THE FOUNDATION

“[L]eave nothing to the uncertainty of procuring a warlike apparatus at the moment of public danger.” –George Washington, Fifth Annual Message to Congress, 1793

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS

Thank Goodness There Has Never Been a Scandal With Obama

Look who suspended his subscription to The New York Times. When speaking at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics, Barack Obama’s former adviser David Axelrod told the audience that Obama is an ethical man. An audience member had asked about the culture of lobbying in Washington, bringing up “This Town,” a book by New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich that asserts the Obama administration failed to keep its promise to stay above the political fray. Axelrod said no, that was not the case. Obama is an ethical man, and there are rules in place to prevent that sort of thing. He continued, “And I’m proud of the fact that basically you have had an administration in this place for six years in which there hasn’t been a major scandal. And I think that says a lot about the ethical strictures of this administration.” No major scandal? Just today, New York Times investigative reporter James Risen promised to spend the rest of his life fighting to take back the freedom of the press Obama and Eric Holder destroyed. Let’s not mention Benghazi, Fast and Furious and the IRS. No, according to Axelrod, there is no scandal. Obama is an ethical man. More…

Comment | Share

EPA’s New Regulations Will Cost Jobs

Whatever modest gains Barack Obama can claim in job creation, his EPA will strip away in the next few years. A new study by the Heritage Foundation finds that every state in the union will “experience overwhelmingly negative impacts” from the Environmental Protection Agency’s push to regulate coal plants and motor vehicles. By 2030, the U.S. may lose a half a million jobs in the manufacturing sector and 45% of the jobs in the coal mining industry. But the EPA justifies its ecofascist decrees by saying the private sector is already investing in green energy. “The energy sector sees the writing on the wall,” Liz Purchia, EPA press secretary, told the Daily Signal. “Businesses like Spectra Energy are investing billions in clean energy. And utilities like Exelon and Entergy are weaving climate considerations into business plans. This means more jobs, not less. We’ll need thousands of American workers, in construction, transmission, and more, to make cleaner power a reality.” What Purchia chalks up to be free market entrepreneurialism is more likely big business chasing government subsidies. Or they see the agenda the EPA has set since the 70s and plan accordingly.

Comment | Share

Separation of Church and ObamaCare

Leftists are always eager to relegate faith to one’s private life and keep church and state entirely separate. Until they’re not. Any time they want to advocate wealth redistribution, same-sex marriage or even killing babies, they point to the Bible and say, “See, there’s a verse about _____.” Naturally, such exegesis is usually out of context or misapplied. Their latest Bible-thumping involves ObamaCare enrollment. Jeryl Bier of The Weekly Standard notes, “In an effort to sign up as many consumers as possible for insurance under the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare), the Obama administration has gone to extraordinary lengths to partner with churches and other faith-based groups, even publishing sample church bulletin inserts, flyers, and scripts for announcements, as well as ‘talking points.’ These materials are part of the ‘Second Sunday & Faith Weekend of Action Toolkit,’ which is available on the website of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).” It goes so far in one instance as to cite I Corinthians 6:19, which says, “Your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit” – and therefore you “must be insured.” Good heavens, the hypocrisy! The party of “keep your laws off my body” is now misquoting Scripture to spiritualize a government mandate to buy insurance.

Comment | Share

How Obama Debt Ranks as Share of GDP

Last fall, Barack Obama, who has already accumulated a staggering $7 trillion in debt, said, “All kinds of good stuff is happening. I mean, we have cut our deficit by more than half.” Well, gee, that’s great. Except it’s egregiously deceiving. Most people interpret his statement to mean America’s $18 trillion debt is now less than $9 trillion. What he actually means is that the amount of money perpetually added to the national debt has, at least temporarily, been slashed in half. Rather than $1 trillion in annual deficit spending, it’s now only short of $500 billion. But how does public debt under Obama compare to previous administrations as a share of GDP? The Washington Examiner compiled a handy graph, which shows Obama comes second only to Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose ranking was largely driven by World War II. With public debt at 74.1% of GDP, Obama makes George W. Bush’s 39.3% look relatively meager. In fairness, “Presidents do not have full control over the federal budget, so they don’t deserve full responsibility for debt levels when they leave office,” the Examiner’s Jason Russell observes. Nevertheless, he continues, “[T]he veto pen is a major tool in budget debates, and the president deserves more credit or blame than any other individual.” And just imagine the figure if Obama always got his way – like his $4 trillion budget proposal. More…

Comment | Share

Beware the Flintlock Gangs of New Jersey

New Jersey is throwing the book at retired teacher Gordon van Gilder. During a recent traffic stop, Gilder told the police officer searching his car that he had a pistol in the glove compartment of his vehicle – an unloaded flintlock manufactured in the mid-1700s. The next day, the police department showed up at Gilder’s home in force and arrested him. Now, Gilder faces a 10-year sentence in New Jersey state prison because, unlike federal law, the state makes no distinction between an antique firearm and a Saturday night special. Gilder promises to fight, saying the law is unjust. But in the meantime, he warns, “Beware of New Jersey. Don’t come here. Don’t live here.” It’s a gun law so unfair gun-grabber Michael Bloomberg should get behind its repeal. After all, he only wants to get guns out of the hands of young black and Hispanic males. As Gilder said, flintlocks are not exactly gangland’s weapons of choice.

Comment | Share

For more, visit Right Hooks.

Share

RIGHT ANALYSIS

Democrats Are Wearing Blinders

Denying the radical Islamic nature of the terrorism perpetrated by al-Qaida and the Islamic State is at the heart of Barack Obama’s foreign policy. But make no mistake: Obama’sblinding Islamophilia is costing the U.S. big time.

Terrorism is “random,” he says, and the Islamic State isn’t Islamic. Twenty-one Christians beheaded by ISIL were merely “Egyptian citizens” – as if religion had nothing to do with it – but three Muslims killed by a leftist atheist in North Carolina were clearly targeted because of their faith. “No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship,” Obama said, despite early evidence that such targeting wasn’t the case anyway.

The White House began a three-day summit Tuesday focused on combating “violent extremism.” One official explained the stance on ISIL: “We are not treating these people as part of a religion. We’re treating them as terrorists.” But addressing that summit, Joe Biden warned of right-wing extremists committing violence in the name of the Bible.

After all, Obama says not to get on your “high horse” because Christians are still guilty of the Crusades.

Meanwhile, Marie Harf, spokesperson for the Obama State Department, continued this pattern when she explained that ISIL’s terrorism isn’t so much religious as economic plight, and that all these angry [Muslim] men need is a little “middle-class economics.” She pontificated, “We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, [including the] lack of opportunity for jobs. … We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance. We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people.”

We suppose if the jihadis were employed and still committed acts of terror, Harf would explain that away as “workplace violence.”

In a better world, the U.S. would be unequivocally fighting evil instead of excusing it, and people like Marie Harf would be looking for “job opportunities” in the private sector.

Never mind that Obama abandoned Iraq, leaving a vacuum for ISIL to fill. And forget that his entire strategy for dealing with ISIL consists of a few airstrikes, or that his Authorization for Use of Military Force severely handicaps the fight. Faced with pushback over her foolish comments, Harf insisted, “No one should doubt our commitment” to defeating ISIL.

Well, let’s ask Attorney General Eric Holder about that commitment. “We’re not at a time of war,” he informed us Tuesday. Tell that to the American military personnel flying sorties over ISIL territory and the soldiers still stationed in the region. And does Holder’s pronouncement mean Congress can disregard Obama’s AUMF request?

Not exactly, since Holder’s Justice Department has previously justified airstrikes – even if they kill American citizens – because we’re at war.

As far as calling Islamic extremism what it is, Holder dismissed the idea: “Radical Islam, Islamic extremism – I’m not sure an awful lot is gained by that.” Though he did say, “If Fox [News] didn’t talk about this, they would have nothing else to talk about, it seems to me.” Radical Islam is far more than a right-wing talking point. It’s reality, and Holder should check in some time.

Our nation is being led by men and women who are so Orwellian they insist up is down, hot is cold, and Islam is innocent but Christians are guilty. Such morally bankrupt lies and distortions are plainly dangerous to our future.

Comment | Share

Immigration Ruling Provides an Opportunity for GOP

U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued an injunction Monday blocking the first phase of Barack Obama’s executive action to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. The amnesty – intended to take effect today – would grant three-year stays of deportation, Social Security numbers and work permits to some illegal aliens, but Hanen declared that Obama exceeded his authority. No kidding.

The Department of Homeland Security “was not given any ‘discretion by law’ to give 4.3 million removable aliens what the DHS itself labels as ‘legal presence,’” Hanen wrote. “In fact, the law mandates that these illegally-present individuals be removed. The DHS has adopted a new rule that substantially changes both the status and employability of millions. These changes go beyond mere enforcement or even non-enforcement of this nation’s immigration scheme.”

“In fact,” Hanen continued, “the law mandates that these illegally-present individuals be removed.”

The most powerful portion of the decision follows:

“This is not the end of the inquiry; in fact, in this case, it is really the tip of the iceberg. Obviously, this injunction (as long as it’s in place) will prevent the immediate provision of benefits and privileges to millions of individuals who might otherwise be eligible for them in the next several months indoor DAPA and the extended-DACA. The Court notes that there is no indication that these individuals will otherwise be removed or prosecuted. They have been here for the last five years, and given the humanitarian concerns expressed by [DHS] Secretary [Jeh] Johnson, there is no reason to believe they will be removed now. On the other hand, if the Court denies the injunction and these individuals accept Secretary Johnson’s invitation to come out of the darkness, there may be dire consequences if DAPA is later to be found to be illegal or unconstitutional. The DHS – whether under this administration or the next – will then have all pertinent identifying information for these immigrants and could deport them.”

Obama’s plan, known as Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA), is designed to cover illegal alien parents of “anchor children” (children of illegals born in the U.S.) and legal permanent residents. It includes a three-year stay of deportation, Social Security numbers and work permits to compete legally for jobs. And some 95% of those who applied for the 2012 Dreamer program were approved.

The Obama administration did say, however, that it would honor the ruling until such time as an appeal can be heard by the Fifth Circuit Court.

Obama should have legal difficulty defending his amnesty when he has served as the opposition’s key witness. He has said the president isn’t above the law so many times that House Speaker John Boehner documented 22 such occasions on his website.

For example, Obama once said, “I am not a dictator. I’m the president. … If in fact I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress then I would do so. … I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

Now, he says, “I’m confident that it is well within my authority and the tradition of the executive branch’s prosecutorial discretion to execute this policy.”

Thus, Boehner wasn’t surprised by the ruling. Ironically, he bears some responsibility for enabling Obama’s autocratic coup. During December’s lame-duck session, Boehner persuaded reluctant House members to pass an omnibus spending bill to fund Obama’s entire budget for the last nine months of the fiscal year.

But now, the House has passed a funding bill aimed at reining in DHS. Republicans are trying to persuade Senate Democrats not to filibuster, but nothing will change Democrats' minds. Lacking passage of the bill, DHS will shutdown on Feb. 28.

Despite the fact Democrats in the Senate have filibustered the DHS budget three times, Republicans should use this court decision as an off-ramp for the funding battle because the low-information public does not understand the idiosyncrasies of Senate rules. Democrats are winning the propaganda effort by accusing Republicans of refusing to fund DHS, even though Republicans in the House have funded all of DHS except for Obama’s illegal immigration plans.

Republicans are in the right position but have not successfully made their case to the public. Obama never expected his plan would succeed. He only wanted to blame Republicans for the failure – exactly what he was doing until the court stepped in.

The battle over illegal immigration is coming to a head. After 40 years of fighting – from early skirmishes in the 1970s to California’s Proposition 187 in 1994 to more recent court fights over bilingualism in schools – we may well be headed for a clash at the Supreme Court.

Comment | Share

For more, visit Right Analysis.

TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS

• Mona Charen: Islam as a Victim Civilization
• Michelle Malkin: The ‘Jobs for Jihad Delinquents’ Program
• Arnold Ahlert: The Muslim Brotherhood-ISIS Connection
• Terence Jeffrey: Obama’s Unconstitutional Indiscretion
• Walter E. Williams: Shame

For more, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Humorist Will Rogers (1879-1935): “One of these days they are going to remove so much of the ‘hooey’ and the thousands of things the schools have become clogged up with, and we will find that we can educate our broods for about one-tenth of the price and learn ‘em something that they might accidentally use after they escape.”

Columnist Mona Charen: “With each passing day, this administration’s refusal to speak plainly about radical Islamic terrorists becomes more and more surreal. King Abdullah of Jordan says it. President Sisi of Egypt says it. European leaders say it. The United Arab Emirates has published a list of 80 terrorist groups around the world – all of them Muslim. This week, the White House is hosting an international conference on 'countering violent extremism.’ The administration promises that the conference will ‘work to address the underlying conditions that can help foster violent extremism such as poverty, inequality and repression. This means supporting alternatives to extremist messaging and greater economic opportunities for women and disaffected youth.’ What ‘extremist messaging’ would that be? The Christian Science Monitor? This is gibberish. The administration uses language to impede thought rather than to elucidate it – which suits the jihadis very well.”

Comment | Share

Columnist Walter E. Williams: “Liberalism is a moral manipulation that exaggerates inequity and unfairness in American life in order to justify overreaching public policies and programs. Liberalism undermines the spirit of self-help and individual responsibility. For liberals in academia, the fact that black college students earn lower grades and have a higher dropout rate than any group besides reservation Indians means that blacks remain stymied and victimized by white racism. Thus, their push for affirmative action and other race-based programs is to assuage their guilt and shame for America’s past by having people around with black skin color. The heck with the human being inside that skin.”

Comment | Share

Fred Thompson: “During an interview, Michelle Obama said you should eat healthy ‘if you don’t like folks messing with your life.’ I remember back when that’s what the Constitution was for.”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

THE FOUNDATION

“That experience is the parent of wisdom is an adage, the truth of which is recognized by the wisest as well as the simplest of mankind. What more desirable or more essential than this quality in the governors of nations? Where more desirable or more essential than in the first magistrate of a nation?” –Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 72, 1788

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS

Judge Blocks Obama’s Immigration Orders – For Now

In response to a suit by 26 states to stop Barack Obama’s unconstitutional move on immigration, a federal judge issued an injunction, temporarily halting the federal government’s implementation of those immigration fiats. U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen blocked Obama’s orders because they would allow immigrants to collect benefits and thus burden the states. Texas Governor Gregg Abbott, who led the states in the suit, said of the ruling, “Obama abdicated his responsibility to uphold the United States Constitution when he attempted to circumvent the laws passed by Congress via executive fiat, and Judge Hanen’s decision rightly stops the president’s overreach in its tracks.” Don’t expect the feds to give up easily, as Obama’s spokesman Josh Earnest said the Supreme Court already gave the executive branch power to prioritize enforcement, and the Department of Justice will appeal Hanen’s decision. National Review’sPatrick Brennan says this victory may be temporary, as the rest of the court system tends to be neutral or favor Obama on separation of powers issues. But for now, Obama’s decrees are blocked, even if it took half of the state governments and the court system to do it. More…

Comment | Share

Anyone Think Illegals Voting Will Tip Elections?

Ohio Secretary of State John Husted told Congress last week that Barack Obama’s amnesty is going to add millions of illegals to the voter rolls. That’s because Obama’s move makes it possible for illegals to obtain Social Security numbers, while several states issue them driver’s licenses. “These are the same documents that federal law requires the states to recognize as valid forms of identification for voter registration,” Husted warned. “There is no way for us to validate [U.S. citizenship], since under the executive actions previously undocumented non-citizens will have access to the same documents as U.S. citizens.” Of course, Obama’s intent was to build an enduring Democrat base of new voters who owe him and his party their allegiance. Investor’s Business Daily wonders, “What kind of country is it that lets those who are not citizens decide who governs those who are? If any foreigner can now vote here, is the United States even a country anymore? If Congress doesn’t stop it soon, de facto enfranchising of illegals will be our road to ruin.” It will certainly tip elections. As Husted testified, in just the last 15 months, some 70 Ohio elections were either tied or decided by a single vote. And the 2000 presidential election was decided by 537 votes in Florida. Now send millions of illegals to the voting booth.

Comment | Share

What if Christians Beheaded Muslims?

The Rev. Franklin Graham asked a poignant question following the brutal beheading of 21 Coptic Christians in Libya: What would public reaction be if roles were reversed? “The militant Islamic terrorist group ISIS has released a video called A MESSAGE SIGNED WITH BLOOD TO THE NATION OF THE CROSS showing the beheadings of the 21 Egyptian Christians who had been kidnapped in Libya,” Franklin wrote. “Can you imagine the outcry if 21 Muslims had been beheaded by Christians? Where is the universal condemnation by Muslim leaders around the world? As we mourn with the families of those 21 martyrs, we’d better take this warning seriously as these acts of terror will only spread throughout Europe and the United States. … The storm is coming.” Remember, Barack Obama’s White House statement on the beheadings didn’t even mention the victims were Christians.

Comment | Share

Jobs for Jihadistan?

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. That’s the policy of Barack Obama’s administration, especially when it comes to denying the reality of Islamic fascism. State Department spokesperson Marie Harf is the latest to explain their alternate reality. “We’re killing a lot of them [ISIL fighters] and we’re going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians, so are the Jordanians. They’re in this fight with us,” she said. “But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war.” On the contrary, wars are won by killing the enemy until they surrender. But Harf wasn’t done with her illusion. She blamed the rise of ISIL on – wait for it – the lack of economic opportunity. “We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, [including the] lack of opportunity for jobs,” she pontificated. “We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance. We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people.” In a better world, the U.S. would be fighting evil instead of excusing it, and people like Marie Harf would be looking for “job opportunities” in the private sector.

Comment | Share

Look Who Wants to Avoid ObamaCare Penalties

About four million Americans are going to get hit with IRS fines for not having health insurance this tax season, and congressional Democrats have taken it upon themselves to stop such a travesty. Democrat representatives Sander Levin, Jim McDermott and Lloyd Doggett told the Associated Press they are concerned about the law they passed in 2009 because their constituents may have their tax returns gouged hundreds of dollars by the IRS. Furthermore, nine senators sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services advocating the department to open a special enrollment period. Rush Limbaugh weighed in on the Democrat’s strategy on Feb. 16 when he said, “Here we have congressional Democrats acting like they had nothing to do with this law, that their voters are a bunch of victims of something. … This situation exists because the Democrat Party gave us this bill. The Democrat Party and the Democrat Party alone gave us ObamaCare. There wasn’t a single Republican vote for it.” The Left wants a nanny state utopia but they don’t like the harsh reality that government is an iron rod that will bend subjects to its will. So they will continue to patch ObamaCare every couple years and throw hundreds of millions of dollars at a website on life support in an effort to keep their statist dream alive. More…

Comment | Share

For more, visit Right Hooks.

Don’t Miss Patriot Humor

Check out Ivy League.

If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here.

Share

RIGHT ANALYSIS

Gun Grabbers Evoke Federalism to Block Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is re-introducing the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act to allow gun owners with concealed carry permits to bring their firearms to any other state with concealed carry laws. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have some version of concealed carry in place, but the laws and reciprocity vary significantly from one state to the next – a patchwork that has landed law-abiding citizens in trouble for years.

“The current patchwork of state and local laws is confusing for even the most conscientious and well-informed concealed carry permit holders,” explained Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “This confusion often leads to law-abiding gun owners running afoul of the law when they exercise their right to self-protection while traveling or temporarily living away from home.”

The most prominent recent example of this is the case of Shaneen Allen, a single mother from Pennsylvania threatened with 10 years in jail for inadvertently bringing a concealed gun into New Jersey. Fortunately, sanity prevailed in that instance. But this type of case will only become more common in the coming years now that every state has a concealed carry law and the legal purchase of firearms is on the rise.

Cornyn said his legislation seeks to eliminate these “gotcha moments,” but, naturally, the gun control crowd is warning of the apocalypse.

Michael Bloomberg’s gun-grabbing group, Everytown for Gun Safety, released a report on concealed carry reciprocity, claiming, “Some states do thorough criminal background checks on applicants, while other states have such ineffective permitting systems that they inadvertently issue permits to felons.” Everytown and other anti-Second Amendment groups argue this bill will negate strict gun control laws in favor of states with weaker laws in place.

It’s almost comical to see the Left fly the flag of federalism. Leftist dogma dictates all power belongs to the central government – health care, school lunches, same-sex marriage, etc. But this time they have found a convenient use for states' rights by arguing that it’s wrong for Washington to establish a uniform system for recognizing the gun laws of other states.

Leftist hypocrisy aside, Cornyn believes such a scenario is not possible under his proposed legislation. The bill upholds laws currently in place in individual states by providing that weapons conceal-carried by one state’s residents must be carried in the same manner as residents in the host state. The legislation also does not allow concealed carry in states that do not allow the practice for their own residents. This last point seems irrelevant considering all states currently have concealed-carry, but it does signal the bill is not designed to roll back or in any way change existing state laws.

The federal government will not be empowered to force a national minimum concealed-carry standard under this bill. It will merely protect state residents from being unduly harassed by other states with stricter concealed carry laws.

The bill likely passes constitutional muster on grounds that no state can violate the rights guaranteed by the Bill of the Rights or the 14th Amendment. But there is a difference of opinion about which constitutional clause is the best vehicle. Some say the Commerce Clause offers the best argument because it is in the federal government’s interest to see that citizens can freely engage in interstate travel and commerce. If citizens fear undue punishment or harassment in certain states because of unreciprocated concealed-carry laws, then travel and commerce between states will be deterred.

The Commerce Clause is too often used to justify ever more regulatory power in the hands of the federal government, and thus many conservatives argue the Full Faith and Credit clause is more appropriate here.

According to the Constitution: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

Consider a driver’s license. Any state’s driver’s license allows its holder to drive in any other state, subject to the laws of the state in which he or she is driving. Concealed carry reciprocity already works in a similar manner and Cornyn’s bill wouldn’t change that.

The anti-Second Amendment crowd doesn’t want to see Cornyn’s concealed carry reciprocity bill pass because it will further confirm what they already fear – they are losing the gun control fight. A large majority of Americans embrace the right to possess firearms. And it is a right, not a privilege.

The leftist argument that Cornyn’s bill will ultimately lead to a loosening of concealed carry restrictions in certain states is not entirely off base. It may very well do that, since the loosening of gun laws in this country has been trending for at least 20 years with positive results. That trend will likely continue, no matter the fate of Cornyn’s bill.

Comment | Share

Too Big to Fail vs. Too Little to Lobby

It’s a bad day when the Harvard Kennedy School for Business and Government labels your policy a failure and blames it for actually exacerbating a situation. A new study shows the 2010 financial reform law known as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act simply made “too big to fail” even bigger and increased the likelihood of greater risk and bailouts.

The paradoxes of bad policy are legend. We’re still living through the “Affordable Care Act” that was supposed to drive health costs down but is instead costing more for everyone. Even the dietary practices meant to eliminate fat consumption are the very reason we’re getting larger.

Likewise, the sweeping law that was supposed to “reform” America’s financial institutions after the 2008 financial panic is proving its critics accurate.

First, named after two of its now-retired proponents, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the law was clearly established on statist principles – the government knows best.

Second, with a grandiose purpose that’s so broad it lacks only the cure to Ebola, the expanse ensured collapse under its own weight. The law’s preamble laid out its lofty goals: “To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end ‘too big to fail’, to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.”

Third, this legislative web came in response to the “Great Recession.” But bad government policies induced the risky behavior in the first place, and beefing up those policies was clearly the wrong solution.

Remember, the most basic goal of Dodd-Frank was to prevent the increasingly prevalent consolidation of banks and lending institutions. However, the Harvard study aggregates hard data demonstrating the destructive effects of these new regulations on small community banks, which were eaten alive by compliance costs that followed a new mountain of regulations. “[Larger] banks are better suited to handle heightened regulatory burdens than are smaller banks,” the study notes, “causing the average costs of community banks to be higher.”

That resulted in many more community banks being swallowed by large ones.

Forbes writer Carrie Sheffield explains, “[T]he number of community banks fell by 40 percent since 1994, and their share of U.S. banking assets fell by more than half – from 41 percent to 18 percent. In contrast, the biggest banks saw their share of assets rise from 18 percent to 46 percent. And while the number of community banks already declined before the crisis, since the second quarter of 2010 – Dodd-Frank’s passage – community banks have lost market share at a rate double what they did between Q2 2006 and Q2 2010: 12 percent vs. 6 percent.”

Study authors Marshall Lux and Robert Greene combed through Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) data to observe, “Community banks service a disproportionately large amount of key segments of the U.S. commercial bank lending market – specifically, agricultural, residential mortgage, and small business loans.”

Despite a 50% decline in total banking assets over the last two decades, community lenders provide 77% of agricultural loans and over 50% of small business loans. These smaller institutions serve as the lifeline of the working-man’s industry.

These smaller banks are critical to farmers, for example, thanks to their ability to personalize loans to fit longer agricultural cycles and weather uncertainties. Larger banks more often reject lending applications or offer stiffer terms.

On the real estate front, the default rate in 2013 for borrowers securing loans for a family residence through a community bank was 3.47%, while larger banks owned a default rate of 10.42%. Those local relationships pay off in the area of accountability.

With the burden of regulation came the hefty price tag. Who’s paying it?

The middle-class consumer is, through reduced bank services and increased fees.

The data is extensive and conclusive: Dodd-Frank is a bad law and should be repealed. The GOP-led legislative branch is moving to “chip away” at the choking regulations. But will the changes benefit the too-big-to-fail banks or work to assist the too-little-to-lobby?

Comment | Share

For more, visit Right Analysis.

TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS

• Arnold Ahlert: On the Cusp of War – Whether We Like It or Not
• Thomas Sowell: Damaging Admissions
• Tony Perkins: Libs Come Back for Moore
• Ed Feulner: A Final First-Place Finish?
• Michael Barone: Democrats' ‘Blue Wall’ not Impregnable to Republicans – If They’re Smart

For more, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

British philosopher W. K. Clifford (1845-1879): “It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”

Columnist Arnold Ahlert: “In Obama’s twisted mind, Netanyahu remains ‘problematic’ because he’s about to inject a dose of reality into the president’s fairy tale pursuit of a no-nukes agreement with Iran, despite ten years of failure in that regard. It is a failure also steeped in denial in that it completely ignores the nihilistic imperative that animates the Iranian mullahs. It is their heartfelt belief that they must facilitate the re-emergence of the Twelfth or Hidden Imam, an Islamic second coming that requires a period of worldwide chaos to engender that re-emergence. Obama and his equally myopic ‘allies’ that comprise the P5+1 negotiating team, namely the U.S., Russia, China, the UK, and France, plus Germany, have dismissed that religious imperative as nonsense. … It’s astounding how many Americans have ‘moved past’ 9/11, as if we’re not facing a threat every bit as lethal today, if not more so. Do feckless Western leaders need something akin to that level of carnage to move the military needle? Or will it take a nuke exploding over Western city? Think about that scenario the next time some leftist blowhard talks about how much money we’ve ‘wasted’ fighting Islamic terror. Really? What would it cost to completely re-build Chicago, New York, or Los Angeles – in different locations no less, because of radioactivity? The time for pretense is over. We either wipe out as many Islamists as we can, while we can, or we will pay a price beyond imagining.”

Comment | Share

Columnist Thomas Sowell: “A dean of admissions at Harvard, years ago, said, ‘the question we ask is: how well has this person used the opportunities available to him or her?’ In other words, the issue is seen as which of the competing applicants are more deserving. Since some people have had far better educational opportunities than others, that is supposed to be taken into account in deciding whom to admit. … When Jonas Salk applied to selective Townsend Harris High School in New York, and later to the then-selective City College of New York (CCNY), there might well have been some other student, not quite as academically qualified, who could have been admitted instead, on the basis of having overcome greater handicaps than Jonas Salk had. But the relevant question is: Would that other student have been equally likely to create a vaccine that would banish the scourge of polio? This is not a question of elitism versus egalitarianism. The vanquishing of polio was a boon to millions of people, rich and poor alike, to people of every race, color and creed, in countries around the world. Thank heaven Salk was not kept out of selective educational institutions for the sake of ‘social justice’ to one other individual who could have been admitted in his place.”

Comment | Share

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.