‘Indivisible,’ With Ties to George Soros, Sows Division Against Trump, GOP Lawmakers

Democrats who used to work on Capitol Hill are helping to disrupt Republican lawmakers’ town hall meetings across the country through a nationwide effort to oppose and “resist” President Donald Trump’s agenda.

They call their group Indivisible Guide, a name that came from an actual guide posted online telling activists how to pressure members of Congress. Among topics: what to say when going to town halls and calling or visiting a member’s office.

Leaders of the organization have loose ties to George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund manager who bankrolls liberal causes, according to the Capital Research Center, a conservative think tank that investigates nonprofits.

However, in an email Friday to The Daily Signal, board members of Indivisible Guide denied financial backing from Soros:

We have received donations from more than 4,000 people since putting a donate button on our site two weeks ago. We think George Soros funds many worthy programs, but he has not funded us. We understand why it’s convenient for Republicans to dismiss widespread popular disapproval as astroturf, but anyone looking at the numbers for the Women’s March and other recent events knows better.

Resisting and persisting in Englewood, FL with 60+ attending our first #Indivisible meeting. @IndivisibleTeam #resist pic.twitter.com/r00X5zyXOg

— EnglewoodIndivisible (@EnglewoodFLInd) February 10, 2017

The Capital Research Center argues that Indivisible Guide’s board has indirect ties with left-leaning groups funded by Soros, as well as with other liberal organizations.

“Indivisible is ultraslick leftist astroturf activism at its finest,” Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the Capital Research Center, told The Daily Signal in an email. “At least three of the group’s five principals—Ezra Levin, Leah Greenberg, and Angel Padilla—have ties to organizations funded by George Soros. Indivisible is apparently not yet a nonprofit, but plans are in the works to register it as a nonprofit.”

According to Vadum’s research:

Ezra Levin, a former staffer for Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, and his wife, Leah Greenberg, are the president and vice president of the Indivisible Guide’s board, respectively.

Levin is also associate director of the Corporation for Enterprise Development, an anti-poverty nonprofit. Melissa Bradley, who sits on that group’s board, previously worked for Green for All, a group founded by liberal commentator and former Obama administration official Van Jones. She was appointed as a Soros Justice Fellow through the Open Society Foundations, which Soros founded.

Greenberg previously worked for Humanity United, which is funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute.

The secretary of Indivisible Guide, Angel Padilla, works for the National Immigration Law Center, which is funded by Soros through his Open Society Foundations. And treasurer Matt Traidi is the research team director for the Service Employees International Union, a major donor to and endorser of Democrat politicians, Capital Research Center notes.

Delivering petitions to @RepErikPaulsen for regular Town Hall meetings. @StarTribune @minnpost @EPSunCurrent @MPRNews. #WhereIsErikPaulsen pic.twitter.com/uM16wgOBIo

— MinndivisibleCD3 (@SuMinnCD3) February 10, 2017

Indivisible Guide boasts that it has disrupted town halls held by Republican lawmakers in Utah, California, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan, and Nebraska. And the group, which amplifies its message over Twitter and other social media, promises it isn’t finished.

Politico reported that local activists shouted down Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich. Police had to escort Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., at a town hall meeting because of protesters.

One CNN report presented the disruption of a town hall meeting held Thursday night by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, as a sign of a “grassroots” reaction to Trump such as the taxpayer-based tea party movement was against the Washington establishment:



ActBlue, a political action committee that raises millions of dollars for Democrat candidates, also raises money for Indivisible Guide. Its appeal says, in part:

As former congressional staffers and advocates, we want to help provide local activists with information, tools, and support to take action. Most of all we want you to be part of this nationwide movement.

Let us be clear: donating is the last thing we want you to do. If it’s a choice between going to your local group’s meeting or donating to us, please go to the meeting. Really.

The website of Indivisible Guide, also known simply as Indivisible, provides scripts for what activists should say when calling the office of their House or Senate members on various issues—among them opposing senior Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s role in the White House, Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, his refugee policy, and most other policy positions.

The website says:

More than 4,500 local groups have signed up to resist the Trump agenda in nearly every congressional district in the country. What’s more, you all are putting the guide into action—showing up en masse to congressional district offices and events, and flooding the congressional phone lines. You’re resisting—and it’s working. … we want to demystify the heck out of Congress and build a vibrant community of angelic troublemakers.

Check this CNN video on national tide of #Indivisible action. To constituents in UT, CA, PA, IN, NE... thank you!https://t.co/pumVkHroP6

— Indivisible Guide (@IndivisibleTeam) February 10, 2017

Longstanding liberal groups MoveOn, the Working Families Party, and the American Civil Liberties Union have joined Indivisible Guide’s effort.

Just two days after Trump’s Jan. 20 inauguration, Indivisible Guide, MoveOn.org, and the Working Families Party organized a teleconference for activists that attracted 60,000 listeners, Politico reported.

Indivisible did another call with the ACLU focusing on Trump’s executive order aimed at increasing the vetting of immigrants from seven terrorism-prone Middle Eastern countries; it drew about 35,000 listeners.

MoveOn.org is conducting “Resist Trump” rallies across the country. The ACLU issued pamphlets about how to demonstrate, including for protesters who attempted to disrupt Washington during Trump’s inauguration.

In running for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called the Working Families Party “the closest thing there is to a political party that believes in my vision of democratic socialism.”

Actor and liberal activist George Takei, of “Star Trek” fame, tweeted Friday:

The Resistance is here. One incredible group on the forefront? @IndivisibleTeam Watch this guide, and get involved. https://t.co/4pWODWrPMk

— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) February 10, 2017

Report by The Daily Signal's Fred Lucas (@FredLucasWH).  Originally published at The Daily Signal.

No, Elizabeth Warren Is Not a Feminist Icon

Last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., was vaulted to high status among feminists.

What did she do? Did she lay down in the street to protect the voting rights of women? Did she take a stand against sex trafficking and female exploitation?

No. She knowingly and flagrantly broke a long-standing rule of the Senate. And for this, the left made her a hero.

The rule that Warren broke was Section 2 of Rule 19, a century-old prohibition on senators from attributing conduct or motives “unworthy or unbecoming” to another senator.

If applied, it requires the offending senator to “take his (or her) seat,” meaning they cannot speak for the remainder of the debate.

When Warren came to the floor to speak against the nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., for attorney general, she embarked on a floor speech that painted Sessions—still her colleague in the Senate—as an unhinged racist.

Several minutes into her remarks, Warren called Sessions “a disgrace to the Justice Department” and stated that “he should withdraw his nomination and resign his position.”

It was this statement—not the reading of the letter from Coretta Scott King, as the media has repeatedly reported—which triggered the chair to warn Warren that she was dangerously close to violating the tenets of Rule 19.

Warren was either unmoved or confused about the rules of the Senate, because she continued to slander Sessions, stating that “he has used the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens.”

While Warren was referencing a statement from King, she was not quoting from it. (And furthermore, this claim against Sessions has been repeatedly debunked.)

Warren’s wanton and blatant disregard of the Senate’s standing rules is what triggered the application of Rule 19. Warren promptly appealed, but the Senate, by a vote of 49-43, determined that the rule had been correctly applied.

Meanwhile, the left was at work making a martyr of Warren for her deliberate disregard for the rules of the institution in which she serves. The hashtag #ShePersisted popped up within minutes—a reference to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s comment that Warren had been warned, but persisted in violation of the rules.

Feminists on Twitter fomented outrage that Warren had been “silenced,” that she had been shut down by the Senate patriarchy, that this was somehow representative of the struggle of women everywhere to be heard.

For her part, Warren stood outside the Senate chamber, bravely reading the statement that ran afoul of Senate rules, and then promptly called in to MSNBC to claim she’d been “red carded” in the Senate.

The left fell over themselves in martyrdom ecstasy. Such bravery, such courage, such resistance in the face of deep institutional oppression. (Not to be left out, even Hillary Clinton got in on the drama.)

The problem here, in case anyone hasn’t noticed yet, is that this “Elizabeth Warren, Feminist Hero, Courageous Victim” narrative is completely misplaced.

The Senate rules are gender-neutral. Explicitly so. Warren knowingly violated them, either because she just doesn’t care, or because she doesn’t know the difference between what’s allowed at a rally and what’s allowed on the Senate floor.

And for that, she’s a feminist icon? Please, spare me.

Raising Warren up as a hero of feminism because she knowingly broke a gender-neutral Senate rule not only belittles the actual achievements of feminist heroes like Alice Paul, Sojourner Truth, Shirley Chisholm, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony, it relegates women—again—to the status of victims, which they are most certainly not.

This is the problem with the left’s narrative about women. In seeking to make martyrs out of women like Warren (and Clinton, for that matter), they implicitly sell women on the idea that they are still kept down, still oppressed by the insidious forces of patriarchy in a society that’s set against them.

This isn’t an empowering philosophy. It’s a degrading one.

Women have made incredible strides in the face of tremendous odds. And because we have had true feminist heroes that have triumphed in the face of real oppression, we live in a time where women are Cabinet secretaries, CEOs of major corporations, senators, presidential contenders, leaders in their fields—even outnumbering men at universities.

Why does the left continue to tell women that they are still victims? This shamefully dismisses the accomplishments of women generations over who have sacrificed everything to create a society in which women are promoted for their accomplishments, and recognized for their achievements, rather than their gender.

Do women continue to face difficulties in modern society? Yes. Discrimination, exploitation, and harassment are very real issues faced by women across America, and ones that deserve very real attention.

But does what Warren faced in the Senate rise to that level? No. Profoundly, no.

For the left to equate the two—to make Warren a martyr to a belief that women are somehow still the most victimized class in society—is a shameful attempt to make women believe they still can’t reach the top tiers of society, that they’ll always be fighting some nebulous, unidentified patriarchal conspiracy designed to silence them, instead of pouring their energies into pursuing their dreams.

Warren consciously broke a 100-year-old Senate rule. A true feminist—one who prizes being treated equally regardless of gender—would own up to the issue and accept the consequences like every other member of the Senate, not wave the flag of victimhood in the face of American women who continue to achieve, break barriers, and reach the heights of their potential every single day.

Commentary by Rachel Bovard (@Rachel_Bovard). Originally published at The Daily Signal.

Entire Homeschooling Family Kidnapped by the State

Raising children is no walk in the park, but it’s even more difficult when the state dictates what you can and cannot do with your own family. Kiarre Harris is a devoted single mother, trying her hardest to provide her children with the best possible upbringing.

After growing concerned that her children were not receiving an adequate education from the Buffalo public school system in New York State, she made the decision to pull her kids out of their school.

"I felt that the district was failing my children,” Harris reported.

Harris’ feelings are not uncommon among parents of public school students. Government schooling has been failing children for years. However, since it is funded through tax dollars, rather than being a product of the market, it is incredibly difficult to keep public schools, and public teachers, accountable. This is precisely why many parents have begun considering other options that are better suited to their children’s educational needs.

Frustrated and desperate for an alternative, Harris spent time researching homeschooling, which she ultimately decided was the best direction for her family. Unfortunately, the state disagreed.

Most parents believe themselves to be the sole arbitrators when it comes to making choices that directly impact their children, and rightfully so, as kids are perhaps the most obvious fruits of one’s labor. But it has unfortunately become all too common for the state to intervene, asserting that government knows what is best for your child.

An Unexpected Visit
Harris had done everything exactly right. She familiarized herself with the legal process and followed all the guidelines required by the state of New York in order to homeschool her children.
“I spoke directly to the homeschool coordinator and she told me from this point on my children were officially un-enrolled from school.”

But despite filing all the relevant and mandated paperwork and working closely with the district to ensure she was adhering to the proper protocol, Harris received a phone call from Child Protective Services a week later, demanding to know why her children had not been attending school.
She explained the situation to the state representative and even offered to provide them with copies of the paperwork she had already filed with the district. The representative appeared to be appeased by Harris' explanation, and she believed the matter had been fully resolved.

Before even a month had passed since the unexpected phone call, Harris and her family received a visit from social service representatives, who were accompanied by local police officers.
Claiming to have an order from a local judge, ordering the state to remove her children from their home, Harris did what any mother would do and refused to hand her children over to strangers with government badges.

Instead of discussing the matter and attempting to get to the bottom of the situation before uprooting young children from the comfort and safety of their home and mother, police officers arrested Harris for obstructing law enforcement in the line of duty.

What Happens Next?

While the school district has claimed they are unable to comment on the matter, they said that homeschooling is a right only granted to those who have full custody of their children, alluding to the possibility that Harris was not the sole custodian of her two kids.

Harris, who is no newbie to single parenthood, has had sole custody of her children for several years. However, the incompetency of the state appears to be enough of a reason to not only remove her children, but to deny her visitation privileges altogether.


It has now been three weeks since Harris has seen her children. By no fault of her own, the state is punishing Harris for doing what she, as their mother, believes is best for the children.

The state, as always, has justified their actions under the guise of “protecting” the Harris children. However, it is unclear how ripping two minors from their home serves any benefit to Harris’ kids. This tragic situation perfectly demonstrates the inherent nature of government failure, not only in the education system but also with something as simple as proper communication. Since Harris had, in fact, done everything right, the fault here lies with Buffalo officials, and their inability to properly do their job.  

For now, the case is ongoing, but even though the blame is on the local government, the young children must wait in foster care, while the state attempts to fix its own mistake.

Brittany Hunter

Brittany Hunter is an associate editor at FEE.

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

Joint Statement by President Trump and Prime Minister Abe of Japan regarding North Korea's missile threat

Mar-a-Lago
Palm Beach, Florida

10:38 P.M. EST

PRIME MINISTER ABE:   (As interpreted.)  North Korea's most recent missile launch is absolutely intolerable.  North Korea must fully comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions.  

During the summit meeting that I had with President Trump, he assured me that the United States will always with Japan 100 percent.  And to demonstrate his determination, as well as commitment, he is now here with me at this joint press conference. 

President Trump and I myself completely share the view that we are going to promote further collaboration between the two nations and also we are going to further reinforce our alliance.  That is all from myself.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you very much, Mr. Prime Minister.  I just want everybody to understand and fully know that the United States of America stands behind Japan, its great ally, 100 percent.  Thank you.

END
10:40 P.M. EST

Crazy video from inside North Korea of their new nuclear missile

The dictatorship of North Korea test-fired a new missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to Japan and U.S. Pacific naval bases, and they waited until U.S. President Donald Trump was meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to launch it.

The new Pukguksong-2 uses solid fuel, instead of unstable liquid.  That not only makes the missile more accurate and reliable, it allows the regime to fire missiles from more bases -- and without the two to three days of set-up that was previously warning the United States.

North Korea already has 24 nuclear warheads, and are quickly developing new ones that can be delivered using these new missiles.

Below is the official television broadcast from inside North Korea announcing the launch.  The anchor is Ri Chun-Hee.  Unofficially retired as the regime's most prestigious news anchor, she is only brought back for major announcements -- such as the development of North Korea's most deadly addition to its growing nuclear arsenal.

Starting at around the 2:37 mark, you can see photographs from inside North Korea's nuclear weapons facilities showing the development of the missile, as well as the actual video from the missile launch.

Keep in mind, this is produced by the dictatorship's official state-run propaganda ministry.

PHOTOS: These photos from inside North Korea show launch of their new ballistic missile

North Korea's dictatorial regime on Sunday test-fired a new ballistic missile.  Believed to be a solid-fuel rocket, it marks another aggressive step forward in their illegal nuclear weapons program.

A solid fuel rocket not only allows Pyongyang to launch missiles from a wider variety of sites, with less warning, they are also more accurate and less likely to fail.

These photos are from the Korean Central News Agency, the official state-run propaganda agency of the North Korean dictatorship.

Official North Korean Statement - Kim Jong Un Guides Test-Fire of Surface to Surface Medium Long-Range Ballistic Missile

The following the direct report from the Korean Central News Agency, the official state-run propaganda agency of the North Korean dictatorship.

Pyongyang, February 13 (KCNA) -- A surface-to-surface medium long-range ballistic missile Pukguksong-2, Korean style new type strategic weapon system, was successfully test-fired on Sunday.

Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army Kim Jong Un, chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea and chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the DPRK, guided the test-fire of Pukguksong-2 on the spot.

Respected Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un set forth the task of developing the weapon system into surface-to-surface ballistic missile with extended firing range on the basis of the success made in the SLBM underwater test-fire held in August last year.

He received the report on the development of Pukguksong-2, set the date of the test-fire of the missile and personally guided the preparations for it on the spot.

Before the test-fire that day he looked round the caterpillar self-propelled missile launching truck produced by workers in the munitions industry by their own efforts, technology and wisdom.

At the observation post he learned in detail about the plan for the test-fire of Pukguksong-2 and gave the order to launch it.

The test-fire proved the reliability and security of the surface launch system and starting feature of the high thrust solid fuel-powered engine and reconfirmed the guidance and control features of ballistic missile during its active flight and working feature of high thrust solid fuel- powered engines and those of separation at the stages.

It also verified the position control and guidance in the middle section and section of re-entry after the separation of the improved warhead of the missile which can be tipped with a nuclear warhead, the feature of evading interception, etc. The test-fire helped test and round off the mobility and operation of the new type missile launching truck in the worst surface condition and finally confirm its technological specifications through ballistic missile launch.

The test-fire was conducted by the high-angle launching method instead of firing range, taking the security of the neighboring countries into consideration.

He said that the newly developed Pukguksong-2 is the Korean style advantageous weapon system providing convenience in operation and ensuring speed in striking and a Juche-missile, Juche-weapon in name and reality as the launching truck and ballistic missile were designed and manufactured and fired by the indigenous wisdom, efforts and technology 100 percent. He expressed great satisfaction over the possession of another powerful nuclear attack means which adds to the tremendous might of the country.

Now our rocket industry has radically turned into high thrust solid fuel-powered engine from liquid fuel rocket engine and rapidly developed into a development- and creation-oriented industry, not just copying samples, he said, adding:

Thanks to the development of the new strategic weapon system, our People's Army is capable of performing its strategic duties most accurately and rapidly in any space: under waters or on the land.

At the end of the test-fire he had a photo taken with scientists and technicians in the field of defence industry and service personnel who took part in the test-fire of Pukguksong-2.

In Trump's Alphabet, "F" Is for Protectionism

The President wants to put another “F” in NAFTA. The morning he met with American motorcycle maker Harley-Davidson, Mr. Trump said, as the cameras rolled, "I want to change it. And maybe we do it – maybe we do a new NAFTA and we put an extra "F" in the term NAFTA. You know what the "F" is for, right? Free and fair trade – not just free trade; free and fair trade, because it's very unfair."

The President then told the tall tale about Harley-Davidson almost going out of business because foreign competitors were dumping their cycles in the US and Harley couldn’t compete. President Reagan stepped in, put a tariff on foreign cycles, and saved the domestic manufacturer, Trump said.

Even Lefty Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC knows Harley was ready to go under due to making bad products back in the 70s and 80s as the lone domestic manufacturer. O’Donnell, himself a rider, told his audience, “You had to be a mechanic to own a Harley; to even get one started.”

Reagan did impose a tariff, Harley did turn around, and, in fact, requested the tariff be lifted a year early. However, the company’s rebound was not due to Reagan’s use of government force – foreign competitors designed around the tariff restrictions – but rather the company’s choice to make a better product more efficiently.

Barnaby J. Feder wrote in the New York Times in 1987,

Harley introduced practices such as just-in-time manufacturing, in which parts are made only when needed, and statistical process control of operations, which catches production errors before they have become embedded in products. The company raised the percentage of motorcycles leaving its production lines without defects from about 50 percent to more than 98 percent and became a mecca for engineers from other industries.

At the same time, Harley redesigned many of the parts in its cycles without changing its basic design. The changes rid the products of such defects as bone-jarring vibration.

Today, O’Donnell owns a Harley and wouldn’t buy anything else, because the company learned how to make good bikes by studying foreign competitors.

Meanwhile, Trump wants to protect domestic manufacturers – with the inevitable result of American consumers forced to purchase inferior products for higher prices to save a few jobs in the US.
In its present form, NAFTA is anything but free trade. “In the first place, genuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty,” wrote Murray Rothbard. “If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-"dumping" laws, and other American-imposed restrictions on trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering is needed.”


“I’m a free trader,” Trump said back in June 2015. But since then, as hardhats have lined up behind him, he’s said the US needs “fair trade, not free trade.” America imports nearly $800 billion more in goods than it exports, and that is a “politician-made disaster,” he claims, adding, “It is the consequence of a leadership class that worships globalism over Americanism.”

However, what Trump sees as a disaster, Rothbard views as not only not a problem but as a great thing. “Foreigners are providing cheap imports, making the dollar stronger,” Rothbard pointed out, “which is terrific.” It’s no different than a trade deficit between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. Who cares?

The trade barriers Trump is proposing, in the words of Milton Friedman, “benefit a few, at the expense of many.” True free trade “benefits many at the expense of a few.” Friedman pointed out that what’s known as a “favorable” balance of trade is actually “unfavorable”: getting more goods in and sending fewer out is a good thing, not a bad thing.

If it is Trump’s intent to do away with NAFTA in its entirety and replace it with nothing, that would be fantastic. After all, NAFTA is, in Rothbard’s words, more than a trade deal.

It is part of a very long campaign to integrate and cartelize government in order to entrench the interventionist mixed economy. In the United States, this has taken the form of transferring legislative and judicial authority away from the states and localities to the executive branch of the federal government. NAFTA negotiations have pushed the envelope by centralizing government power continent-wide, thus further diminishing the ability of taxpayers to hinder the actions of their rulers.

But Trump’s fair trade is not trade benefiting consumers and producers alike. It is protectionism, which “is out to mulct all of us for the benefit of a specially privileged, subsidized few – and an inefficient few at that: people who cannot make it in a free and unhampered market,” Rothbard wrote in Making Economic Sense.

We can only hope foreign producers dump their products in the US. If Mr. Trump is as smart as he claims to be, he surely understands that more dumping means more prosperity.

Douglas French

Douglas French is an Associated Scholar at the Johnson Center at Troy University and adjunct professor at Georgia Military College. He is the author of three books: Early Speculative Bubbles and Increases in the Supply of Money, Walk Away, and The Failure of Common Knowledge.

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

When the Nation Trumps the Individual

Donald Trump has hardly taken his hand off the Bible upon which he took the presidential oath to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, and he has already begun to radically and rapidly transform the direction of the American government. Taking up Barack Obama’s pen, he has signed a series of executive orders. Several of them demarcate the underlying premises and principles guiding much of his policy decision-making: political and economic nationalism.

One of these executive orders declared that the United States was formally withdrawing from any intention of participating in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which had the stated purpose of reducing trade barriers among 12 countries, while specifying a variety of requirements for the member nations to fulfill as part of the agreement.

Another executive order called for expediting the approval and construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines, to enable the transportation of crude oil from Canada to refinery facilities closer to the Gulf coast.

Still another one authorized the building of his promised “Wall” along the U.S.-Mexican border, along with additional personnel to be hired for border security, and eliminating federal money to “sanctuary cities” protecting illegal immigrants.

And most recently, there has been his executive order that places a temporary hold on refugees arriving in the United States from a series of seven countries declared to be security risks to the safety of the American citizenry. This latest executive order has set off an especial firestorm of controversy and opposition.

The Meaning of Economic Nationalism

What they all have in common is a devotion to a conscious ideology of political and economic nationalism. How may we define political and economic nationalism? We might, perhaps, use a definition offered by the Swiss classical liberal and free market economist William E. Rappard, from his 1937 essay on “Economic Nationalism” that was written at the time between the two World Wars when an aggressive nationalist creed was endemic around most of the world. Rappard said:

“Nationalism, then, is the doctrine which places the nation at the top of the scale of political values, that is above three rival values of the individual, of regional units and the international community . . . 

“If we wish to define economic nationalism by its underlying purpose, we should say that it was a doctrine destined to serve the nation by making it not richer, but freer, by promoting not its material welfare, but its independence of foreign influences. Economic nationalism is the policy of national self-sufficiency . . . 

“First, economic nationalism seeks to limit the nation’s consumption to those goods which are the fruits of its own soil and labor . . . Secondly, economic nationalism seeks to promote the domestic production of all those commodities for which the national needs are imperative . . . Thirdly, when these efforts also prove vain . . . economic nationalism is apt to raise the cry for more space, that is for annexation of neighboring or colonial territories . . .

“As no measure of restriction of imports, of stimulation of home products, and territorial expansion, can possibly make any state entirely self-sufficient under modern conditions, economic nationalism seeks, fourthly, to secure a positive balance of trade . . . It is here that the policy becomes internally self-contradictory. It is here also that rival economic nationalisms must necessarily clash.

“In order to secure for itself a favorable balance of payments, a state dominated by this doctrine must inevitably seek to inflict on its neighbors the very treatment against which it seeks to protect itself. If all countries endeavor to develop their exports while restricting their imports, to attract capital and foreign tourists, while prohibiting external loans and discouraging travel abroad, to expand their shipping, banking, and insurance services beyond their frontiers while monopolizing them at home, general failure, strife, and chaos cannot fail to be the result.”

And inescapable in such a drive for political and economic nationalism, William Rappard emphasized, was “the subordination of the individual to the state.”

Now certainly the world in which we live today is fortunately not suffering, as yet, from the dire nationalist circumstances of the 1930s, when Rappard was offering his definition of economic nationalism in the context of the hyper-collectivist epoch in which he was living at that time.

Trump’s Fallacies and Ignorance on Foreign Trade

Yet, the same dangers can be seen in Donald Trump’s worldview toward domestic and foreign affairs. The essence of this perspective is that international interactions occur in a zero-sum world.

This comes out clearly in his rhetoric about how America has been taken advantage of in its trade deals and dealings with other nations. Whether it be the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the proposed TPP agreement, in Trump’s mind other nations are “destroying” American manufacturing, “stealing” American jobs, “weakening” American standards of living, and “taking advantage” of America’s openness to trade, investment, and migration.

It is also seen in his insistence that any balance of trade deficit suffered in its trade relationships with other countries is a demonstration of America’s loss for the benefit of other nations. Thus, the United States must enter into bilateral, politically negotiated trade deals with each and every other country to balance America’s trade ledger book with them. This is not only a throwback to the mercantilist ideas of the past, but one of the crudest versions that fails to think of even looking at the overall ledger book rather than a country’s balance of trade with each separate country. Not even the mercantilists of the seventeenth century were that economically illiterate!

Manipulating the Business Climate for “National Greatness”

Many conservatives and some libertarians have hailed Trump’s decision to allow the Keystone pipeline to go forward or his promise to reduce the tax and regulatory burdens on American businesses. But the question is, why is he implementing or proposing to introduce these economic policy changes? Is it because he believes that government, as a matter of principle, should leave individuals free to make their own decisions in their personal lives as well as in the competitive marketplace?
Clearly this is not the case. Exhibit A: phone calls and meetings with corporate executives before and after assuming the presidency in which he called for them to keep their manufacturing facilities in the United States, insisting that they should focus on creating more jobs in America for American workers, and threatening heavy fiscal penalties for any private enterprise that attempts to move out of the United States and reimport goods produced outside of the country.


 Trump’s vision is not that of individual freedom and economic liberty. No, it is the collectivist ideal of restored “national greatness” for which all Americans should participate and for which all Americans will be made to conform, if necessary, through the fiscal and regulatory hand of the government.

Trump’s desire for the Keystone Pipeline to be constructed is for America to be “energy independent.” Corporate taxes are to be lowered and regulations reduced so business will have more a flexibility and financial capacity to invest in America and create “good jobs” for Americans. To the extent to which businesses keep more of their revenues and have reduced regulatory hurdles to overcome, these are means to the end of restoring that American greatness.

If tomorrow Trump decided that “making America great again” necessitated new and different regulations or new and different fiscal burdens on businesses and the American consuming public, then for their own collective national good, individuals would have to bear the regulatory and tax burdens.

Sacrificing American Consumers and Taxpayers for “the Wall”

This is clear from Trump’s executive order concerning the building of “the Wall” on the Mexican border and how it will be paid for.  In his mind, cultural and social dangers and depravities are coming over the border from Mexico, from which he must protect the American people.

For all his talk about making Mexico pay for its construction, the fact is the American taxpayers will pay for the Wall. They are the ones who will have to be taxed, either through taxes in the present or taxes in the future when borrowed dollars (plus interest) will have to be paid back for its expense. The proposal to impose a 20 percent import tax on Mexican goods entering the U.S. does not change that outcome. Import taxes add to the cost of bringing those goods to American markets and will be reflected in higher prices paid by American consumers, plus a likely reduction in the quantities and qualities of Mexican-made goods that then will be profitable to import into the United States. The interests and desires of individual American consumers and import businesses will have to be sacrificed for the higher good of restored national greatness.

Individuals Sacrificed on the Altar of “National Safety”

The latest furor over the new restrictions on refugees or immigrants from a variety of Muslim countries bears the same mark of national collectivism. If individuals from some Muslim countries already possessing permission to enter the United States are denied that entry, well, their needs must be sacrificed to the national interests of America.
If some American enterprises find it difficult to employ or retain the employment of talented and qualified foreign workers, say in the tech-industry, well then, their innovative and competitive edge must be foregone for the common good of the nation as a whole. In addition, and as a part of this, if more calmer and deliberative practices of the rule of law, as well as a sense of common decency toward those who have borne difficult hardships in their home countries abroad, must be bent or set aside based on Donald Trump’s conception of “national safety,” that, too, is part of the price of restored national greatness.

But, surely, we have not descended so far into that older aggressive form of political and economic nationalism under which America would seize the territory of other countries in the name of national interest or economic self-sufficiency, would we? It was Donald Trump who said that having invaded Iraq and overthrown Saddam Hussein, the United States should have “kept” that country’s oil fields to prevent “enemies” from using them and as a means of keeping America energy independent as payment for our liberation of that land. The logic follows from the premise.

A dark time is threatening America given the Trumpian vision of political and economic nationalism at the expense of individual liberty, private property rights, rule of law and constitutionally limited government.

Richard M. Ebeling

Richard M. Ebeling is BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. He was president of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) from 2003 to 2008.

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

Highway Robbery Gets Presidential Seal of Approval

Donald Trump is going after one of the few issues proven to be a unifier across party lines: civil asset forfeiture.

This legal tool allows law enforcement to seize money and physical property from those merely suspected of criminal behavior. Unfortunately, there is no conviction requirement, meaning confiscation can occur before suspects have been given the opportunity to defend themselves in court. 

After 2016 saw several state victories reining in the practice, the Obama Administration reinstated the program on the federal level. The federal Equitable Sharing Program, which had briefly been paused due to budget constraints, provided local law enforcement with a loophole, which allowed them to continue the practice so long as they shared their spoils with the feds.

President Trump made some egregious comments on the matter while addressing a room full of Texas police officers on Tuesday, effectively destroying any hope that his administration will be better on this issue than President Obama. In fact, the situation may very well become worse.

The nomination of Jeff Sessions to the office of Attorney General has made many criminal justice advocates nervous, as he has a long history of justifying the practice of policing for profit. On Tuesday, Trump confirmed these fears when he threw his support behind the controversial practice, saying that he saw  "no reason" to restrict law enforcement's use of civil asset forfeiture.

Ignoring the substantive concerns over the practices' disregard for due process, Trump even threatened to "destroy the career" of libertarian-leaning Texas legislator Konni Burton for her outspoken opposition to the practice, a comment met with approving laughter from the law enforcement officials in attendance.

Unfortunately, the issue is not as clear-cut as Trump would like to believe. Civil asset forfeiture has arguably done more to destroy the lives of innocent people than it has to help catch those actually guilty of criminal acts.

A Systematic Problem

Since there are few restrictions to the practice, it has frequently been used against those who were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time and were not, in fact, engaging in criminal behavior.
In 2013, for example, a Peruvian pastor had $14,000 seized during a routine traffic stop. Traveling to a church event, Pastor Marco Silva, a citizen of Peru but legally present in the United States, was pulled over for “failure to signal a lane change.” The money, which was supposed to be donated to a Peruvian orphanage, was seized by law enforcement.


While Trump claims that any politician opposed to this practice would "get beat up really badly by the voters," he clearly doesn't understand the impact civil asset forfeiture has had on everyday people.
Without first having to prove guilt, asset forfeiture is ripe for abuse. Worse still, law enforcement is incentivized to continue this practice since they are allowed to keep a portion of the confiscated cash or property.

One family, who had their entire house ransacked after falsely being accused of breaking drug laws, not only had their belongings destroyed, but important legal documents, including adoption papers, were also confiscated and subsequently lost in the process.

This is because with civil asset forfeiture, it is technically the property, and not the individual that is being prosecuted. This makes it extremely difficult for individuals to regain control over their belongings. Those who are able to afford the extravagant legal fees are often forced to settle for only a portion of their property returned, while some are forced to forfeit their property forever.

The Road Ahead

The abuse of civil asset forfeiture has become so widespread, it has created unlikely alliances in Congress between Republicans and Democrats.
In an era when the country finds itself more divided than ever, Trump would be wise to cease his support of an issue that has negatively impacted so many Americans.


Instead, Trump has fallen victim to the same fear mongering used to convince people that a repeal of asset forfeiture would result in terrorist attacks or a cartel takeover.

While Trump was discussing the issue with Texas law enforcement earlier this week, Rockwall County Sheriff, Harold Eavenson, called out another Texas lawmaker who, like Burton, is committed to passing legislation restricting the process. "I told him the cartel would build a monument to him in Mexico if he could get that legislation passed,” Eavenson told Trump. President Trump distastefully responded, by saying, "you want to give us his name? We'll destroy his career."

As the room once again erupted in laughter, it became painstakingly clear that under the Trump Administration, the road to criminal justice reform will be an uphill battle.

Brittany Hunter

Brittany Hunter is an associate editor at FEE.

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

The Crazy, Convoluted, Wacky, Unworkable System of Obamacare

Consider this news item:

MIAMI, FL - NOVEMBER 02: Martha Lucia (L) sits with Rudy Figueroa, an insurance agent from Sunshine Life and Health Advisors, as she picks an insurance plan available in the third year of the Affordable Care Act at a store setup in the Mall of the Americas on November 2, 2015 in Miami, Florida. Open Enrollment began yesterday for people to sign up for a 2016 insurance plan through the Affordable Care Act. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

In opeds at Time and National Review Online, I discuss how ObamaCare’s health-insurance Exchange has collapsed in Pinal County, Arizona, throwing some 10,000 residents out of their ObamaCare plans. Charles Gaba of ACASignUps.net and Cynthia Cox of the Kaiser Family Foundation asked me to explain a claim I make in the NRO piece:

Obamacare will still penalize those residents if they don’t buy coverage — even if the amount they must pay increases tenfold or more.

Before I explain, let me first apologize on behalf of the Affordable Care Act’s authors for the complicated mess that follows.

A Complete Mess

ObamaCare’s individual mandate penalizes taxpayers who fail to purchase health insurance. But there are so many exemptions that of the 33 million or so people who lacked insurance in 2014, the IRS levied the penalty against only 6.6 million tax filers (which actually represents a larger number, maybe 17 million people).

For example, the Affordable Care Act exempts “individuals who cannot afford coverage” from the penalty. You qualify for this exemption if your “required contribution” exceeds roughly 8.13 percent of your household income. For individuals who don’t have access to a suitable employer plan, the “required contribution” is equal to “the annual premium for the lowest cost bronze plan available in the individual market through the Exchange in the State in the rating area in which the individual resides,” minus “the amount of the credit allowable under section 36B for the taxable year (determined as if the individual was covered by a qualified health plan offered through the Exchange for the entire taxable year).”

In other words, if you would have to pay more than 8.13 percent of your income for an ObamaCare plan, even after accounting for premium subsidies, then coverage is unaffordable for you and ObamaCare doesn’t penalize you for not buying coverage.

You would think this exemption would somehow apply to the 10,000 residents of Pinal County, for whom coverage will become dramatically more expensive when the Exchange collapses. If those folks are like Exchange enrollees in the rest of the country, the vast majority of them (85 percent or so) receive premium subsidies. When their Exchange coverage disappears next year, so will those subsidies.

If they wish to purchase coverage off the Exchange, they will face, for the first time, the actual cost of ObamaCare coverage. Given that the amount Pinal County residents will have to pay for ObamaCare coverage could rise by several multiples, from a fraction of the premium to the full premium, given that the lowest-income enrollees will see the largest increases, given that the large year-to-year rate increases occurring nationwide will only add to the suffering, you would think the ACA’s unaffordability exemption would somehow cover those 10,000 Pinal County residents. But you would be wrong.

The Unaffordability Exemption

Remember, the ACA penalizes people if they fail to purchase insurance, unless they qualify for an exemption. The unaffordability exemption applies only if “the annual premium for the lowest cost bronze plan available in the individual market through the Exchange” in Pinal County, minus “the amount of the credit allowable under section 36B,” whether the individual enrolls in Exchange coverage or not, exceeds 8.13 percent of the individual’s household income.

You can’t do that calculation in Pinal County. The premium for the lowest-cost bronze plan in Pinal County is not $0.00. It’s not even a number. It’s the empty set. The “credit allowable under section 36B” is likewise the empty set. Section 36B “allow[s] as a credit…an amount equal to the premium assistance credit amount for the taxpayer.”

To calculate the premium-assistance credit amount, you need to know either the premium for the health plan the taxpayer “enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under [section] 1311,” or the premium for the “the second lowest cost silver plan” available to the taxpayer “through the same Exchange.” It would be awesome if all those premiums were $0.00. (Free health care!) But it’s not. Instead, no such premiums exist. Since there are no such premiums, there is no “required contribution.” Since there is no “required contribution,” there is no unaffordability exemption in Pinal County. Without an Exchange, there is no unaffordability exemption from the individual mandate.

A Penalty for Not Buying What You Can't Afford

Following the collapse of the Exchange, the ACA strips 10,000 Pinal County residents of their health coverage, strips them of any subsidies they had been receiving, and penalizes them if they fail to purchase coverage that everybody knows ObamaCare has made unaffordable for them. The ACA also denies the unaffordability exemption to any uninsured residents who had qualified or would have qualified for it. The ACA exempted them from penalties when coverage was somewhat unaffordable, yet penalizes them when coverage becomes very unaffordable.

But let’s suppose we had a government that didn’t care what the law says, and was determined to make the unaffordability exemption work for residents of Pinal County and any other county or state where the Exchange collapses. The government could pretend the lowest-cost-bronze-Exchange-plan premium actually is $0.00. But then the required contribution would be zero or negative, which is less than 8.13 percent of household income. So no exemption.

Ooh, I know! The government could pretend the ACA allows them to use non-Exchange-bronze-plan premiums for the first part of the “required contribution” calculation. But then they would have to argue simultaneously that the ACA does not allow them to use non-Exchange-silver-plan premiums for the second part of the calculation.

To put it differently, the government would have to argue the ACA allows them to pretend that non-existent Exchange plans exist but does not allow them to pretend that non-existent tax credits exist. I’m guessing that would be awkward.

It may be a blessing that we won’t have to watch ACA ObamaCare supporters put themselves through such contortions (again). The ACA gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services carte blanche to exempt anyone she pleases from the mandate penalty. All she has to do is claim they have “suffered a hardship [trying] to obtain coverage under a qualified health plan.”

The people of Pinal County would certainly seem to qualify. To date, the Secretary has issued a raft of these “hardship” exemptions, none of which seem to apply to enrollees for whom coverage became unaffordable because their Exchange just plain collapsed. Since the Secretary hasn’t created such a hardship exemption yet, what I’m describing is here the law.

The Most Awkward Exemption

And even though it seems inevitable that the Obama administration will create such an exemption, the fact that they will have to take that affirmative step to protect ObamaCare’s intended beneficiaries from the law is significant. It will certainly be the most awkward the Obama administration has had to issue.

It will be an admission that ObamaCare threw thousands of Pinal residents out of their pre-ObamaCare plans, stripped them of their guaranteed-renewability protections, turned their covered illnesses into pre-existing conditions, threw them out of their health plans again, left them with no affordable health-insurance options, and left many of them far worse off than they would have been if the president had never signed the ACA or had heeded Congress’ calls for repeal.

Issuing hardship exemptions for Pinal County will be an admission that ObamaCare is inherently unstable, and that a similar fate could soon befall other Exchange enrollees. It will be an admission that the ACA’s architects suffered from a certain lack of foresight.

And it can’t come soon enough.

This piece ran at Cato@liberty.

Michael F. Cannon

Michael F. Cannon is the Cato Institute’s director of health policy studies.

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

Obamacare Repeal Stalls as Americans Suffer

When President Donald Trump took office, repeal of Obamacare seemed like a guarantee—and then the timeline started slipping.

All the elements are in place: A Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican president, all elected after promising to repeal Obamacare. But once the celebration and ceremonies died away, Congress started to do what it does best. Nothing.

“Nothing” may be a bit strong given the historic levels of obstruction from Democrats in the Senate, but House Republicans have no such excuse. In fact, they even have a blueprint.

Last year, the House and Senate passed an Obamacare repeal using the budget reconciliation process. That measure was ultimately vetoed by then-President Barack Obama, but that same legislation can be reintroduced and sent to Trump desk to be signed into law.

There is no reason to delay. The slipping of the Obamacare repeal timeline is creating cascading problems for the American people.

Delaying Repeal Prolongs the Current Health Care Crisis

No one needs reminding that Obamacare takes away choice, erodes the value of health care and puts additional burden on the pockets of the American taxpayer. The unsustainable nature of Obamacare is creating massive uncertainty and causing insurers to leave the marketplace, causing individual premiums to increase.

Additionally, once repeal is signed into law and real health care reforms begin moving forward, private insurers will need time to adjust to the new market. Continuing to delay repeal shortens the time insurers will be able to adjust and provide the best solution for the insured.

Most importantly, we don’t want Americans living under the current failing health care system any longer.

Obamacare is bad, and only getting worse. Average premiums are going up by 25 percent this year, deductibles are blowing past $10,000 for a family, and 70 percent of U.S. counties have no insurer choice, or a choice between only two insurers.

What good is a health care plan that you can’t choose and can’t afford to use? Congress must repeal it as soon as possible to put better health care choices back in the hands of the American people.

Delaying Repeal Hurts Public Support for Congress

Nearly every single congressional Republican campaigned on the promise to repeal Obamacare. The unfortunate consequence of the delay is that the American people are losing faith in the people whose job it is to represent them.

Recent Heritage Foundation research shows 72 percent of Americans will take the promises of Congress less seriously if they wait to fulfill their promise to repeal Obamacare. And 70 percent of Americans believe the longer Congress waits to fulfill their promises to repeal Obamacare, the less likely they will be successful.

There is no doubt that lawmakers will be held accountable to their promises.

Reprinted from The Daily Signal.

Sondra Clark

Sondra Clark is the digital director of Heritage Action for America.

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

The Greeks Drown in Taxes While Their Government Spends

I’ve put forth lots of arguments against tax increases, mostly focusing on why higher tax rates will depress growth and encourage more government spending.

Today, let’s look at a practical, real-world example.

I wrote a column for The Hill looking at why Greece is a fiscal and economic train wreck. I have lots of interesting background and history in the article, including the fact that Greece got into the mess by overspending and also explaining that politicians like Merkel only got involved because they wanted to bail out their domestic banks that foolishly lent lots of money to the Greek government.

But the most newsworthy part of my column was to expose the fact that “austerity” hasn’t worked in Greece because the private sector has been suffocated by giant tax hikes.

…the troika…imposed the wrong kind of fiscal reforms. …what mostly happened is that Greek politicians dramatically increased the nation’s already punitive tax burden. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s fiscal database tells a very ugly story. …on the eve of the crisis, the tax burden in Greece totaled 38.9 percent of GDP. This year, taxes are projected to reach 52.0 percent of economic output. Every major tax in Greece has been dramatically increased, including personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, value-added taxes, and property taxes. It’s been a taxpalooza… What’s happened on the spending side of the fiscal ledger? Have there been “savage” and “draconian” budget cuts? …there have been some cuts, but the burden of government spending is still a heavy weight on the Greek economy. Outlays totaled 54.1 percent of GDP in 2009 and now government is consuming 52.2 percent of economic output.

For what it’s worth, the spending numbers would look better if the economy was stronger. In other words, Greece’s performance wouldn’t be so dismal if GDP was growing rather than shrinking.

And that’s why tax increases are so misguided. They give politicians an excuse to avoid much-needed spending cuts while also hindering growth, investment and job creation.

Let’s close by reviewing Greece’s performance according to Economic Freedom of the World. The overall score for Greece has dropped slightly since 2009, but the real story is that the nation’s fiscal score has dramatically worsened, falling from 5.61 to 4.66 on a 0-10 scale. In other words, during a period of time in which Greece was supposed to sober up and become more fiscally responsible, the politicians engaged in an orgy of tax hikes and Greece went from a failing grade for fiscal policy to a miserably failing grade.

Here’s a the relevant graph from the EFW website. As you can see, the score has been dropping for a decade, not just since 2009.



This is a remarkable result. Greek politicians should have been pushing the nation’s fiscal score to at least 7 out of 10, if not 8 out of 10. Instead, the score has gone in the wrong direction because of tax increases.

Though I don’t expect Hillary and Bernie to learn the right lesson.

For more information, here’s my five-picture explanation of the Greek mess. Also, how can you expect good policy from a nation that subsidizes pedophiles and requires stool samples to set up online companies?

Some Greece-Related Humor

Let’s close by recycling my collection of Greek-related humor.

This cartoon is quite good, but this one is my favorite. And the final cartoon in this post also has a Greek theme.

We also have a couple of videos. The first one features a video about…well, I’m not sure, but we’ll call it a European romantic comedy and the second one features a Greek comic pontificating about Germany.

Last but not least, here are some very un-PC maps of how various peoples – including the Greeks – view different European nations.

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.