Pro-Life Activist Who Filmed Planned Parenthood Responds to ‘Bogus’ Charges

The pro-life activists who created undercover videos that triggered multiple state and congressional investigations into Planned Parenthood’s abortion practices are facing more than a dozen new felony charges in California.

The charges, brought by the state’s attorney general, allege Center for Medical Progress founder David Daleiden and his partner, Sandra Merritt, unlawfully recorded people without their consent, and conspired to invade their privacy. In total, Daleiden and Merritt face 15 felony charges.

Daleiden dismissed the charges as “bogus” and politically motivated.

“The bogus charges from Planned Parenthood’s political cronies are fake news,” he said in a statement. “The public knows the real criminals are Planned Parenthood and their business partners like StemExpress and DV Biologics—currently being prosecuted in California—who have harvested and sold aborted baby body parts for profit for years in direct violation of state and federal law.”

The charges date back to videos the pro-life activist group Center for Medical Progress secretly recorded and published in 2015. Those videos raised questions about whether Planned Parenthood profits off the sale of tissue and body parts from aborted babies, which is illegal under federal law.

Planned Parenthood has consistently denied these allegations, and issued a statement applauding the new charges brought against Daleiden and Merritt.

The Daily Signal also reached out to middlemen tissue procurement companies StemExpress and DV Biologics, but they did not immediately respond.

Casey Mattox, a senior counsel at the pro-life Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal that even in two-party consent states like California, “It’s well understood as a matter of First Amendment law that people have a right to be able to record their own conversations.” He added:

These were publicly recorded conversations, they were recorded in restaurants and other places where Planned Parenthood officials should not have expected they had any privacy at all. I find it fascinating that the state of California is apparently very concerned about the privacy of Planned Parenthood officials, and much less concerned about getting to the truth of Planned Parenthood actually engaging in violations of the law by selling baby body parts.

Planned Parenthood was cleared by several states that investigated the matter, but a yearlong congressional probe launched by Republicans resulted in a handful of criminal and regulatory referrals to the Department of Justice.

Daleiden and Merritt already faced charges in Texas, where a Houston-based grand jury indicted them for using fake IDs during their undercover investigation. Daleiden was also indicted for “intentionally and knowingly” offering to buy human organs.

In July 2016, a Texas district attorney dismissed the criminal charges brought against Daleiden and Merritt.

The new charges in California come as Congress gets closer to defunding Planned Parenthood. The failed Republican health care plan, which had the backing of Republican leadership and the White House but was opposed by many conservatives and centrists, would have defunded Planned Parenthood for one year.

Now, Republicans are eyeing a budget tool called reconciliation to strip the nation’s largest abortion provider of its taxpayer dollars.

“We think reconciliation is the tool, because that gets it in law,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a press conference on Tuesday. “Reconciliation is the way to go.”

Already, taxpayer dollars are banned from being used to fund abortions under the Hyde Amendment. However, conservatives maintain the more than $500 million Planned Parenthood receives is fungible, and winds up subsidizing thousands of abortions each year.

In light of the new allegations, the Center for Medical Progress released a brand new video on Wednesday. In that video, a former Planned Parenthood medical director in Arizona allegedly says abortion doctors “need to pay attention to who’s in the room” to deal with an infant born alive.

In his statement, Daleiden suggested that more videos are likely to come.

“We look forward to showing the entire world what is on our yet-unreleased videotapes of Planned Parenthood’s criminal baby body parts enterprise, in vindication of the First Amendment rights of all,” he said.

The Daily Signal contacted Planned Parenthood for comment. The organization has not responded.

Freedom Caucus Not Phased by Trump’s Tweet Threat

After Republicans pulled a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare last week, conservative members of the House Freedom Caucus are shrugging off criticism leveled at them by Republican colleagues—including from President Donald Trump himself.

In a Thursday morning tweet, Trump said the Freedom Caucus “will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don’t get on the team,” and vowed to “fight” conservative members in 2018 midterm elections.

“When people say the Freedom Caucus is jeopardizing the president’s agenda, guess what jeopardizes the president’s agenda?” said Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., a freshman Freedom Caucus member. “Losing the House and Senate jeopardizes the president’s agenda. You have to keep your promises and our promises are to repeal Obamacare.”

“The Freedom Caucus is trying to keep our promises,” Biggs said in an interview with The Daily Signal. “I don’t think going to Democrats, especially when they are trying to impeach the president, seems rational or realistic.”

About half of the more than 30 members of the Freedom Caucus joined at least 17 centrist Republicans in refusing to back the GOP leadership’s health care bill.

Centrists worried the bill imperiled too much of Obamacare, and conservatives said it did not go far enough.

Despite the bill’s failure, and signals that the White House wants to move on to other issues, Freedom Caucus members insist they want to work with Trump to craft a bill Republicans can unite around.

“The Freedom Caucus’ job is simple: to do what we promised the American people we’d do,” Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told The Daily Signal in a statement. “Our group has worked tirelessly to try to improve the [American Health Care Act] to ensure it will actually bring down costs for everyday Americans. We believe this is our job and our duty and not something we can let fall by the wayside and move on to the next policy battle. We’re open to working with any and everyone that is willing to work toward a solution.”

Freedom Caucus members say it would be a mistake for Trump to rely on Democrats and centrist Republicans to advance other parts of his agenda, including tax reform, and passing a short-term spending bill before April 28.

“There are competing factions in the White House and whoever got Trump’s ear on this one is just not serving him well,” said Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., a Freedom Caucus member, in an interview with The Daily Signal. “The Democrats aren’t letting any of Trump’s appointments through, and there is no evidence the Democrats will show any taste for repealing Obamacare in any way, shape, or form.”

“The Freedom Caucus is basically the base of the Trump vote,” Brat added. “So whoever is advising him to go back to the old formula that has failed for year after year, that’s just terrible counsel.”

Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, a founding Freedom Caucus member, seconded that view, warning Trump via Twitter to “remember who your real friends are.”

Biggs insists he still believes Trump shares his conservative principles, and he is hopeful the president decides to follow them.

“The Freedom Caucus more than any group of Republicans in Congress are the ones who supported Trump to be president,” Biggs said. “Some in our group really went out on a limb and took it on the chin and supported Trump because he said he stood for the principle of repealing Obamacare, he stood for building a wall, he talked about a balanced budget, reforming taxes, everything we stand for.”

“Each person has their own level of capacity to accept or reject stress,” Biggs added. “I didn’t run for re-election in 2018. I ran for election in 2016 because I believed certain things, I made the case I would do things, and I have been out here busting my tail trying to do those things. If I can do those things, re-election will take care of itself.”

Nearly all of the Freedom Caucus members won their districts last fall by greater margins than Trump did.

Some Freedom Caucus lawmakers, however, believe the group demanded too much in the Obamacare debate, and is limiting its relevance moving forward unless it becomes more accommodating.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, left the caucus over the weekend, and Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., in an interview with Politico, wondered if caucus members overplayed their hand.

“If we see the thing fail completely—nothing but shards around us—then we probably saw the Freedom Caucus overplay their hand … and I say that as a grateful member of the Freedom Caucus,” Franks told Politico.

More cautious members fear that Trump wields a powerful megaphone, and his base of supporters are mostly the Freedom Caucus’ own constituents, meaning conservative lawmakers could be blamed if Republicans fail to repeal and replace Obamacare.

They acknowledge the sensitivity of negotiations, because moving the legislation too far to the right could discourage centrist Republicans, especially those in the Senate who represent states that expanded Medicaid.

Trump again targeted the Freedom Caucus in a Thursday night tweet, this time singling out the group’s leaders.

Yet other Freedom Caucus members embrace the targets on their backs, a hunted position they are used to occupying.

“Trump’s tweets reaffirm that the Freedom Caucus is having a major impact on public policy in Congress — that the Freedom Caucus is not a force to be ignored,” said Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., in an interview with The Daily Signal. “This Twitterverse is the new Washington. I have zero worries about it. If you want me to vote for a piece of legislation, either persuade me it is good for America or change it so that it is good for America.”

Despite apparent cracks in the relationship, Brat maintains that Trump and the Freedom Caucus should form a natural alliance.

“The two themes Trump ran on is the forgotten man and draining the swamp,” Brat said. “The Freedom Caucus is all of that and that’s what we are moving forward on.”

Freedom Caucus Is an Ally, Not an Enemy in Draining the Swamp

President Donald Trump’s tweet that it’s the House Freedom Caucus that “we must fight” shows there may be a little confusion about what “draining the swamp” means or, at the very least, what it looks like.

I thought draining the swamp meant changing the culture not just in Washington, but of Washington. I thought it meant putting an end to business as usual, making deals behind closed doors, and the mentality that Washington knows best.

I thought it meant politicians would start doing what they promised voters they would do.

I truly thought that lawmakers fresh from the 2016 election, in particular Republicans, would do their due diligence in draining the swamp by getting rid of the government regulations and mandates forced on individuals and businesses in an effort to run more and more of our lives.

But, perhaps I was wrong.

Because if that is what draining the swamp looks like, then the House Freedom Caucus should be considered a loyal and reliable ally in that battle, not the enemy. It is a part of the solution, not the problem.

Republicans in Congress and running for Congress promised for seven years to repeal Obamacare. Candidate Trump changed the mantra to “repeal and replace.”

Fine. But if you promise to do both, then you have to do both.

The best strategy to do both would have been to repeal Obamacare first, as Republicans had agreed on before, and then debate in an open process the new reforms (the replace parts) that would improve our health care system from where it was even before Obamacare became the law of the land.

There was precedent for doing it this way. In early 2016, then-President Barack Obama vetoed a bill that repealed Obamacare—a bill overwhelmingly supported by the Republican-led House and Senate.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the former Freedom Caucus chairman, reintroduced this bill and encouraged GOP leaders to use it instead.

Meanwhile, weeks before GOP leaders unveiled their flawed American Health Care Act, the Freedom Caucus officially threw its support behind conservative health care reform legislation introduced by Paul and Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C.

From that moment in mid-February, it was clear where House conservatives stood on the matter of replacing Obamacare.

But congressional GOP leadership, perhaps at the urging of the White House, decided they wanted to do it differently.

OK, fine. But the way they went about doing it was to pull out the old Washington playbook.

Draft the bill behind closed doors first. Then hold hearings on a compressed (and, frankly, artificial) timeline so that lawmakers are allowed little opportunity to read and understand the bill, offer amendments or debate, discuss and work out compromises among their colleagues.

And lawmakers certainly won’t have time to have a conversation with their constituents about how the bill will affect them and get their feedback.

When all was said and done, the bill was more replace than repeal.

Yes, it capped federal Medicaid spending. Good. However, though Obamacare had expanded it, Medicaid was not a new program. So, that was more “reform” than “repeal.”

But new federal regulations, such as the essential benefits and preventative care mandates, which made up the architecture and web of Obamacare and were the primary drivers of higher premiums, were left in place.

At the end of the day, the legislation did not repeal the parts of Obamacare that had expanded the role of government in its takeover of the private health care market.

Here’s what you’re not hearing from GOP leadership or the White House: Freedom Caucus members wanted to get to “yes”—even more than their centrist Republican colleagues. Conservatives were even willing to swallow some of the bad policy in the American Health Care Act.

But neither GOP leadership nor the White House would budge on the disastrous Obamacare regulations that are driving up your premiums.

And that is Washington as usual. It’s OK to tinker with the financing of government programs as long as the government remains in control of said programs—in this case, in control of what makes up private insurance plans.

And that is why those who support draining the swamp should be thankful the House Freedom Caucus played a role in stopping what Republican Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie labeled #SwampCare.

Even now, as Freedom Caucus members try to collaborate with centrist Republicans, they’re getting unfairly blamed by Speaker Paul Ryan and Trump. In fact, one of Trump’s closest House allies, Rep. Chris Collins of New York, had this advice about working with the Freedom Caucus: “If that call comes in just hang up.”

GOP centrists seem to be following that advice. After a productive meeting between six centrists and six conservatives earlier this week, the centrists abruptly canceled a follow-up discussion.

We also know that at least 17 centrist Republicans were on the record in opposition of the bill. Had the bill come to a vote, that number could’ve doubled given the unpopularity of the legislation and lingering concerns among centrists.

So why is GOP leadership blaming the Freedom Caucus?

After all, conservatives were doing what they promised voters: repeal Obamacare. Presented with a flawed bill, they tried to make it better—even if it meant major compromises.

Their reward? Facing the scorn of a Trump tweet.

One thing is clear: There are too many Republicans who would prefer to keep Obamacare rather than repeal it, and those claiming they want to “drain the swamp” need to figure out, and figure out fast, what that means.

Let’s applaud the Freedom Caucus, and certainly not fight it.

Commentary by The Daily Signal's Genevieve Wood. Originally published at The Daily Signal.

Border wall will literally dry up hundreds of thousands of American jobs

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke just acknowledged the elephant in the room.

 

“The Rio Grande, what side of the river are you going to put the wall?” he said, speaking at the Public Land Council’s Legislative Conference. “We’re not going to put it on our side and cede the river to Mexico. And we’re probably not going to put it in the middle of the river.” And therein lies one of the many problems with a fortified border wall, which seems to create more problems than it solves.

 

Access to the Rio Grande is a major issue for Texas agriculture. Ag in the Rio Grande Valley alone is an $1.6 billion industry. A massive wall cutting off access would annihilate hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Not only are thousands of Americans directly employed in Rio Grande Valley farming, hundreds of thousands of Americans are directly employed in businesses that serve those farmers. Banking, trucking, oil and gas, and service industries are all directly tied to Rio Grande Valley farming, which is directly tied to access to the river's water. When the water is cut off, hundreds of thousands of American jobs die.

 

You could pump water through the wall, but who will maintain the pumps? The fact it's a fortified wall prevents most everyone from accessing the other side of the pump. Do you really want to $1.6 billion worth of American jobs to depend on the speed of a government work order?

 

There's also the fact a massive wall would invalidate the complicated legal agreement currently governing Mexican and American use of Rio Grande water, which is what Zinke refers to when he mentions ceding the river to Mexico. A fence is not a property line, but it is fixed, while the Rio Grande shifts.

 

When it comes to international agreements over sharing the water from a constantly-shifting river, the construction of a wall could be construed by some courts as the most reliable indicator of a national border. Even with a buffer zone, a fence could cede parts of the river that shift south, which otherwise would have remained American territory.

9 Reasons Libertarians Should Love Switzerland

1. Switzerland has the fourth-freest economy in the entire world and is only surpassed by Hong Kong, Singapore, and New Zealand.
2. Considering that Switzerland has one of the most free-market economies on the planet, it’s no wonder the country has the ninth-highest per capita income in the world. Indeed, research suggests that the freer a market economy is, the faster it grows.
3. The Swiss have the third-highest median household income in the world, which means the median Swiss household is slightly richer than the median American household.
4. Switzerland has the fourth-lowest level of government spending as a share of the economy among the 34 OECD countries. (OECD refers to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a group of developed countries.)
5. The Swiss have genuine federalism and decentralized government. Their central government is responsible for around 15 percent of total government spending, which is lower than that of any other OECD country.
6. The Swiss have a long history of armed neutrality and haven’t been involved in war since 1815. Switzerland is like a porcupine: it won’t bother you, but it would be a huge mistake to mess with it.
7. Switzerland has the fourth-highest gun ownership rate in the world. It also has the 11th-lowest homicide rate in the world (out of 195 countries).
8. Marijuana is decriminalized.
9. Switzerland is the third-happiest country in the world.

The Swiss are rich, happy, gun-owning, peace-loving people. The country has one of the freest market economies in the world and a relatively small and very decentralized government that hasn’t waged war since the early 19th century. Switzerland just might be one of the most libertarian countries in the world.

An earlier version of this article appeared on Liberty.me.

You can find an Italian translation of this article here.

Corey Iacono

Corey Iacono is a student at the University of Rhode Island majoring in pharmaceutical science and minoring in economics. He is a FEE 2016 Thorpe Fellow.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Meals on Wheels: Anatomy of a Fake Budget Cut

The annual budget for our bloated and sclerotic federal government consumes about $4 trillion of America’s economic output, yet President Trump so far has not proposed to reduce that overall spending burden by even one penny.

A few programs are targeted for cuts, to be sure, but I explained last week, that “taxpayers won’t reap the benefits since those savings will be spent elsewhere, mostly for a bigger Pentagon budget.” More worrisome, I also pointed out that his budget proposal is “silent on the very important issues of tax reform and entitlement reform.”

All things considered, you would think that statists, special interest groups, and other denizens of the D.C. swamp would be happy with Trump’s timid budget.

Not exactly. There’s so much wailing and screaming about “savage” and “draconian” budget cuts, you would think the ghost of Ronald Reagan is haunting Washington.

Much of this whining is kabuki theater and political posturing as various beneficiaries (including the bureaucrats, lobbyists, contractors, and other insiders) make lots of noise as part of their never-ending campaigns to get ever-larger slices of the budget pie.

And nothing demonstrates the vapidity of this process more than the imbroglio over the Meals on Wheels program. Based on news reports, the immediate assumption is that Trump’s budget is going to starve needy seniors by ending delivery of meals.

Here’s how CNN characterized the proposal.

The preliminary outline for President Donald Trump’s 2018 budget could slash some funding for a program that provides meals for older, impoverished Americans.

“Slash”? That sounds ominous. Sounds like a cut of 40 percent, 50 percent, or 60 percent!

And a flack for Meals on Wheels added her two cents, painting a picture of doom and despair for hungry seniors.

…spokeswoman Jenny Bertolette said, “It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which they will not be significantly and negatively impacted if the President’s budget were enacted.”

Oh no, “significantly and negatively impacted” sounds brutal. How many tens of thousands of seniors will starve?

Only near the bottom of the story do we learn that this is all nonsense. All that Trump proposed, as part of his plan to shift some spending from the domestic budget to the defense budget, is to shut down a pork-riddled and scandal-plagued program at the Department of Housing Development. However, because a tiny fraction of community development block grants get used for Meals on Wheels, interest groups and leftist journalists decided to concoct a story about hungry old people.

In reality, the national office (appropriately) gets almost all its money from private donations and almost all the subsidies to the local branches are from a separate program.

About 3% of the budget for Meals on Wheels’ national office comes from government grants (84% comes from individual contributions and grants from corporations and foundations)… The Older Americans Act, as a function of the US Department of Health and Human Services, …covers 35% of the costs for the visits, safety checks and meals that the local agencies dole out to 2.4 million senior citizens, Bertolette said.

In other words, CNN engaged in what is now known as fake news, publishing a story designed to advance an agenda rather than to inform readers.

My colleague Walter Olson wrote a very apt summary for National Review.

The story that Trump’s budget would kill the Meals on Wheels program was too good to check. But it was false. …it wouldn’t have taken long for reporters to find and provide some needed context to the relationship between federal block grant programs, specifically Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), and the popular Meals on Wheels program. …From Thursday’s conversation in the press, it was easy to assume that block grant programs — CDBG and similar block grants for community services and social services — are the main source of federal funding for Meals on Wheels. Not so.

And if you want some accurate journalism, the editorial page of Investor’s Business Daily has a superb explanation.

What Trump’s budget does propose is cutting is the corruption-prone Community Development Block Grant program, run out of Housing and Urban Development. Some, but not all, state and local governments use a tiny portion of that grant money, at their own discretion, to “augment funding for Meals on Wheels,” according to the statement. …So what’s really going on? As Meals on Wheels America explained, some Community Development Block Grant money does end up going to some of the local Meals on Wheels programs. But it’s a small amount. HUD’s own website shows that just 1% of CDBG grant money goes to the broad category of “senior services.” And 0.17% goes to “food banks.” …All of this information was easily available to anyone reporting on this story, or anyone commenting on it, which would have prevented the false claims about the Meals on Wheels program from spreading in the first place. But why bother reporting facts when you can make up a story…?

The IBD editorial then shifted to what should be the real lesson from this make-believe controversy

…this fake budget-cutting story ended up revealing how programs like Meals on Wheels can survive without federal help. As soon as the story started to spread, donations began pouring into Meals on Wheels. In two days, the charity got more than $100,000 in donations — 50 times more than they’d normally receive. Clearly, individuals are ready, willing and eager to support this program once they perceive a need. Isn’t this how charity is supposed to work, with people donating their own time, money and resources to causes they feel are important, rather than sitting back and expecting the federal government to do it for them?

At the risk of being flippant, Libertarian Jesus would approve that message.

But to be more serious, IBD raises an important point that deserves some attention. Some Republicans think the appropriate response to CNN‘s demagoguery is to point out that Meals on Wheels gets the overwhelming share of its federal subsidies from the Older Americans Act rather than CDBG.

In reality, the correct lesson is that the federal government shouldn’t be subsidizing Meals on Wheels. Or any redistribution program that purports to help people on the state and local level.

There’s a constitutional argument against federal involvement. There’s a fiscal argument against federal involvement. There’s a diversity argument against federal involvement. And there’s a demographic argument against federal involvement.

But there’s also a common-sense argument against federal involvement. And that gives me an excuse to introduce my Third Theorem of Government. Simply stated, it’s a recipe for waste to launder money through Washington.



P.S. For those interested, here is the First Theorem of Government and here is the Second Theorem of Government.

P.P.S. I started today’s column by noting that Trump hasn’t proposed “even one penny” of lower spending. That’s disappointing, of course, but the news is not all bad. The President has  endorsed the Obamacare reform legislation in the House of Representatives, and while that legislation does not solve the real problem in our nation’s health sector, at least it does lower the burden of taxes and spending.

Republished from International Liberty.

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

3 Common Immigration Myths Debunked

In this past election, Trump’s supporters embraced his calls for increasing immigration restrictions in a country that already has restrictive immigration policies. Now that he is in office, President Trump is planning to “publicize crimes by undocumented immigrants; strip such immigrants of privacy protections; enlist local police officers as enforcers; erect new detention facilities; discourage asylum seekers; and, ultimately, speed up deportations.”

The fear of immigration is commonly based on three basic assumptions: “immigrants are not assimilating into our culture,” “illegal immigrants are hurting our economy and stealing our jobs,” and “illegal immigrants are criminals and terrorists.” All of these assumptions are myths.

Myth #1: Immigrants are not assimilating to our culture

Those who support restrictive immigration policy believe that current immigrants are changing our values and our politics, and are not assimilating like the previous generations of immigrants.

Assimilation is a process that takes time, but the claim that current generations of immigrants are not assimilating like they did in the past is false. Recent research from the National Academies of Sciences shows that current immigrants are assimilating as well as or better than previous generations.

Some Americans are concerned that immigrants are more inclined to support leftist views. However, like Americans, a plurality of immigrants identify as independent. Although immigrants tend to lean Democrat when they must choose between the two parties, this is primarily due to the Republican Party’s anti-immigration stance.

When it comes to specific policy issues, immigrants, like Americans, tend to align with the moderate position like the rest of America. For example, immigrants do not disproportionately support a larger welfare state, as Republicans claim. A Cato Institute study shows that 1st generation non-citizens and naturalized immigrants hold similar moderate policy positions as native citizens.

Myth #2: Illegal Immigrants Hurt our Economy and Steal our Jobs

The economic benefits of immigration, both legal and illegal, are vast. Immigrants fill shortages in the job market and pay taxes.

Some immigration opponents claim that they are a drain on government programs. However, research shows that immigrants contribute more in taxes than they receive in government benefits. Although the variables are too ambiguous to have a definite answer on whether they have a positive or negative impact on government spending, the positive economic benefits are unambiguous.

Since 2012, Mexican workers have been leaving the U.S. at a higher rate than they are arriving. This drop in Mexican immigration has had a negative effect on our economy. The National Association of Homebuilders estimated that the number of unfilled construction jobs in the U.S. almost doubled between 2014 and 2016.

The lack of available talent to fill these jobs has led to increased construction costs and depressed home building. Allowing only 5,000 working visas for foreign immigrants seeking lower-skilled jobs year-round makes it difficult to find legal workers.

Five years ago, 53 percent of skilled-trade workers were more than 45 years old, and nearly 20 percent were aged 55-64. The skilled-trade workforce continues to increase. Trump's plan for stronger immigration restrictions and deportations will only exacerbate labor shortage problems in the skilled trades.

Myth #3: Immigrants are Criminals and Terrorist

Research shows immigrants and illegal immigrants are less likely to be criminals than the native-born. Immigration surged in the 1990s as the crime rate plummeted. In fact, higher immigration can correlate with lower crime rates, because an influx of low-crime immigrants added to the population creates a lesser chance to encounter a criminal.

The dramatic decrease in crime in Buffalo is a good example. In the run-down areas of west side Buffalo where Bangladeshi immigrants arrived, crime fell by 70%. Denise Beehag of the International Institute of Buffalo told NPR that immigrants, “were pretty much the only group that was moving into the west side of Buffalo.”

Also, immigration is not affecting the likelihood of being attacked by terrorist. Your chance of being murdered by anyone is 1 in 14,000. A Cato study found that over the last 41 years, your chances of being killed by a foreigner in a terrorist attack are 1 in 3.6 million per year. The chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is much less likely, 1 in 10.9 billion.

You are more likely to win the lottery (1 in 258.9 million) or die in a plane crash (1 in 11 million) than be murdered in a terrorist attack by an illegal immigrant.

Anti-immigration policies are based on myths about immigrants and their contributions to our country. We cannot claim to be the land of the free by closing our borders to those seeking to improve their lives by economically serving ours.

Brenden Weber

Brenden Weber is a recent graduate of the University of Iowa, with a degree in political science and a minor in philosophy. He has worked for various non-profit organization and is the founder and editor of Libertarian Reports. Follow him on Twitter @brendenweber3.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Argentina Already Tried Trumponomics

Try to think of a country that elected a populist president: someone who wanted to boost manufacturing jobs, insists that domestically-sold products should be made domestically, and threatens to use tariffs to shut off foreign competition. How would that work out?

I am, of course, referring to President Cristina Kirchner of Argentina, not President Donald Trump.

It’s too soon for Trump to have implemented his economic plans, but we can see how Trumponomics will work by looking southwards to Argentina. It is a portent of the doom that awaits us.

Argentine Protectionism

President Kirchner pushed through laws mandating that certain items sold in Argentina must be made there. Presumably, if you try to sell a foreign made product at market value then the strong arm of the Argentine state will use violent force against you, including deadly force if necessary, similar to how Eric Garner was slain by the state for selling untaxed tobacco. That is the Trumponomics promise.

For one example, the Argentine law mandated that cell phones be built domestically. Imports faced a 35% tariff, exactly the same amount Trump has suggested would work for America. How did this turn out?

Results

As should be a surprise to no one, Apple completely pulled out of Argentina. This doesn’t mean Argentines can’t have the latest Apple gadgets since, of course, banning something never makes it go away: agorist-supplied black market iPhones now go for the bargain price of $3,500.

But some cell phone makes stayed. Remember BlackBerry? It’s the company that remained on the cutting edge of 20th-century technology, supplying the highest end 1999’s era communications gadgets while Apple was rolling out the iPhone. This eidos of mediocrity saw a Trumpian opportunity to keep their beacon of failure burning brightly.

They opened a factory on the tip of South America near Antartica where the manufacturing cost was 20 times more expensive than Mexico. The Argentine factories were so slow and inefficient that the fastest they could get models out was two years behind the Mexican-made product line, making the black market BlackBerries from Mexico leaps and bounds better than what could be purchased legally.

Naturally, keeping the superios Mexican BlackBerries from crossing the Argentine border was about as ineffectual as keeping Mexican Marijuana from crossing the US border.

It’s worth noting at this point a hidden cost to society to enforce all this economic destruction: the border and customs agents. I’m sure the Argentine taxpayers were forced to fund an army of well-paid agents doing an ineffectual job at preventing Argentines from enjoying low cost Mexican electric goods!

Muh Jobs!

Maybe I’m being unfair. The promise of Trumponomics isn’t lower cost goods. The promise is jobs. Did it live up to its promise in Argentina?

In a word: no.

With all the black market BlackBerries crossing the border, legal sales of the BlackBerry crashed until all the factories closed up. This happened within two years of the first Argentinian BlackBerry coming to market. The end result was higher prices, worse products, a lower standard of living, and massive job losses. So much for all those jobs the government promised!

So that’s Trumponomics in a nutshell: economic recession, unemployment, cell phones north of $1,000, and still no iPhones. But at least President Kirchner didn’t bankrupt Argentina by building a giant futile wall along its border.

Republished from Libertas.Liberty.Me.

David Libertas

David Libertas is a writer for Libertas.Liberty.me.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

The Shotgun Marriages Forced on Breweries

Relationships should be built upon voluntary choice, promoting mutual respect and mutually beneficial outcomes. In these unions, both parties are better off with each other than they are alone. Voluntary relationships can create tremendous value to this world; however, these only exist when parties are free to associate, finding cooperation at the right time, place, and manner.

If this makes perfect sense in personal relationships, why is there a disconnect when we think about business relationships, such as between breweries and distributors? More specifically, why does North Carolina impose a distribution cap on local brewers?

Forced Affiliation

North Carolina law forces brewers to hand over 100 percent of their distribution rights to a third party once they produce 25,000 barrels.

In a voluntary market, breweries frequently find themselves in need of distribution services outside of their own capacity. Breweries may be growing too fast for their self-distribution efforts, they may be unfamiliar to a new market, or decide they can cut costs by using a third party.

Other entrepreneurs see this opportunity and offer their expertise in distribution, competing against other distributors to help solve the problems that breweries confront. Often forgotten, in a voluntary market, distributors are also competing with the breweries’ right to say “no” and keep distribution in-house.

Forcing relationships between breweries and distributors makes at least one party in the relationship worse off. But that is exactly what North Carolina has mandated upon brewers via multiple antiquated regulations. Wholesaler and big-beer company lobbyists are using the law to benefit themselves at the expense of smaller brewers and consumers. These groups have framed the debate, pitting what should be two mutually beneficial parties against each other.

Lobbyists and legislators have utilized adversarial tactics to make brewers and distributors look as if they are at war with each other. There really is no other outcome if policy continues to use the strong arm of the government to penalize and take away the rights of brewers to self-distribute their product over 25,000 barrels.

Relationships in which one party benefits only at the expense of the other party are usually called “zero-sum.” A zero-sum mentality fails to see how both parties benefit from voluntary interactions.

Absent coercion, zero-sum relationships rarely if ever exist. If one party were to suffer or be made worse off in a relationship, then it wouldn’t happen or it would quickly end. Mistakes are made and bad things do happen, though in a voluntary market there are always choices elsewhere.

It’s “Greedy” to Control Your Own Creation

In addition to self-distribution, there are many other liquor- and beer-related laws in need of reconsideration. As it stands now, breweries have few rights if they make a mistake when forced to pick a distributor. Laws supported by the wholesalers make ending a relationship with a distributor either illegal or so expensive the brewer is forced to maintain the inefficient partnership.

Trouble is, no brewer wants to make it look like distributors aren’t wanted. In a free and voluntary market, the two industries can benefit tremendously from each other.

However, wholesale union leaders are very happy to make it look like the breweries are the problem. Wholesalers fought raising the alcohol limit cap that passed in 2006. Now they allege that brewers who operate at the 25,000 barrel cap are trying to push out smaller brewers and destroy public health. All because, apparently, it is “greedy” for business owners to sell and market their own creation the way they see fit.

It seems hypocritical to insinuate that another party is controlling or greedy when in fact it’s wholesalers who use government force to push brewers around. And it’s not just in North Carolina. Check out wholesaler claims in Florida, Massachusetts, and Texas over the past few years.

As long as we allow government the power to destroy beneficial relationships, lobbying will go on. It is time for brewers to get their rights back, to choose their own methods of distribution. Then, once the government is out of the way, distributors and brewers can finally find the relationship they are looking for, at the right time for both, ensuring our beer is made and distributed by a happy marriage–not one born of cheap political tricks.

Reprinted from Opportunity Lives.

Greg Pulscher

Greg Pulscher is a contributor for Opportunity Lives and works for the Civitas Institute. Hear more from Greg on his weekly podcast Free to Brew, available on Stitcher and iTunes, or follow him on Facebook.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

PHOTOS: Fights erupt at pro-Trump rally

Pro-trump participant John Vander Loop reaches in to pull down a sign held by anti-trump protesters as the two sides clash during a pro-trump rally in Huntington Beach, California, U.S., March 25, 2017. REUTERS/Patrick T. Fallon

Pro Trump demonstrators pretend to put hand cuffs on a fellow demonstrator dressed as Hillary Clinton during a beach rally in support of U.S. President Donald Trump in Huntington Beach, California, U.S., March 25, 2017. REUTERS/Patrick T. Fallon

Police detain anti-Trump demonstrators during a pro Trump rally in support of U.S. President Donald Trump at Huntington Beach, California, U.S., March 25, 2017. REUTERS/Patrick T. Fallon

Police detain anti-Trump demonstrators during a pro Trump rally in support of U.S. President Donald Trump at Huntington Beach, California, U.S., March 25, 2017. REUTERS/Patrick T. Fallon

Demonstrators send off white doves from the beach as they protest in support of U.S. President Donald Trump during a rally in Hunginton Beach, California, U.S., March 25, 2017. REUTERS/Patrick Fallon

Demonstrators protest at the beach in support of U.S. President Donald Trump during a rally in Huntington Beach, California, U.S., March 25, 2017. REUTERS/Patrick T. Fallon

Demonstrators send off white doves from the beach as they protest in support of U.S. President Donald Trump during a rally in Huntington Beach, California, U.S., March 25, 2017. REUTERS/Patrick T. Fallon

A pro-Trump rally participant is punched in the face by an anti-Trump protester as the two sides clash at a Pro-Trump rally in Huntington Beach, California, U.S., March 25, 2017. REUTERS/Patrick T. Fallon

A pro-Trump rally participant is punched in the face by an anti-Trump protester as the two sides clash at a Pro-Trump rally in Huntington Beach, California, U.S., March 25, 2017. REUTERS/Patrick T. Fallon

A pro-Trump rally participant is punched in the face by an anti-Trump protester as the two sides clash at a Pro-Trump rally in Huntington Beach, California, U.S., March 25, 2017. REUTERS/Patrick T. Fallon

Pro-Trump rally participants mix with Anti-Trump protester as the two sides clash during a Pro-Trump rally in Huntington Beach, California, U.S., March 25, 2017. REUTERS/Patrick T. Fallon

Pro-Trump participant John Vander Loop reaches in to pull down a sign held by Anti-Trump protesters as the two sides clash during a Pro-Trump rally in Huntington Beach, California, U.S., March 25, 2017. REUTERS/Patrick T. Fallon

Pro-Trump rally participants grab an Anti-Trump protester as the two sides clash during a Pro-Trump rally in Huntington Beach, California, U.S., March 25, 2017. REUTERS/Patrick T. Fallon

By Patrick T. Fallon

HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. (Reuters) - Supporters of President Donald Trump holding a rally on a popular southern California beach clashed with counter-protesters on Saturday and four people were arrested, law enforcement said.

Multiple fights broke out and at least one Trump supporter was doused with pepper spray when pro-Trump demonstrators marching along Bolsa Chica State Beach encountered a small group opposed to the Republican president who had gathered to denounce the rally.

Four counter-protesters were arrested, three for illegal use of pepper spray and one for assault and battery, Kevin Pearsall, a spokesman for the California State Parks Police said on Saturday evening.

The fights appeared to start in the early afternoon when around a dozen anti-Trump protesters dressed in all black refused to move from a bike path to allow a larger group of pro-Trump supporters taking part in the Make America Great Again rally to pass. The confrontation escalated into a fight with more skirmishes quickly breaking out.

At least one person was pepper-sprayed by an anti-Trump protester, Pearsall said. Park police estimated that 2,000 Trump supporters flocked to the stretch of coastline located south of the ocean-side community of Huntington Beach. Around 20 counter-protesters attended, Pearsall said.

Known as Surf City, U.S.A., Huntington Beach is located some 40 miles (64 km) south of Los Angeles.

Video footage from social media uploaded to the Los Angeles Times' website showed a chaotic scene with men fighting in the sand and a group of around 20 Trump supporters, some carrying Trump flags, chasing a man in a black mask away from the beach and on to a freeway. The man was stopped by members of the California Highway Patrol, the newspaper said.

The masked man had used pepper spray on a female rally organizer and was set upon by a group of Trump supporters, the newspaper reported.

Demonstrations denouncing the Trump administration have drawn hundreds of thousands since he took office in January. Smaller rallies have been staged across the country in support of Trump.

On Saturday, Trump praised his supporters.

"Thanks you for all of the Trump Rallies today. Amazing support. We will all MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" He said in a message on Twitter.



 (Reporting by Patrick T. Fallon; Writing by Timothy Mclaughlin; Editing by Sandra Maler)

Two thirds of cancers caused by random genetic mistakes: U.S. study

By Julie Steenhuysen

CHICAGO (Reuters) - About two thirds of cancers are caused by random typos in DNA that occur as normal cells make copies of themselves, a finding that helps explain why healthy individuals who do everything they can to avoid cancer are still stricken with the disease, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.

"These cancers will occur no matter how perfect the environment," said Dr. Bert Vogelstein, a cancer geneticist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore whose study was published in the journal Science.

The new findings are based on genetic sequencing and cancer studies from 69 countries around the world. They follow a controversial 2015 study published in Science by the same researchers at Johns Hopkins that looked just at cancers in the United States.

That study, by Vogelstein and mathematician Cristian Tomasetti, asserted that random DNA mistakes accounted for a lot more of the risk of developing cancer than previously thought. The finding caused an outcry from cancer experts, who have traditionally held that most cancers were caused by preventable lifestyle and environmental factors or inherited genetic defects.

Although most people know about the hereditary and environmental causes of cancer, such as smoking, few appreciate the risk from random mistakes that occur each time a normal cell divides and copies its DNA into two new cells, Tomasetti said.

Such mistakes are "a potent source of cancer mutations that historically have been scientifically undervalued," Tomasetti said in a statement.

The new work offers the first estimate of what proportion of cancers are caused by these random mistakes. To get there, the team developed a mathematical model using DNA sequencing data from The Cancer Genome Atlas and disease data from the Cancer Research UK database, looking specifically at mutations that drive aberrant cell growth in 32 different cancer types.

Although there was variation within specific cancers, overall, the researchers estimated that 66 percent of mutations in these cancers resulted from copying errors, 29 percent were caused by lifestyle and environmental factors, and the remaining 5 percent were inherited.

Although most of these mutations cannot be prevented, the team stressed that early detection and treatment can prevent many cancer deaths, regardless of the cause.

Though most cancers are due to bad luck, people should not ignore sound public health advice that can help people avoid preventable cancers, including maintaining a healthy weight and avoiding environmental risk factors such as smoking, the team said.



 (Reporting by Julie Steenhuysen; Editing by Leslie Adler)

Venezuela's Maduro asks UN to help ease medicine shortages

Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro (C) speaks during a meeting with doctors and ministers in Caracas, Venezuela March 15, 2017. Miraflores Palace/Handout

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro said on Friday he has asked the United Nations to help the South American nation alleviate medicine shortages, which have become increasingly severe as the oil-producing nation's economic crisis accelerates.

Triple digit inflation and a decaying socialist economic model have left medications ranging from simple anti-inflammatory drugs to chemotherapy medication out of reach for most Venezuelans.

Maduro did not specify the type of aid he requested, although he stressed that the U.N. has knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry.

"I have asked them for support to continue making permanent progress in the regularization of medicines for hospitals," he said.

Maduro earlier on Friday met with Jessica Faieta, Assistant Administrator and Director of the U.N. Development Program, according to state television.

The Venezuelan Pharmaceuticals Federation estimates some 85 percent of drugs are unavailable to the country's citizens.

Maduro often blames the deteriorating economy and widespread shortages of goods on an "economic war" led by opposition politicians with the help of the United States.

Critics say the problems are the result of dysfunctional price and currency controls that have decimated private industry.



 (Reporting by Deisy Buitrago, Writing by Brian Ellsworth; Editing by Christian Schmollinger)

4 Ways to Know If An Opportunity Is Worth Your Time

Sometimes life is just a bunch of decisions being thrown your way. We’ve all been presented with opportunities we weren’t sure if we should take. It could be something small, like a university course or an evening networking event. Or it could be something huge, like a risky job at a startup, a chance at a new career path, or even a chance to travel the world.

The decision tree below will help you in those times when you’re not sure if you should take on something new. But, before that, here are 4 principles to deciding if an opportunity is worth your time:

1. When you’re just starting out, do everything.

Derek Sivers tells the story of when he was 18 and just starting out as a musician. His bandmate was offered a gig to play at a pig show which he turned down (because it’s a pig show…) but Derek said yes because it was a paying gig! It only paid $75, which basically broke even after the bus ticket he bought to get out the gig.

The booking agent was impressed and one gig led to another. Eventually, the agent got him into a circus where he worked for the next 10 years. The pig show opportunity was worthless in itself but when you’re just starting out, there’s no opportunity cost! There’s nothing you’re sacrificing to say yes because you’ve got nothing else.

Here’s a piece of advice from Derek:

So I said yes to everything, which is gonna come up later with the “hell yeah or no” thing, but I think it’s a really smart to switch strategies. When you’re earlier in your career I think the best strategy is you just say yes to everything, every piddly little gig, you just never know what are the lottery tickets.”

When you’re just starting out, you’re just looking for the lottery tickets. And to increase your chances of finding one, you’ve got to “buy” as many as possible by taking advantage of every single opportunity.

2. Just do it.

When you know what you want, and you’ve got something standing in your way that you’ve just got to do to continue your journey, just do it. There’s no decision there.

You’re not at a crossroads, you’re on a single path with an obstacle in your way. For example, if you want to be a lawyer, you’ve got to take the LSATs. There’s no decision about whether it’s worth your time, or other things you could be doing to get you closer to achieving your dreams. There’s only the one thing to do, the LSATs, and there’s no getting around that.

3. If you don’t know what you want to do, do everything.

I’ve written about this in an earlier post, Creating Dots: How To Find Ourselves. We figure out what we want to do or be, by doing and being. When you don’t know what to do, you’ll figure it out by going out there and doing everything that life throws your way. Even things you’re hesitant about. Even things that are completely out of your comfort zone. It's the cumulation of those experiences where you’ll learn what you like and don’t like, what’s important to you, and what you want to spend your time doing.

4. Don't close doors.

We change our minds often. Every new experience and every piece of information that we consume shapes us a little bit and sometimes, we just decide that we want something completely different. Remember all those amazing career goals you had in elementary school? You’ve probably changed your mind since then. You may have even changed your mind about what you want from life since a year ago. Knowing that we tend to change our minds and prove ourselves wrong, it’s best to keep as many doors open as possible.

If you’re given the choice between closing a door shut, or keeping it open, always keep it open. Even if you think you’ll never go through it, you never know. Why give it up if you don’t need to?

Reprinted from The Ascent.

Jess Chan

Jess Chan is a digital marketer who is in love with good design. She believes that life is about adding value however you can.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Flashback: Donald Is in Denial about Social Security

In the Republican debate last week, CNN’s Dana Bash pressed the candidates on how they would deal with Social Security. Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz gave solid answers, explaining that the system was headed toward insolvency, suggesting ways to slow spending growth, and scolding candidates who denied the need for cost-saving reforms. 

One of the candidates in denial is Donald Trump. He said, “And it’s my absolute intention to leave Social Security the way it is. Not increase the age and to leave it as is.” Trump is a smart man, who presumably understands accounting, so either he hasn’t bothered to examine the finances of the government’s largest program, or he is willfully providing a false narrative about it.

The chart below compares Social Security and defense spending in real 2016 dollars, including Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections going forward. For decades, the two programs have vied for the title of the government’s largest, but the battle is now over. Social Security spending has soared far above defense spending, and it will keep on soaring without reforms.

Defense is a “normal” program, with spending fluctuating up and down over the years in real, or inflation-adjusted, dollars. But Social Security has taken off like a rocket, and it is consuming more taxpayer resources every year. The government spent the same amount on defense and Social Security in 2008, but it will be spending twice as much on the latter program by 2023.

When the next president enters office in 2017, he will start planning his 2018 budget. In that year, Social Security will become the first trillion-dollar program, and it will be gobbling up an additional $60 billion or so every single year.

Where will all the money come from? Pointing only to “waste, fraud, and abuse,” as Trump does, wastes our time, abuses our intelligence, and is a fraudulent story line to peddle.

Data notes: CBO baseline projections to 2026, then real defense spending assumed fixed after that, while real Social Security spending is assumed to increase at the same rate as CBO projects for 2026 (3.8 percent). For ways to cut Social Security, visit DownsizingGovernment.org, where a version of this post first appeared.

Chris Edwards

Chris Edwards is the director of tax policy studies at Cato and editor of DownsizingGovernment.org.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.