ACTION

PLYMOUTH NOTCH, Vermont — Rep. Justin Amash has left the Republican Party and will now represent Michigan’s third congressional district as an Independent. In a Washington Post op-ed, he wrote: “I’ve become disenchanted with party politics and frightened by what I see from it. The two-party system has evolved into an existential threat to American principles and institutions.”

Responding to Amash’s announcement, President Trump called him “a total loser” who was unlikely to win a primary election next year against a Republican challenger.

No one is a total loser and some of Amash’s concerns ought to be of interest to more of us. The parties are as divided as ever. Re-election seems to be the primary goal of many in Congress, along with nonstop fundraising.

The Founders never intended politics to become a career. They were farmers, lawyers, business people and average citizens who saw service to their country as a duty and a privilege, not a lifestyle. Most returned home to their real jobs after serving the nation for a brief time. Many of today’s politicians serve for decades with no real connection to the people they were elected to serve.

Instead of clashes between parties whose interests do not promote the general welfare but instead appear mostly self-serving, candidates should debate which ideas have a proven track record of working, no matter their party of origin.

Our 30th president, Calvin Coolidge, who was born in this tiny hamlet of Plymouth Notch on July 4, 1872, had abundant wisdom on numerous subjects. Horse, or common sense, they called it.

About taxes, which today’s Democratic presidential candidates believe are not high enough, Coolidge said, “I want taxes to be less, that the people might have more,” and “The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny” and “The wise and correct course to follow in taxation is not to destroy those who have already secured success, but to create conditions under which everyone will have a better chance to be successful.” Copy to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Coolidge also said you don’t help build up the weak by tearing down the strong. Copy to all Democrats.

In his op-ed, Amash writes of partisanship: “These are consequences of a mindset among the political class that loyalty to party is more important than serving the American people or protecting our governing institutions. The parties value winning for its own sake, and at whatever cost. … In this hyper-partisan environment, congressional leaders use every tool to compel party members to stick with the team, dangling chairmanships, committee assignments, bill sponsorships, endorsements and campaign resources. As donors recognize the growing power of party leaders, they supply these officials with ever-increasing funds, which, in turn, further tightens their grip on power.”

He is right, but who is most at fault? Isn’t it the people who vote for and allow them to stay beyond their “sell-by” date, corrupted by money and power? Too many voters are also compromised by what they get from government.

Coolidge said, “The aim of our government is to protect the weak — to aid them to become strong.” That last part is key. Too many politicians want to subsidize the weak in their weakness, addicting them to government programs and the Democratic Party. Where in the recent debate among Democratic presidential candidates did you hear anything about government helping people to become less dependent on it and more independent of it?

Amash may not win re-election, but his critique of the dangers of extreme partisanship, where no idea from “the other side” should be considered valid, ought to be taken seriously. We have a history of ideas that worked and failed. We should reconsider the ones that worked and reject the ones that didn’t.

Winning the battle of ideas ought to be paramount, not just beating members of the other party. Coolidge, a total winner, would approve.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/64142?mailing_id=4407&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4407&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

While Mitchell found that 61% of surveyed business leaders claimed to have benefitted from at least one government-granted privilege, the vast majority held the view that government shouldn’t be picking favorites. The percentage of business leaders who had not received any benefit from the government and were opposed to such favoritism was 84%.

The problem is the more instances of government favoritism that exist, the more likely the public will sour on capitalism, and for a couple of reasons. First, fairness. The more government is as seen as picking winners and losers, the more the public will believe that government and not the free market is responsible for a business’s success. Second, eroded trust. The public will stop believing in the fairness of a free market system, if the market is not free from companies cozying up to government to squelch competition.

Finally, Mitchell observes, “Were they alive today, I suspect that free marketeers like [Adam] Smith, [Joseph] Schumpeter, and [Milton] Friedman would say that our findings are consistent with their conclusion that capitalists are their own worst enemies. At the same time, I can’t help but note that the study is consistent with Marxist notions of class interest and false consciousness. According to Marxist theory, different classes — capitalists, workers — have different and often opposing interests. The idea of false consciousness is that many of us are deluded into thinking and acting in ways that do not serve our class interests.”  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64144?mailing_id=4407&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4407&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

American midfielder Megan Rapinoe made clear her disdain for American President Donald Trump. Fine, an athlete doesn’t like Trump. What else is new? But she went out of her way to refuse a White House invite before it had even been given — indeed, before the team had even won. How self-righteous and presumptuous. After the victory, she said she’d be “very happy to accept” Senate Minority Leader Chuck scumbag-Schumer’s invite.

Then there was midfielder Allie Long, who dropped the American flag on the ground during her choreographed victory celebration with Rapinoe. Teammate Kelley O'Hara picked up the flag, but the disrespect had been shown.

And finally there was the championship celebration marred by tiresome chants of “equal pay!” According to The New York Times, “In recent years, that fight for pay equality has been the women’s team’s calling card. The players contend they are paid less by the United States Soccer Federation than the men — sometimes tens of thousands of dollars or more for top players in a given year — and that the situation has persisted for years even as the women’s team has collected more trophies and begun to produce more revenue than the men.” Never mind that six of the 12 top-paid U.S. players are women. The women’s team sued U.S. soccer for gender discrimination earlier this year.

It’s true that the U.S. men’s soccer team has never been as successful as the women. The men didn’t even make  the World Cup in 2018. It’s also true that the women don’t bring home as much money as the men. But the women’s pie is a whole lot smaller.

Matt Walsh explains, “FIFA, the international soccer organization, will give about $400 million to male players in the World Cup, while female players will make around $30 million.” That sounds bad, but not when revenue is factored in. The Women’s World Cup earned in the neighborhood of $130 million. That’s great, but the 2018 Men’s World Cup brought in more than $6 billion. So the women’s slice of the pie (23% of revenue) is far larger than the men’s (7%), relative to the whole. But Rapinoe wants that $30 million for the women to be quadrupled to $120 million. How about quadrupling revenue first?

Why so much more money for the men? More viewers. Rich Lowry notes, “The women’s tournament this year may have had about a billion viewers across all platforms, nothing to sneeze at. But the 2018 men’s World Cup had more than a billion viewers just for the final game.”

We’re not making any judgment to assert the simple fact that not nearly as many people watch the women as watch the men. That translates to more money for the men. It’s not misogyny or some travesty of “social justice”; it’s simply the market at work.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64158?mailing_id=4407&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4407&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Meanwhile, Trump was critical of the Democrats’ Green New Deal, asserting, “It’ll kill millions of jobs. It’ll crush the dreams of the poorest Americans and disproportionately harm minority communities. I will not stand for it. We will defend the environment, but we will also defend American sovereignty, American prosperity, and we will defend American jobs.”

He also highlighted the fact that even after he pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord, America leads all other signatory nations in emissions reductions. Trump argued, “A strong economy is vital to maintaining a healthy environment,” adding that he believes an environmental policy that penalizes Americans is counterproductive to both Americans and the environment. He cogently observed, “For years politicians told Americans that a strong economy and vibrant energy sector were incompatible with a healthy environment — that one thing doesn’t go with the other.” However, Trump declared, “That’s wrong.”

Predictably, leftists panned Trump’s speech and environmental record because he never acknowledged their pet alarmist issue: climate change. The Hill’s headline serves as case in point: “Trump touts environmental policies, but says nothing of climate change.” The fact of the matter is, Trump recognizes there are actual environmental policies that can be implemented that bring real, demonstrable change. Strangling the economy to fight alleged anthropogenic climate change is simply not one of them. This reality is demonstrated by the fact that the only solution offered is a massive government takeover of the economy to institute some form of socialism, which in turn offers no viable solution to pay for the $93 trillion price tag and for avoiding the certain bankruptcy such a policy would bring upon the nation. And even if we were to implement these drastic draconian policies, we are told that impact upon the global climate would be minimal at best.

So the question is: Who has the better environmental record? Trump has a far better case than do the ecofascists.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64160?mailing_id=4407&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4407&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body 

sicko-Kaepernick may have been a middling football player, but he is a big-league race hustler, maybe one of the best yet. Anyone capable of influencing the marketing and sales decisions of a Fortune 500 Company must be considered a powerful person. sicko-Kaepernick is only a spokesman, though. Can he make this kind of call? Find out who’s signing sicko-Kaepernick’s paychecks and you’ll get to the bottom of this latest controversy.

Enter Nike CEO Mark Parker. Parker has been with Nike since 1979, starting out as a footwear designer. He climbed up the corporate ladder with innovative designs and a savvy marketing mind, becoming CEO in 2006. Since then, Nike has been on a steady uphill climb, now worth about $32 billion.

Part of Parker’s success has been being involved in all facets of the company’s development — product design, opening new markets like China, and marketing. Parker is ultimately responsible for signing on sicko-Kaepernick as a pitchman for the brand when he was at the height of his race-baiting powers.

sicko-Kaepernick’s first Nike ad aired last fall and caused a great deal of controversy — deliberately, of course. And it didn’t hurt Nike’s bottom line. Quite the opposite, actually, as the campaign ultimately earned the company $6 billion. Sad to say, but leftist, anti-American rhetoric apparently sells. And Parker knows it.

When sicko-Kaepernick voiced his offense at the Betsy Ross shoe, it was most likely to keep his name in the news. The only commodity he has to sell is controversy, and Parker, being a clever businessman, has leveraged that. Upon hearing of sicko-Kaepernick’s disapproval of the new product, Parker could have parted ways with sicko-Kaepernick and let the Betsy Ross shoe hit the market. But by keeping sicko-Kaepernick on board, Parker keeps a lot of his fans in Nike’s corner. The CEO is betting that this latest controversy will be as lucrative as its last one. Nike’s recent positive fourth-quarter-earnings report supports Parker’s thinking.

It may be cynical to think that this latest sicko-Kaepernick controversy is really just a clever marketing ploy, but Parker is at heart a businessman. Whatever his personal politics, Nike as a company often contributes more money to Republicans than Democrats, its recent courting of sicko-Kaepernick notwithstanding. This suggests that sicko-Kaepernick is the flavor of the month at Nike. The moment he no longer makes money for the company, he’ll be back on the bench.

For right now, Nike is content to make itself known as the brand that embraces anti-Americanism and perpetuating a false narrative to enrich itself and race hustlers like sicko-Colin Kaepernick. That may change when a new idea comes its way. In the meantime, shop accordingly.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64132?mailing_id=4405&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4405&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

With the caveat that the UN itself is hardly a paragon of human rights, its almost laughably named commission notwithstanding, the report paints a bleak picture:

Families of the victims described [Venezuela’s Special Action Forces] FAES breaking into their houses, taking their belongings, and exercising gender-based violence against women and girls, including forced nudity. They would separate young men from other family members before shooting them. According to their relatives, almost all of the victims had one or more shots in the chest. In every case, witnesses reported how FAES manipulated the crime scene and evidence. They would plant arms and drugs and fire their weapons against the walls or in the air to suggest a confrontation and to show the victim had “resisted authority.”

Death — often in the street to serve as a warning to others — wasn’t the only punishment, either. Reason notes, “In addition to extrajudicial killings, the U.N. report found that some 15,000 people have been arbitrarily arrested for political reasons since 2014, including around 2,000 in 2019 alone. Many of them were subjected to torture, including ‘electric shocks, suffocation with plastic bags, waterboarding, beatings, sexual violence, water and food deprivation, stress positions and exposure to extreme temperatures.’”

Investigators came to the painfully obvious conclusion that Venezuela’s “security” forces were actually “an instrument to instill fear in the population and to maintain social control.” That is the stock-in-trade of socialist regimes.

Just don’t forget that commie-Bernie Sanders’s website still contains a 2011 editorial lamenting, “These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as … Venezuela.”  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64134?mailing_id=4405&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4405&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

In January 2017, Trump enjoyed a positive net favorability rating in all but six states. Fast forward to June 2019 and the number of states where Trump holds an overall positive rating has shrunk to 21. This seemingly represents a dramatic shift in the wrong direction for Trump’s 2020 reelection hopes. And honestly, it seems somewhat mind-boggling considering just how successful Trump has been in implementing the agenda he campaigned to achieve.

Taken from a purely outcome-based perspective, Trump’s time in office has been amazingly successful — even more so given all the political resistance he has faced. He has implemented a deregulation crusade and pushed through a Republican tax cut that helped jump-start a near-stalled economy, as record-low unemployment and growing wages attest to. On the judicial front, Trump kept his promise to nominate constitutionally committed justices to both the Supreme Court and appellate courts. On foreign affairs, Trump’s unconventionality has proven to be highly intuitive and effective. He has stood up for the American worker against China’s abusive trade practices, has worked to ease tensions with North Korea, and has confronted Iran by pulling the U.S. out of Barack  scumbag/liar-nObama’s disastrous nuclear agreement.  

By most measurements Trump is getting positive results for all Americans, so why the bad poll numbers? Two facts have played against Trump — one of his own making, while the other has been the sole mission of the Left. Trump’s mouth is as much an asset as it is a liability. He can effectively communicate directly with his base in a manner that cuts past all the mainstream media spin, but this also opens him up to great criticism over his tendency to punch down and pick ugly fights. While Trump often correctly sees the big-picture problems, he too often gets caught up in swapping spit with jackasses. The MSM has used this to its advantage to portray him as childish, reckless, and untrustworthy. At the same, Democrats and their Leftmedia cohorts have preached a nonstop narrative of Trump being a racist, bigoted, illegitimate president who only won the election because of Russian interference.

What this recent survey may indicate is that, irrespective of Trump’s actual record, the Democrat/MSM nonstop disinformation campaign against him is bearing fruit.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64117?mailing_id=4405&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4405&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Trump specifically noted the essential role America’s military continues to play in both securing and maintaining our Liberty: “Today, just as it did 243 years ago, the future of American Freedom rests on the shoulders of men and women willing to defend it.” And far from being divisive, as so many on the Left contend, Trump’s message was one of unity as he declared, “As long as we stay true to our cause, as long as we remember our great history, as long as we never stop fighting for a better future, then there will be nothing that America cannot do. We will never forget that we are Americans and that the future belongs to us. We share one home, one heart, and we are all made by one Almighty God.”

But being a proud American today is a bridge too far for many Democrats, who have capitulated to the leftist narrative that erroneously blames America for much of the world’s problems rather than recognizing the U.S. as the number-one proponent of Liberty and justice. And due to their Trump Derangement Syndrome, Democrats have fallen into expressing only antagonism toward the pro-America message.

Finally, U.S. Air Force veteran John Cooper, writing for The Daily Signal, summed it up well when he observed that the “‘Salute to America’ is about one thing: reminding our nation of those who stand vigilant in defense of our liberty. It’s about honoring those who have given, and continue to give, so much for our nation. And it’s about remembering why we can celebrate this day year after year.”  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64098?mailing_id=4401&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4401&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

When signing Washington state’s sanctuary law, Gov. Jay Inslee — now a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination — self-righteously proclaimed that his state would “not be complicit in the Trump administration’s depraved efforts to break up hard-working immigrant and refugee families.”

What is “depraved” is Inslee’s complicity in codifying a reckless policy that has led to the murder, robbery and assault of Washington residents.

In like manner, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, also a Democrat, is unapologetic about her state’s sanctuary policy. It also prevents local law enforcement officials from honoring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers and bars them from notifying the feds when illegal immigrants are arrested for committing local crimes.

In mid-June, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security released a list of criminal illegal immigrants who took advantage of the sanctuary policies of both states. After their jailers ignored ICE detainer requests, these immigrants committed assault, rape and murder across the Pacific Northwest, authorities said.

Take the case of Rosalio Ramos-Ramos, a Honduran with multiple prior criminal convictions who was lodged in a city jail in Washington. He was released despite an ICE detainer. He remained free until he was arrested again, this time accused of murder.

Another Honduran, Elder Carceres-Coello, had a long string of prior criminal convictions going back to 2005. Yet he, too, was also released despite an ICE detainer. He is back in jail now, charged with murder and robbery.

Illegal immigrant Jorge Luis Romero-Arriaga was being held in jail on child rape charges. Rather than hand him over to ICE agents, Washington authorities released him. He wound up behind bars again, convicted on multiple assault charges. Only then was Romero-Arriaga finally deported.

None of these murders, robberies or assaults would have occurred if these illegal immigrants had been handed over to ICE so they could be removed from the country.

Need more proof of the folly of such policies?

The wife of Christian Octavio Parra would be alive today except for the Washington state’s irresponsible sanctuary policy. Octavio Parra was being held in a county jail, but local authorities refused to notify ICE when they released him or to honor an ICE detainer warrant. He went home and shot and killed his estranged wife before committing suicide.

The Department of Homeland Security report outlines similarly tragic — and entirely preventable — incidents in Oregon due to the state’s dangerous sanctuary policy. For example, Martin Gallo-Gallardo, a Mexican citizen illegally in the U.S., was released by Oregon authorities who ignored an ICE detainer warrant. Gallo-Gallardo is now back in jail, accused of murdering his wife. What do you think her family thinks about the state’s politically correct sanctuary policy?

It really is hard to understand how politicians think that, as ICE says, making it “more difficult to remove dangerous criminal aliens” and trying “to stop the cooperation of local officials and business partners” does anything other than “harm the very communities whose welfare they have sworn to protect.”

The crimes committed by illegal immigrants are not isolated incidents either. A July 2018 Government Accountability Office report noted that the 197,000 criminal illegal immigrants incarcerated in federal prisons during fiscal year 2011 through 2016 had been arrested about 1.4 million times and accused of approximately 2 million offenses — about 10 crimes apiece.

The 533,000 criminal illegal immigrants incarcerated in state and local prisons during fiscal years 2010 through 2015 (for which the federal government reimburses local governments through the Justice Department’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program) were arrested about 3.5 million times and accused of approximately 5.5 million offenses.

And more criminal illegal immigrants are coming. An investigation by ICE found that 660 members of an 8,000-strong October 2018 illegal immigrant caravan “already had run-ins with the law in the U.S.,” including convictions for assault, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and murder.

ICE also identified 860 out of 3,300 individuals in a January 2019 caravan who had “criminal histories in the U.S., including 30 convicted of sexual offenses, 20 convicted of assault and aggravated assault and one convicted of attempted murder.”

The Department of Homeland Security report makes for sad reading indeed. It is rife with stories of criminals brought to justice too late to keep them from harming additional innocents.

In each instance, had state and local authorities simply complied with ICE detainer requests, these illegal immigrants would have been removed from the community and their subsequent crime sprees prevented. That they were freed to continue wreaking mayhem is a direct result of sanctuary policies.

Where was the sanctuary for their victims?  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/63977?mailing_id=4378&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4378&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body