the best effort of the press to hide the problems. But, it seems voters think Russia is the cause and not the Democrats and they were more concerned about abortion and “election denial” and the “taint of Trump” than they were about kitchen table issues thought to be more important.

So, it seems the economy is not the most important issue for voters. What else can one reasonably conclude?

But it is also true, few people, including leading Republicans, understand the budget crisis. If they do, they are so terrified to talk about it because Democrats will portray them as “pushing grandma off a cliff”, if they even bring up the subject in a campaign. We urge you to watch the video by Congressman David Schweikert.

Independents apparently broke heavily for Democrats late in the game. Usually, they are independent for a reason and break late for the challenger. It didn’t happen. Younger, unmarried women also voted heavily for Democrats.

Republicans consistently polled that they are more trusted on the economy. But since the economy did not seem to matter that edge was lost. Did the Republicans blow it because they too got bogged down in peripheral issues? It appears they did.  

Independents voted against Republicans because of the “taint of Trump”, so says the Wall Street Journal in a perceptive analysis of Arizona results. Republicans took Congressional seats 6-3 and took the legislature. But many identified with Trump lost narrowly. Those like Kimberly Lee, not identified with Trump, won handily.

If the Wall Street Journal is correct, that sort of makes our point. The public was turned off on Republicans despite the weak, inflationary-wracked economy. The economy was not paramount after all.

The result is that while the Republicans barely took the House, they won’t be able to do much but hold off additional bad decisions on the economy, and they certainly will not be able to mount a counterattack to reverse many bad decisions by the Democrats. Meanwhile, Biden will be free to use his executive power to wreak havoc. The courts may eventually correct some of that, but it takes too much time to occur to help a declining economy.

We think of the ever-ebullient Larry Kudlow, who advised us that Republicans would do well, and that “the calvary was coming”, to make the economy better.

But the cavalry got mauled badly just as they did at the Fetterman Massacre in 1866. Similarly, Republicans got massacred in Pennsylvania by a truly radical Democrat of the same name, who can barely speak a complete sentence. He will likely destroy the once vibrant energy sector that has employed so many Pennsylvanians. But then again, rural Pennsylvania went all Republican and the rich environmentalists around Philadelphia and the black vote carried the day.

You can’t say in this race, the Republicans ran a poor candidate, certainly compared to the Democrats. One was a brilliant doctor, and the other was brain-damaged. Say what you will about the Democrat Party, it was a stroke of genius to run Fetterman. He was just what the people wanted.

That leads to our concluding thoughts. If indeed people were not concerned enough about the economy, but other things, they are likely to get it “good and hard” as the sage of Baltimore suggested. This is as it should be. Unfortunately, all of us will pay for the mistake.

The reason goes back to Kudlow’s observation, but with a negative twist. The cavalry is not coming and the likelihood now of a serious recession looms.

To be sure, many of the about-to-be-mentioned factors were present before, and they would be difficult to deal with in any case, but now, there is really no chance of reversing the impact of bad Democrat policies. 

And, we would add, the economy has its own complex cycle, independent of politics. But the distortions of the Biden Administration (gunning the money supply 40%), chocking off energy production, and blowing out the deficit, touched off an inflationary burst that the Federal Reserve has to address. We have long felt an economy that had become addicted to cheap money would suffer withdrawal symptoms when the cheap money is withdrawn.

Here are some of the negative factors we currently see:

The increase in interest rates needed to fight inflation causes an immense increase in borrowing costs for our bloated government debt.

Borrowing costs will soon be the blob that eats whatever is left in the 16% of the budget that is “discretionary”, that is the part our leaders actually vote on.

The yield curve is inverted, that is short-term interest rates are higher than long-term rates. This has been a reliable indicator of recession, regardless of politics.

Corporate earnings are now in a downtrend with 75% of the S&P companies announcing downgrades.

Inflation may have come off its peak, but the FED wisely has said one or two data points do not make a trend and that they will keep raising rates, which they should. The old maxim is the FED will keep raising “until something breaks.” We wonder if the crypto disasters we keep seeing are not the leading edge of a liquidity crisis in an over-leveraged economy.

It will be no fun when something big does indeed break. It will be scary.

The rate of change of the money supply is falling fast, and the velocity of money is contracting.

The combination of rising mortgage rates and the housing bubble is making home affordability a serious problem for future demand. According to Charlie Bilello, it now takes $107,000 in income to afford a median-priced home, which is up a whopping 45% in just the past 12 months. The American dream is getting crushed.

The Leading Economic Indicators have now been down for eight months in a row, more than long enough to establish a trend.

According to David Rosenberg, the consumer sentiment number kept by the University of Michigan averages 71 during recessions and hovers around 88 during expansions. The latest number is around 55, the lowest in about 70 years. The consumer is in trouble and consumer spending is 70% of the economy.

While anecdotal data, the fact that Amazon and FedEx are both laying people off, during the time of the year they normally hire temps because of Christmas shopping, suggests shipping demand is way off. If you are making stuff or buying stuff, it has to be shipped. If stuff is not being shipped it is for a good reason…the economy is contracting fast.

The same can be said for container prices which are falling sharply. This indicates a sharp slowdown in international trade.

Home prices have started to decline and homes are the main source of wealth for most of the population. They are highly leveraged contracts as we found out in the last housing crisis. People can walk away from their commitments in most states, sticking taxpayers with the bill.

Existing home sales have been down for nine months, off 28% from last year.

Federal debt has ballooned so much that interest payments will soon be equal to defense expenditures. When you have to borrow money to pay for interest and essentials, you are in real trouble. However, negative trends compound in a welfare state economy. Demands for more spending will soon be heard, while revenue to the government will decline. Deficits will go up even more. The deficit crisis, long ignored, will reach the critical stage.

However marginal the Republican win in the House, fiscal policy will be less stimulative and the Fed will keep monetary policy tight until the inflation fever breaks. The era of easy and cheap money is likely over, for at least a while.

A number of nations centered around the BRICS economy (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are toying with a new payment system that will not use US dollars. Without that demand, the dollar will have to be valued on its fundamentals, and those fundamentals are not that great.

The Green New Deal and ESG have starved capital investment in energy. New alternatives are not comparable and are being brought on too slowly. An energy crisis is likely to unfold in the next few years.

After throwing $80 billion at the Ukraine war, Biden is asking for another $37 billion. How much, how long, and to what end?

We could go on with another ten or so factoids, but hopefully, the point has been made. We are now more likely to have a serious recession and no political relief is likely.

Perhaps the silver lining in all of this is that as the economy gets worse, especially if unemployment starts to rise to a painful level, it successfully focuses the minds of voters. If this happens as is likely, in 2023 and 2024, peripheral issues will take second or third, or tenth place behind the economy.

If we are not in one already, a recession is likely sometime next year. If forced to guess, we would say by next spring.

If things turn as bad as we think they will, Democrats will not be able to dodge responsibility during the next election cycle.

History shows when the economy turns sour, those in power have to take the blame.

The dictum that it is “the economy stupid” will take center stage once again. But to get there, the American people will have to have their attention focused by getting a recession good and hard.

That is nothing we wish for, or voted for because it necessarily involves all of us regardless of party. But, voting has consequences.

Sam Bankman-Fried Is Not Alone: Some of History’s Greatest Monsters Were Democratic Megadonors thumbnail

Sam Bankman-Fried Is Not Alone: Some of History’s Greatest Monsters Were Democratic Megadonors

/in , , /by

By Andrew Stiles

/in , , , /by

Estimated Reading Time: < 1 minute

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” — Sir Isaac Newton

What happened: Sam Bankman-Fried, the digital guru who earlier this year pledged to spend as much as $1 billion in support of Democratic candidates, is under federal investigation after the cryptocurrency exchange he founded declared bankruptcy amid accusations of fraud and financial mismanagement.

Why it matters: Bankman-Fried is the latest in a long line of Democratic megadonors to be accused of egregious criminal acts.

By the numbers:

  • $5,700,000 — The amount Bankman-Fried, aka “SBF” or “the next Warren Buffet,” donated to President Joe Biden’s campaign and other Democratic-aligned entities in 2020.
  • $40,000,000 — The amount SBF donated to political candidates and committees during the 2022 election cycle, the vast majority of which were aligned with the Democratic Party.
  • $15,600,000,000 — Bankman-Fried’s estimated net worth on Nov. 8, 2022.
  • $0 — His estimated net worth on Nov. 11, 2022…..

*****

Continue reading this article at The Washington Free Beacon.


630 1200 Andrew Stiles 2022-11-20 06:20:37Sam Bankman-Fried Is Not Alone: Some of History’s Greatest Monsters Were Democratic Megadonors

The Dangers of Woke Law thumbnail

The Dangers of Woke Law

/in , , , /by

By John O. McGinnis

Paul Clement, the best Supreme Court advocate of his generation, won an epochal Second Amendment victory for his clients this past summer. The august law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, where he was a partner, rewarded him by offering the choice of dropping his clients or leaving the firm. And he left. His representation of an individual’s right to bear arms had likely offended the sensibilities of many of his partners and associates because they did not like this kind of liberty.

This defenestration is the analogue in the law firm world to what is happening at many elite college campuses: a pall of orthodoxy has descended that brooks little or no dissent. And just as orthodoxy on campus undermines the epistemically open function that universities perform in liberal societies, so do actions like that of Kirkland & Ellis undermine the function lawyers must perform to support the liberal order.

The notion that ours is a “government not of men, but of laws” is central to the classically liberal theory of politics. A government of men controls by discretion but a government of laws controls by rules which are transparent to the public and allow citizens to plan. But laws are often not entirely clear, so men and women legitimately dispute over their content. Thus, a central purpose of the legal system is to clarify the content of these rules through adversarial presentations that result in authoritative decisions by neutral tribunals.

This function of law has implications for the responsibilities of lawyers. In representing clients, they provide a service to society as a whole by making arguments that result in the clarification and application of the rules that govern us. Thus, even if they are representing someone open to moral criticism, like an alleged criminal or tortfeasor, they help the world by clarifying the law.

It is not a fair criticism, therefore, to complain about lawyers’ representation so long as they make arguments within the bounds of the law. Indeed, they may even disagree with the actions they defend. John Adams, an undoubted American patriot, famously defended British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre. Nor should a lawyer abandon a client once representation is undertaken, as Kirkland tried to force Clement to do, because the client or the cause he espouses has become unpopular.

The Servant of the Damned by David Enrich is premised on a new illiberal order of law, where law firms should eschew bad corporations (“the damned”), even if these clients have plausible or even winning arguments on the merits. The book is a sustained attack on one law firm, Jones Day, but its broader message comports with what may be called “woke law.” Only those deemed virtuous enough or those with causes deemed virtuous by people like Enrich deserve excellent representation, except for alleged criminals, who must continue to have a constitutional right to counsel. And not surprisingly, the law firm attacked is one that has a critical mass of conservative lawyers (although, like almost all of its peers, most of its lawyers’ political contributions go to Democrats). Enrich’s normative thesis is linked to a more descriptive one: that law firms once operated with more virtue but now have become greedy mercenaries, ready to represent anyone with enough cash. Jones Day also exemplifies this transformation as it grew from a Cleveland firm to a global powerhouse.

Enrich is an indefatigable reporter of fact, and the one benefit of his book is that he provides enough facts to undermine both his normative and descriptive thesis if the proper context is added. For instance, while he condemns Jones Day for representing various modern corporations, like tobacco companies and polluters, he celebrates the older version of the firm for representing a steel company that in the 1950s defied President Truman’s order to seize its mills. What he leaves out is that this executive order was issued to end a labor dispute on terms favorable to labor unions and was necessary, according to Truman, to win the war in Korea. Under the standards that encourage lawyers to determine the virtue of their clients’ underlying cause, that representation could have easily been dismissed as advancing the interests of a greedy, unpatriotic company at the expense both of workers and the national war effort. With the hindsight of history, that perspective is wrong, because whatever one thought of the company and Truman’s policy, the Jones Day lawyers advanced a plausible separation of powers argument about the appropriately circumscribed role of the executive. The result of their efforts was the landmark decision in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, which held that the President can regulate our property only with authorization from Congress.

When in more recent times, lawyers at Jones Days represent tobacco companies pursuing claims that their advertising is protected as commercial speech, they are advancing our legal system no less than their predecessors. Their clients might be impugned, but their arguments help define the contours of an important First Amendment doctrine. Even when these lawyers show that the illness of a sympathetic plaintiff was caused not by smoking but by other poor health habits, lawyers are serving the legal system by forcing proof of causation—one of the key elements in a typical tort suit. Perhaps the Constitution should be amended or tort law revised, but in a government of laws, those rules must govern until changed according to the rules of the system.

Law firms became bigger because government became bigger, creating, ex ante, a need for more lawyers to comply with regulation and, ex post, a need for more lawyers to address the litigation generated by regulation.

Enrich does note that in two cases Jones Day lawyers were accused of ethical breaches which went beyond zealous representation of their clients. And here I have much sympathy with his concern as an abstract matter: both the judiciary and bar need to do a better job at enforcing ethical rules on attorneys, regardless of whom they represent. (For instance, the state auditor of California recently showed that the state bar failed to discipline even lawyers who repeatedly violated the rules of professional responsibility.) But Enrich overreaches in his certainty that the allegations against Jones Day lawyers show that it is a particularly bad firm. Indeed, there was never a final determination that any ethical breach occurred. In one case, the firm settled on terms that even Enrich recognizes were not unfavorable to Jones Day. Lawyers of all people recognize that settling litigation even when your side is right can be wise, because litigation is costly and uncertain. And in the other case, the appellate court reversed the sanction of the district court. Enrich says that the reversal was on a technicality, but the “technicality” went to the lower court’s failure to give the lawyer proper notice about the sanction. Again, Enrich has trouble recognizing that such enforcement of technicalities is one way that courts protect our liberties.

His descriptive thesis about why Jones Day and other firms have become businesses-like behemoths without as much regard for professional norms is not strong either. He credits Steven Brill’s claim that the publication of law firm revenues and profits in his magazine, The American Lawyer, was the reason that firms focused on the bottom line and began to poach the stars at other firms.

But legal journalism was the result rather than the cause of the forces making law firms bigger, more competitive, and thus of more public interest. They became bigger because government became bigger, creating, ex ante, a need for more lawyers to comply with regulation and, ex post, a need for more lawyers to address the litigation generated by regulation. While Enrich seems to deplore the fact the law firms started to add lobbying to their arsenal of weapons, he quotes John McCain as denouncing of one Jones Day’s clients: “Such companies must be judged guilty until proven innocent.” With legislators like that, is it any wonder law firms felt the need to expand into lobbying to advance their core role of protecting their clients’ liberty and property from governmental overreach?

Law also became more competitive. To be fair, Enrich does note that the Supreme Court permitted legal advertising, but he does not make enough of the importance of that decision in leading to competition: a firm poaches famous lawyers in part because they advertise the power of the firm. And even more important than advertising has been the rise of powerful general counsel at corporations—again driven by the increased importance of regulation—who monitor and pit law firms against one another for the best delivery of legal services. Thus, as lawyers have become more important actors in a highly regulated society, the best naturally command ever higher compensation and competitive demand for their talents, and law firms need ever larger armies of foot soldiers to support them. There is no need to resort to explanations rooted in greed or innovative legal publications.

The objectivity in Enrich’s book is also marred by his patently left-wing politics. The damned are always corporations rather than regulators, even if regulators can themselves decrease economic growth and competition, harming millions of people. Moreover, one of the bases of his indictment of Jones Day is that more of their attorneys went to work for Donald Trump than from any other law firm. Enrich clearly dislikes Trump and his policies, but he never shows that the Jones Day lawyers acted unethically in their work for him as President. Some became judges as a result, but rewarding good lawyers in this way is something that happens in every administration. Some Jones Day lawyers became disgruntled with the firm’s representation of Trump, but given the intense feelings Trump elicited, that is not a surprise either.

Enrich’s disdain for the conservative side of the political spectrum manifests itself in some obvious mistakes. He says, for instance, that as a law professor, Antonin Scalia “helped establish the Federalist Society to put conservatives on the federal bench.” The Federalist Society was actually established by a handful of students in the early 1980s to inject some greater debate at monolithically left-wing law schools. The idea that a student organization even with the help of a law professor could influence the selection of federal judges would have been regarded as risible at the time. As the Federalist Society grew in the following decades to become a network of lawyers as well students, some of those lawyers themselves became influential in judicial selection, although the Society took no position on judges or on any other legal issue, unlike other legal organizations such as the ABA.

There is a widespread debate about whether we have hit “peak wokeism.” Whatever the answer in the wider world, Kirkland’s parting with Clement and the publication of Enrich’s book both suggest that the answer in the legal profession is no. And when lawyers are canceled for representing clients with plausible legal arguments, the results are worse than campus wokeism, because legal representation protects the rule of law and thus the liberty of us all.

*****

This article was published by Law & Liberty and is reproduced with permission.

Karrin Taylor Robson Calls on Ward to Resign as AZGOP Chair After High-Profile Losses thumbnail

Karrin Taylor Robson Calls on Ward to Resign as AZGOP Chair After High-Profile Losses

/in , , /by

By Tom Joyce

(The Center Square) – A former Republican gubernatorial candidate has a request for the chair of the Arizona Republican Party: resign.

Former Arizona Board of Regents member Karrin Taylor Robson, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican Party’s nomination for governor this year, wants to see Ward resign.

Ward took the unusual step for a party leader to back a candidate –throwing her support behind Kari Lake – in the August primary.

Robson issued a statement on Tuesday morning saying she thinks the state party needs new leadership.

“When it comes to the state of our Arizona Republican Party, the facts are clear. I have seen enough,” Robson wrote. “Kelli Ward’s leadership of the Republican Party has been an unmitigated disaster. When she took office via a parliamentary trick at the 2019 statutory meeting, the state party coffers were flush. The previous Chairman had left over $400,000 in the bank, more than enough to cover operations and continue the important work of party building and voter registration.”

Robson is more than just a state politician and candidate for governor. She and her husband, real estate mogul Ed Robson, have been benefactors to conservative Republicans and causes in Arizona for years. She was granted the title “Honorary Commander” with Luke Air Force Base for her work in securing funding for the base and the Proving Grounds in Mesa.

“Ward had every opportunity to succeed,” Robson added. “And yet, she failed. And failed. And failed again.”

Robson noted that Arizona has swung to the left in recent years, supporting more Democratic candidates. For example, she notes that Arizona played a key role in President Donald Trump winning the White House in 2016.

However, as Robson notes, Joe Biden won the state in the 2020 presidential election, it now has two Democratic U.S. Senators, and just elected a Democratic governor in Katie Hobbs.

“While we celebrate the victories of strong conservative leaders like Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, Congressman-elect Juan Ciscomani and Representative-elect Matt Gress, there is no denying the simple fact that our party is rudderless and leaderless,” Robson wrote.

“Kelli Ward is passionate about her views, and claims to be a conservative,” Robson later added. “But she is not a leader. She is not a winner. And the party cannot afford two more years with her as Chairman. For the good of the party she claims to love, and for the future of the state that we all cherish, Kelli Ward must do the right thing.”

A press spokesperson for Ward could not be immediately reached for comment on Tuesday afternoon.

*****

This article was published by The Center Square – Arizona and is reproduced with permission.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

Real Wages Fell for the Nineteenth Month in a Row in October as Inflation Remained Entrenched thumbnail

Real Wages Fell for the Nineteenth Month in a Row in October as Inflation Remained Entrenched

/in , , /by

By Ryan McMaken

The federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics released new price inflation data today, and according to the report, price inflation during the month decelerated slightly, but remained near 40-year highs. According to the BLS, Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation rose 7.7 percent year over year during October, before seasonal adjustment. That’s the twentieth month in a row of inflation above the Fed’s arbitrary 2 percent inflation target, and it’s eleven months in a row of price inflation above 7 percent.

Month-over-month inflation rose as well, with the CPI rising 0.4 percent from September to October. October’s month-over-month growth also shows some acceleration in monthly price inflation growth. Month-to-month growth had been approximately zero in July and August.

October’s growth rate is down from June’s high of 9.1 percent, which was the highest price inflation rate since 1981. But October’s growth rate still keeps price inflation well above growth rates seen in any month during the 1990s, 2000s, or 2010s. October’s increase was the eighth-largest increase in forty years.

The ongoing price increases largely reflect price growth in food, energy, transportation, and especially shelter. In other words, the prices of essentials all saw big increases in October over the previous year.

For example, “food at home”—i.e., grocery bills—was up 12.4 percent in October over the previous year. Gasoline continued to be up, rising 17.5 percent year over year, while new vehicles were up 8.4 percent. Shelter registered one of the more mild increases, with a rise of 6.9 percent, according to the BLS.

The rise in shelter, however, was an increase in October over September when shelter prices rose “only” 6.6 percent, year over year. In October this year, shelter prices were up 6.9 percent year over year, and 0.7 percent, month over month. This was the largest month-over-month increase since March of 2006 and was the largest year-over-year increase since July of 1982. The CPI is finally starting to reflect the enormous surges in costs that many renters have been experiencing in recent years.

Meanwhile, so-called “core inflation”—CPI growth minus food and energy—has hardly shown any moderation at all. In October, year-over-year growth in core inflation was 6.2 percent. That’s down slightly from September’s growth rate of 6.6 percent, which was the highest growth rate recorded since August 1982. October’s year-over-year increase was the fifth largest recorded in 40 years.

The White House used this slight moderation in price inflation growth to crow about how the administration has somehow reduced inflation. According to the White House press release: “Today’s report shows that we are making progress on bringing inflation down, without giving up all of the progress we have made on economic growth and job creation,” he said. “My economic plan is showing results, and the American people can see that we are facing global economic challenges from a position of strength.”

In spite of the fact that month-over-month inflation actually increased, the administration once again selectively annualized the monthly inflation numbers in order to claim that the inflation rate is “2 percent” in spite of year-over-year growth that surpasses the Federal Reserve’s target rate by more than 5 percentage points.

Rather, it is a bit early, to say the least, to announce a victory over CPI inflation. Throughout 1975 and 1976, CPI growth decelerated rapidly, falling from 12 percent in December 1974 to 4 percent in December 1976. Yet, by early 1980, CPI inflation had risen to over 14 percent. At the time, Federal Reserve (Fed) chairman Arthur Burns had used the mid-decade decline in price inflation as an excuse to embrace more easy money. The Fed pushed down the target policy interest rate, and within 5 years, inflation had surged even higher.

Unfortunately, both the White House and Wall Street are both hoping for a replay of the Arthur Burns protocol of the mid-70s. Any small reprieve in inflation rates will be put forward as an excuse to once again have the Fed push down interest rates, and perhaps even ramp up quantitative easing. This will be pushed with the argument that the US is headed toward recession, and the country needs low interest rates and east money to ensure a “soft landing.” If inflation continues to ease even slightly, we can even expect mounting international pressure against the “strong dollar” which has been surging ahead of other currencies thanks to the unwillingness among other central banks to abandon their own easy-money policies.

In other words, now is a time of mounting danger that the central bank will return to the same failed policies of the last 25 years in which it turns to ever larger monetary stimulus in order to prevent recession-fueled deflation. The markets are even now banking that the Fed will take a more dovish turn now that CPI inflation has slightly fallen. For example, mortgage rates fell sharply on Thursday in the wake of the new inflation numbers’ release.

Yet, Americans continue to get poorer as price inflation continues to outpace growth in wages. In October, average hourly earnings grew by 4.86 percent. Given that price inflation surged by 7.7 percent, that real wage growth of about -2.9 percent. That’s the nineteenth month in a row during which real wages fell.

Meanwhile, the jobs data shows few signs of improving. In October, the number of employed persons in the US fell by 328,000, and remains below the February 2020 peak. Moreover, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, disposable income is lower now than it was before the covid panic, coming in at $15,130. That sum was $15,232 during February of 2020. Meanwhile, the personal savings rate in September fell to 3.1 percent. That’s the second-lowest level since 2007. Credit card debt, in contrast, reached new highs in September and is now well above its previous 2020 peak. More recent news is hardly better. Meta (Facebook) announced it is laying off 11,000 workers this week, adding to continuing job woes for the tech sector. Home construction and home sales activity is set to show big declines, which will lead to layoffs in real-estate related industries.

Price inflation is indeed likely slowing, but it is slowing as a result of a struggling economy. The White House may soon find it is celebrating much too soon.

*****

This article was published by Mises Institute and is reproduced with permission.

PARENT TO SCHOOL BOARD: “Am I a Cat?” thumbnail

PARENT TO SCHOOL BOARD: “Am I a Cat?”

/in , , /by

By Editorial Staff

Editors’ Note: We urge all readers of The Prickly Pear to watch this short video presentation by a very astute and wise mother speaking truth to power at a school board meeting. It is tragic that this reality check  from a parent to a ‘woke’ school board actively destroying the reality and critical thinking of America’s children needs to occur but it is critical that it does. Parents must have a ‘life or death’ fighting mindset for the proper education (not indoctrination) of our children and the restoration of our nation. The ‘wokeness’ brought by teachers, their unions, and the ‘diversity’ idiocy of too many school board members must be stopped now.

A parent dressed in a cat costume at a school board meeting and “identified as a cat”. Her speech was clear, concise, and powerful. It also revealed the absurd notion that a grown man with mental health issues and enjoys dressing up in high heels and lip stick, has any business teaching our children in the classroom.

Woman demonstrates on how to handle a school board pic.twitter.com/w3xGGsVopg

— • ᗰISᕼKᗩ™ • (@kingojungle) November 16, 2022

Maricopa Election Officials Launched PAC in 2021 to Stop MAGA Candidates thumbnail

Maricopa Election Officials Launched PAC in 2021 to Stop MAGA Candidates

/in , , /by

By Ari Hoffman

It has been revealed that embattled Arizona’s Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer and Supervisor Chairman Bill Gates in 2021 started a political action committee to stop MAGA candidates.

On November 17, 2021, Meg Cunningham from the Kansas City Beacon tweeted that Richer, “the Maricopa County recorder, is launching a PAC to support Rs running for non-federal AZ offices who ‘acknowledge the validity of the 2020 election and condemn the events of Jan. 6, 2021, as a terrible result of the lies told about the November election”.

Richer retweeted her saying, “Thanks to a few generous donors this is now launching. Join me if you care about traditional Republican ‘stuff’ (free people, free markets, rule of law), but also don’t believe in conspiracies about the 2020 election or that Jan 6 was a tourist event.”

The PAC called Pro Democracy Republicans of Arizona claims on their website that they are “fighting to keep our democratic institutions alive.”

The website is sparse on details aside from how to donate but does have a few sentences on their mission. “The Arizona election wasn’t stolen. We Republicans simply had a presidential candidate who lost, while we had many other candidates who won. It’s time we Republicans accept and acknowledge that fact.”

“Candidates come and go. But our democratic institutions are long-lasting, and peaceful transitions of power are a hallmark of the United States.  We should not abandon this history in favor of conspiracy theorists and demagoguery.”

“To that end, we are launching this PAC to support pro-democracy Arizona Republicans.”…..

*****

Continue reading this article at PM.

Photo credit: Matthew Casey/KJZZ

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.