Beta
Skip to main content

Author: Jose Nino

Latest Census Report Shows U.S. Government Is Continuing Its Spending Binge

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Economic Liberty, Economics, Education. No Comments on Latest Census Report Shows U.S. Government Is Continuing Its Spending Binge

On May 21, 2019, the U.S. Census Bureau released a report of how much American school districts spend per student. Joe Carter of the Acton Institute highlighted seven figures that stood out in this report:
  • Per-pupil spending in public elementary and secondary education (pre-K up to the 12th grade) for all states and the District of Columbia rose by 3.7 percent to $12,201 per student during the 2017 fiscal year. In 2016, spending was at $11,763 per pupil.
  • The top five school systems with the largest student populations are located in New York City (984,462), Los Angeles (633, 621), Chicago (378,199), Miami-Dade County, FL (357,249), and Clark County, NV (326,953).
  • Of the top 100 largest school systems observed, the top five biggest per-pupil spenders were New York City School District ($25,199), Boston City Schools in Massachusetts ($22,292), Baltimore City Schools in Maryland ($16,184), Montgomery County School District in Maryland ($16,109), and Howard County School District in Maryland ($15,921).
  • Maryland stuck out like sore thumb by having four of the top 10 school districts with the highest spending per student in the nation.
  • The public school systems that received the highest percentage of revenues from the federal government were New Mexico (14.4 percent), Mississippi (14.1 percent), Alaska (14.0 percent), Arizona (13.7 percent), and South Dakota (12.8 percent).
  • On another hand, the public school systems that received the lowest rate of the percentage of their revenue wise from the federal government were New Jersey (4.1 percent), Massachusetts (4.3 percent), Connecticut (4.3 percent), Minnesota (5.2 percent) and New York (5.3 percent).
  • In 2017 alone, public elementary and secondary revenue, coming from all sources, totaled to $694.1 billion. This represents a 3.4 percent increase from the 2016 fiscal year, where total revenue stood at $671.2.
All in all, it appears that America’s education spending bonanza persists despite evidence that government schools are underperforming against international competitors. When it was created, the Department of Education’s budget started off at $14.5 billion in 1979 and now hovers around $70 billion. The education largesse gets even worse when school breakfast and lunch and Head Start programs are accounted for, which puts the total Department of Education spending at roughly $100 billion. These spending trends are what happens when we start treating goods and services such as education like positive rights. This fundamental misunderstanding of what freedom constitutes leads to suboptimal outcomes. The way to fix education in America is by bringing in market incentives to the education sector, not more feel-good government involvement. Options like charter schools, school vouchers, home-schooling deregulation, and the privatization of education services should all be on the table. There are no sacred cows for market reforms. Sectors with overwhelming state involvement like education will likely lag, thus necessitating some private sector incentives. Once America is able to get over the mental hump that education is not special, and could actually use market reforms, education outcomes will improve for the better.

CrossFit Ditches Facebook and Instagram

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in First Amendment, News, Personal Liberty, Property Rights. 1 Comment on CrossFit Ditches Facebook and Instagram

Popular fitness company CrossFit has decided to take its pages off of Facebook and Instagram. In an announcement made on May 23, 2019, the fitness company expressed its dissatisfaction with Facebook’s security policies and growing thought policing. CrossFit has built a reputation over the years for disseminating contrarian views on topics concerning fitness and nutrition which it highlighted in its statement: “This website—and, until recently, CrossFit’s Facebook and Instagram accounts—has long cataloged CrossFit’s tireless defense of its community against overreaching governments, malicious competitors, and corrupt academic organizations.” The fitness company cited one move, in particular, which raised red flags about Facebook’s integrity as a platform:
“Recently, Facebook deleted without warning or explanation of the Banting7DayMealPlan user group. The group has 1.65 million users who post testimonials and other information regarding the efficacy of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. While the site has subsequently been reinstated (also without warning or explanation), Facebook’s action should give any serious person reason to pause, especially those of us engaged in activities contrary to prevailing opinion.”
These violations of the public trust spurred CrossFit to remove itself from Facebook’s platform. On top of that, CrossFit cited Facebook’s data collection programs, its collaboration with the U.S. government in mass surveillance programs such as PRISM, account censorship, leftist bias, lackluster security protocols, and its favoritism towards the food industry as reasons for its departure. This move makes CrossFit the largest company leave Facebook to date. Facebook has received major pushback lately for its decision to ban right-wing figures such as Paul Joseph Watson. Whether people agree with Watson or not, this is a rather troubling cultural trend emerging in social media. Although state censorship is categorically different from the actions of a private company, the 21st century has seen a blurring of the lines between the private sector and the political sector. For example, government-funded think tanks like the Atlantic Council colluded with Facebook to fight so-called “election interference” during the 2018 elections. The would-be authoritarians of yesteryear are now using corporations to enforce their political correctness agenda. Henry A. Wallace astutely observed that “The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information.” This reflects a new shift in strategy that the Left has taken since the collapse of the Soviet Union when top-down centrally planning fell apart. Now, statists have had to pivot in their strategy by promoting public-private partnerships or pressuring or infiltrating corporations to change policies that reflect politically correct norms. The good news is that as market actors, we still have considerable power in keeping politicized corporations in check. CrossFit shows that businesses with tremendous clout can stand up to dubious social media practices without having to get the state involved. The fitness company could very likely lead the way in a new movement for social media accountability. And the good news is that the state won’t have to be involved. This is a win-win for any freedom advocate.

Memo to AOC: Housing is Not a Human Right

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics, Elections and Politics. 1 Comment on Memo to AOC: Housing is Not a Human Right

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proclaimed that housing should be treated “as a human right” at a town hall in the Bronx. She specified, “We have to make sure that housing is being legislated as a human right.” For AOC, housing access comes before someone’s ability to profit. The freshman congresswoman expanded on this: What does that mean? What it means is that our access and our ability and our guarantee of having a home come before someone else’s privilege to earn a profit. AOC recognizes that housing is a complicated policy issue, which is correct. Government intervention has made it that way and we should not treat this topic lightly with empty slogans. Too bad, that most politicians don’t see it that way. AOC continued her rant against expensive housing:
Housing is one of the most complicated policy issues that we have, period. Because you have everything from City Council, from how things are zoned to state rent laws, to federal tax breaks and all of it comes together to make a picture that all too often enriches people who are already powerful and impoverishes people who are already vulnerable, and we cannot allow that to happen anymore.
Known for her patented Green New Deal, Ocasio-Cortez took this opportunity to shift the discussion towards environmentalism: Twenty percent of asthma cases come from home environmental issues. We just heard about it right now. And so, when we talk about our right to a clean home, when we talk about retrofitting buildings, what we’re talking about is cleaning our air and cleaning our water, because when we talk about what housing as a right means, it doesn’t mean that you have a right to four crumbling walls and dirty floor. AOC’s vision is quite noble. There is nothing wrong with environmentally-friendly and affordable housing per se. The question we must ask is how is it going to be provided? Based on AOC’s political outlook, it’s likely she will turn to the state or some state-sponsored scheme to provide housing. Apart from being a clear violation of property rights, these types of proposals will create a host of unintended consequences such as housing shortages, the development of slums, and an even more constricted housing market. In the end, government solutions will neither guarantee quality or quantity in the housing sector. The 800-pound elephant in the living room are land-use regulations is still ignored when discussing housing. Many of these restrictions curtail the construction of new housing units, thus limiting the overall housing supply. Basic economics dictates that restricted housing supply is no recipe for housing affordability. It is in states where there is more construction, which have more affordable housing markets. New York is simply not one of those states. According to the Cato Institute’s Freedom in the 50 States Index, New York is ranked at an abysmally low 46th place. So it comes to no surprise that New York City has 5th most unaffordable housing market in the U.S, whereas major cities like Dallas and Houston are among the most affordable in America despite achieving breakneck economic growth in the last decade or so. As far as freedom is concerned, New York is no safe haven. From gun rights to fiscal policy, New Yorkers see many facets of their lives controlled by the state. Ocasio-Cortez is correct in pointing out that housing costs are out of hand in many places in the U.S. However, her solutions involve more of the same government meddling in the economy that brought about this dilemma in the first place. Treating housing as a “human right” is not exactly a formula for economic prosperity. Instead, we should consider repealing legislation and red tape in the housing sector.

For Sweden, Immigration and Multiculturalism Don’t Mix

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Economic Liberty, Economics, Immigration, Issues. 1 Comment on For Sweden, Immigration and Multiculturalism Don’t Mix

Jon Nylander wrote an interesting piece for the Mises Institute regarding Sweden and its welfare state. Sweden’s welfare state is the object of international praise among leftists worldwide. Because of Sweden and its Nordic counterparts’ impressive living standards and generous welfare states, many are quick to draw the conclusion that the welfare state is the primary reason behind the country’s prosperity. For starters, it should be clarified that Sweden is no socialist country. It is among the highest ranked countries in terms of economic freedom, with a 19th place ranking in economic freedom according to the Heritage Foundation. On top of that, private property rights are respected—no expropriation of landholdings by the state—there exists a price system that functions according to markets. Nonetheless, welfare transfers can raise a number of issues, especially in the current context of mass migration that the European Union is facing. Nylander notes that “Sweden has accepted a considerable amount of immigrants (to put it mildly) from cultures that differ wildly from the Swedish.” Multiculturalism has become a controversial topic lately when discussing Europe’s current refugee crisis and immigration from Islamic countries in recent decades. The debates on both sides have merit. The idea of multiculturalism is not bad per se if it is done voluntarily. In other words, no welfare magnets, forced integration schemes, or arbitrary government quotas that satisfy the egos of agenda-driven politicians. In other words, immigrants from different cultures come to other countries for work-related purposes, thus facilitating assimilation. However, politicized multiculturalism brings different problems. Nylander illustrates this well: Forced multiculturalism, on the other hand, increases polarisation and tribalism along with the most basic, and most easily recognized dividing lines. In today’s political climate of identity politics, political commentators and politicians obsess over categories such as race, and will even go as far to use government force to implement policies that will promote “anti-racism.” Some policies, like welfare, are more subtle, and do function as a magnet for migration from culturally distinct regions, while planting the seeds of social corrosion for recent migrants. Over the last decade, there has been a rise in immigrant ghettoes in numerous countries such as the United Kingdom and Sweden. Nima Sanandaji’s Scandinavian Unexceptionalism sheds some light at what possibly could be going on in the Swedish case. Sanandaji argues that the welfare state has been a hindrance for immigrants trying to join the workforce. Because of this inability to immerse themselves in the workforce, immigrants from such distinct cultures have a harder time assimilating to their new host culture. The author of this politically incorrect book is a Swede of Iranian descent. Sweden has experienced various migrant waves from Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. These initial waves of migration did not bring many problems. But in present times, there are certain trends that point to Middle Eastern immigrants having difficulties not only in assimilating but also in attaining better economic outcomes. This development is especially notable when placed next to America, which has a lighter welfare state and a more flexible labor market. Sanandaji juxtaposes these two examples:
“Between 1993 and 2000, the income from work for the average Iranian immigrant was only 61 percent, and for the average Turkish immigrant 74 percent, of the average income of a native Swede.” On the other hand, Iranian and Turkish immigrants to America have performed significantly better: “According to the US Census for 2000, those born in Iran had an income that was 136 percent of the average for native-born US residents. Those born in Turkey had an income of 114 percent of the average for native-born residents.”
Although Sanandaji admits that there are differences between the Iranian and Turkish migrant waves to America and the ones who landed in Sweden, he argues that the differences alone can’t explain the significant gap between the immigrant groups. Sanandaji explains that “many of those who left for Sweden had belonged to the Turkish or Iranian middle classes.” All in all, countries like Sweden would benefit from a more labor-focused immigration system. A way to start is by phasing out welfare benefits and making it easier for immigrants with certain skills to join the workforce. From there, they can rub elbows with the native populations and become part of the Swedish culture. There’s no real need for more state involvement to solve this dilemma. However, diversity for diversity’s sake should not be a guiding principle for sound policy. At the end of the day, policies that champion voluntary action should remain king when it comes to public policy discussions.

Trump Claims He’s Not Looking for Regime Change in Iran

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Middle East, Military, National Defense, News. No Comments on Trump Claims He’s Not Looking for Regime Change in Iran

President Trump declared that his administration is not looking for regime change in Iran. In a press conference in Japan, Trump said that “I’m not looking to hurt Iran at all. I’m looking to have Iran say, ‘no nuclear weapons.’” This marks a less hawkish approach to the embattled Middle Eastern nation after the U.S. recently took decisive measures such as deploying an aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf. Further, there were reports of the U.S. sending 120,000 troops to the Middle East to confront Iranian proxies. Now, it appears that Trump is turning to diplomacy as a means of getting Iran to scrap its nuclear program. This is a similar approach to what Trump has done in North Korea. Although North Korea is still a work in progress, Trump’s strategy marks a significant break from the typical neoconservative schtick of saber-rattling, sanctions, and regime change rhetoric. Hopefully, the same strategy will be used with Iran, which is a state that has been lumped in the same so-called “Axis of Evil” like North Korea. Although the Trump administration has not been perfect on foreign policy, especially when looking at the case of Yemen, it has taken a more realist path to foreign policy. Instead of blindly following the orders of the defense industry, this administration is at least weighing how it approaches rogue countries according to American interests. The impulse to immediately send troops for nation-building has done considerable fiscal and reputational damage to the U.S. The country has already dropped $1 trillion each on campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Any more foreign adventures and America could be on the path to fiscal meltdown. The Middle East is already a massive powder keg of instability, and destabilization schemes could bring even bigger refugee crises to the U.S. and its allies. Treating the world like an interventionist lab experiment is no recipe for stability. How about we try diplomacy for once?

Denver Gets Psychedelic, Decriminalizes Mushrooms

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Drugs, Personal Liberty, Property Rights. 1 Comment on Denver Gets Psychedelic, Decriminalizes Mushrooms

Voters in the City of Denver approved the decriminalization of psilocybin mushrooms on May 7, 2019.  The Denver Psilocybin Mushroom Decriminalization Initiative was passed by a razor-thin margin of 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent. Under this newly passed initiative, the personal use and possession of psilocybin mushrooms by persons aged 21 and older would be Denver’s lowest law-enforcement priority. Further, the city would be prohibited from using resources to place criminal penalties on the use and possession of these mushrooms. This referendum represents another victory against the failed War on Drugs. Although it is not as comprehensive as Colorado’s 2012 marijuana legalization initiative, this decriminalization initiative is a step in the right direction for those who want to end the Drug War. Politics is a slow process filled with institutional inertia. Lest we forget, Colorado’s statewide marijuana legalization initiative was preceded by Denver voters approving a ballot initiative that made marijuana possession arrests “law enforcement’s lowest priority.” A small step in the right direction, this successful initiative helped build momentum towards the drug’s eventual legalization in 2012. Since it was waged in earnest during the 1970s, the War on Drugs has been a blight on American society. This disastrous campaign has been a treat for the prison industry and for spendthrift politicians who think throwing money and imposing prohibitions on substances will magically reduce their harmful effects. To the contrary, these efforts have made the illicit drug trade more lucrative while creating the incentive for drug suppliers to bring more dangerous substances onto the market. The recent decriminalization of psychedelic mushrooms is now at least getting the conversation started on the legalization of other drugs. This successful initiative also demonstrates the importance of local politics. In these types of elections, everyday citizens can change the conversation and get good policies implemented.

Civil Society – Not the State – Will Solve Video Game Addiction

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in First Amendment, Personal Liberty. No Comments on Civil Society – Not the State – Will Solve Video Game Addiction

Just when we think that politics can’t get any zanier, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley wants to ban “manipulative” online game features that supposedly make children addicted to video games. Introduced on May 8. 2019, Hawley’s Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act would prohibit video game companies from “exploiting children.” Hawley cites the use of “loot boxes,” microtransactions which encourage video game players to spend money in order to advance in a specific game. As crazy as this proposal may sound, let’s give Hawley the benefit of the doubt. There are certain studies that point to 1 to 10 percent of gamers being addicted to video games, whereas the World Health Organization contends that 3 to 4 percent suffer from video game addiction. But we have to ask ourselves, should this require the state to be involved? Josh Hawley is a reasonable elected official. The fact of the matter is that I actually like the family values he stands for. Unfortunately, many sectors of the Conservative movement believe these values must be enforced via the state. This couldn’t be more wrong. When we look back at our past century of Progressive politics, we’ve seen the state usurp functions that traditionally belonged to civil society. Because of these state encroachments, civil society has effectively been crowded out by the state. Voluntary organizations and mutual aid societies provided the necessary social glue to help people when they were in dire straits. In the case of health complications like addictions, these organizations would help rehabilitate these people and reintegrate back into normal society. This was how things worked throughout the Gilded Age (1880-1920), an era that almost seems quaint in today’s political environment of massive government. Unfortunately, the never-ending growth of the managerial state has phased out many of these organizations. As a result, American society has become more atomized and socially aloof when it comes to addressing these problems. Freedom comes with certain responsibilities. Yes, individuals can partake in activities that are harmful to their health, but they must assume the consequences for these actions. Even then, that does not mean the state should have to immediately step in to fix these problems. In fact, an integral part of freedom is the ability to partake in voluntary associations. As mentioned before, civil society is often a fallback measure for those who are going through troubling times. What separated America from other societies was its emphasis on voluntary charity and civic institutions that helped those in need. It did not need a heavy-handed state to carry out these actions. However, American culture has changed significantly thanks to the unprecedented growth in government during the past century. Senator Hawley may be onto something about addiction. As an American citizen, he has every right to raise awareness about the issue. However, a line must be drawn when government intervention is brought into the equation. Instead, Hawley and his ilk can set the example by re-vitalizing civil society via private, voluntary means. When it comes to addictions, America has a chronic ailment of turning to the state for solving problems.

Pat Buchanan Exposes Neoconservatives in the Trump Administration

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East, Military. 1 Comment on Pat Buchanan Exposes Neoconservatives in the Trump Administration

Contrary to popular belief, there are individuals on the Right who question foreign policy under the Trump administration. In his article, Are All the World’s Problems Ours? paleoconservative commentator Pat Buchanan cast light on the hawkish direction the Trump administration has taken in the past few months. Countries such as Iran and Venezuela have been the particular focus for DC foreign policy elites. Buchanan raised several valid points throughout this article. Buchanan asked a very thought-provoking question regarding Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s secret flight to Baghdad, Iraq:
How successful was Operation Iraqi Freedom, which cost 4,500 U.S. lives, 40,000 wounded and $1 trillion, if, 15 years after our victory, our secretary of state must, for his own security, sneak into the Iraqi capital?
Pompeo’s visit was in the backdrop of America’s recent deployment of naval carriers to the Strait of Hormuz. Although this escalation has not resulted into open conflict, Buchanan points out that “Tehran gave 60 days’ notice that if it does not get relief from severe U.S. sanctions, it may walk out of the nuclear deal it signed in 2015 and start enriching uranium again to a level closer to weapons grade.” During the same week of the growing Iran tensions, North Korea fired two missiles into the Sea of Japan. This was a clear message to the Trump administration that Kim’s patience is running thin. The recent North Korean negotiations, which originally started out with a lot of promise, have encountered numerous roadblocks thanks to the schemes of establishment diplomats like John Bolton. It’s become clear that Kim Jong Un sees the demands to surrender his nukes and dismantle his nuclear facilities as a bridge too far. Especially, when he receives no guarantees that sanctions on North Korea will be repealed. During the same timeframe, the U.S. threw its support behind Venezuelan Interim President Juan Guaido’s failed uprising against Nicolas Maduro’s embattled government. As a result, the hawkish elements of the Trump administration have not ruled out the use of military force. Afghanistan looked promising at first, with the Trump administration declaring a five-year withdrawal plan from the country. But now, it looks like there might be obstacles to completing a genuine withdrawal. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joe Dunford informed Congress that America must keep counter-terrorist units in Afghanistan “until there is no insurgency left in the country.” Buchanan rightfully views this announcement as a potential sign of “forever war” in Afghanistan. Unlike most of his colleagues on the Right, Buchanan has been a firm critic of military-industrial complex interests and military adventures abroad. In days of binary political thinking, Buchanan is a breath of fresh air. When it’s all said and done, Buchanan might be the last of his kind on the Right.

The IRS Poses Major Threat to Free Speech Rights

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, First Amendment, Issues, Libertarian Stances on Issues. No Comments on The IRS Poses Major Threat to Free Speech Rights

Former Congressman Ron Paul raised a good point in a recent piece talking about President Donald Trump’s 1980 and 1990s tax returns. The New York Times published a leak of these returns which highlighted some of the difficulties that Trump experienced during his time working in the private sector. Indeed, this isn’t groundbreaking information. However, Paul raises a good point about this tax return leak.  He argues that the person who leaked the returns could be an IRS employee with an ax to grind. Specifically, someone who wants Trump out of office by any means necessary. One thing that Paul points out is that this isn’t the IRS’s first rodeo with regards to targeting political opponents. In 2014, the IRS had to pay the National Organization for Marriage $50,000 after an IRS employee shared the names of the group’s donors to potential rivals. From 2014-2017, Paul’s group, Campaign for Liberty faced constant threats from the IRS because it refused to give the agency the names and other information related to its top donors. Thankfully, they were able to escape further pressure from the IRS. However, the IRS’s threats have persisted with the House of Representatives recently passing legislation to resume collecting this information. Further, we are already seeing the New York Attorney General investigate groups like the National Rifle Association for allegedly “financial improprieties.” This has been part of a new strategy by the political class to silence pro-gun groups through campaign finance and expenditure technicalities. Paul highlights how the IRS was even used to investigate anti-Iraq War groups during the Bush years. So it’s clear that the IRS can serve as a blunt tool against groups on all sides of the political spectrum. Apart from the economically destructive incentives it creates, the IRS’s use as a political weapon demonstrates why it should be abolished. When the government is given so much power over our financial affairs, it can find ways to sneak into other aspects of our lives. For better or worse, politics runs on money. Those who want to restore freedom, will not only need to spend time and effort but also their hard-earned money. That same money is tracked by a massive government that has continued to grow in size and scope. If we remain complacent to these facts, not only will our financial freedoms gradually erode, but our free speech rights will be on the chopping block. The former congressman’s account of these tax return leaks just shows why the IRS must be axed. Yes, it’s currently being used to attack President Trump, but it will likely be used against other political opponents as it has repeatedly in the past. For that reason, the IRS’s continued existence poses a major threat to fundamental civil liberties.

Charlie Kirk Ignores Republican Role in Advancing Gun Control

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Elections and Politics, Gun Rights, Second Amendment. No Comments on Charlie Kirk Ignores Republican Role in Advancing Gun Control

Never shying away from controversy, Turning Point Executive Director Charlie Kirk criticized 2020 Presidential candidate Joe Biden for his role in creating gun-free zones in America. This statement made by Kirk is technically correct. Biden was the Senator who introduced the Gun-Free School Zones Act in 1990. In this same tweet, Kirk called out Biden saying that he “has done more to allow school shootings than the NRA or any Republican ever has.” Although Biden deserves the brunt of the blame for creating this terrible piece of legislation, Kirk conveniently ignores on a key point in his Biden hit—the 1990 GFSZA was signed by Republican President George H.W. Bush. It takes two to tango in today’s status quo of ever-expanding government. Gun rights have not been excluded from this trend. Indeed, the Democrats held both chambers of Congress during that time. However, it stands to reason that a Republican president, who is supposedly “pro-gun”, would veto such legislation. Unfortunately, that was not the case. Under the 1990 GFSZA, carrying and possessing firearms within a thousand-foot radius of public, private, and parochial elementary and high schools is prohibited. Despite such prohibitions, criminals have not seemed to care, as witnessed with the recent Parkland, Florida, and Santa Fe, Texas massacres. To date, John Lott’s research shows that 98 percent of mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This makes sense when considering that this form of civilian disarmament turns school venues into soft targets for murderers. Generic Republicans can huff and puff about being pro-gun, but they too have been complicit in advancing gun control. As a matter of fact, it was a Republican Governor, Rick Scott, who signed Florida’s most expansive gun control law to date following the Parkland shooting. There is something more at play with regards to why gun control continues to move forward. It’s not just about electing the “right” Republicans. Ultimately, it boils down to changing the culture and the political environment around politicians in order to get them to behave accordingly. Bad politics follows bad ideas. So, it’s incumbent upon freedom advocates to make an unrelenting case for their ideas and take advantage of whatever means they have to spread their message. It’s in these spaces, not the ballot box nor the typical R vs. D debates, where policy is ultimately shaped. In today’s era of outrage politics, it’s easy to lose sight of the bigger picture.

Will President Trump Ban Firearms Suppressors?

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in News, Personal Liberty, Second Amendment. No Comments on Will President Trump Ban Firearms Suppressors?

The politicization of the Virginia Beach shooting was to be expected from anyone following politics in the last few decades.  Nothing does more to stir up political emotions than these indiscriminate slaughters. In times when emotions are running high, logic should be our go-to instinct. For those acquainted with gun politics, it’s well-established that the Left is a lock to push for gun control after every shooting. Emotional appeals are their bread and butter. Careful investigation showed that the Virginia Beach perpetrator legally acquired his gun and carried out his heinous act in a gun-free zone. One would think that the Republican side of the aisle would provide a logical alternative to this dilemma. However, this is politics, after all. And we should be prepared for disappointment at every turn. In this instance, President Donald Trump hammered suppressors stating that “I don’t like them at all” when asked about the Virginia Beach shooting and the murder’s use of a suppressor during the massacre. These comments immediately sent chills down the gun community’s spine as speculation of Trump considering a suppressor ban emerged. Many fear that a replay of last year’s bump stock ban could be in store, which is already meeting some resistance from gun owners. Suppressors are already heavily regulated under the National Firearms Act. On top of that, research shows that there aren’t many in circulation. John Lott found that “about 1.3 million Americans had registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF) to own a suppressor” in 2017. Despite media hysteria, suppressors are rarely used in crimes. According to the BATF, 44 cases involving suppressors were recommended for prosecution. In other words, a measly .003 percent of suppressors are used in crimes each year. Interestingly enough, President Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr. is a proponent of suppressor deregulation and justifies this policy for safety concerns. Suppressors reduce the sound guns make, which benefits shooters with hearing problems. Having more affordable suppressor options available thanks to de-regulation would help out this segment of the gun community tremendously. Trump Jr.’s advocacy saw a shift in the Overton Window in 2017 when Republicans introduced the Hearing Protection Act. However, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting dashed all hopes of this legislation passing. Further, the current congressional makeup makes it nearly impossible for the 2019 version of the HPA to become law. Trump should live up to the pro-gun rhetoric that got him elected and not entertain the idea of regulating or even banning suppressors. Instead, the President should take advice from his son and work to deregulate suppressors. At the end of the day, gun control policies such as gun-free zones are what allow Virginia Beach-style shootings to happen. No accessory ban will change that.  

Trump Administration Uses Emergency Powers to Placate Saudi Arabia

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Middle East, Military, National Defense, News, Uncategorized. No Comments on Trump Administration Uses Emergency Powers to Placate Saudi Arabia

It looks like the U.S.’s special relationship with Saudi Arabia is not ending anytime soon. On May 24, 2019, the Trump administration used emergency powers to fast track an arms deal with Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Congressional leaders were informed about this move by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who defended the administration’s actions based on the threat that Iran poses to American interests in the Middle East.   This deal sent $8 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia and the UAE in light of escalating tensions with Iran. In the midst of all this, there has been considerable pushback in Congress for the American government’s involvement in certain Middle Eastern projects. The Trump administration recently had to veto a resolution passed by both chambers of Congress that aimed to end U.S. involvement in the Yemeni Civil War. Because of these obstacles, the Trump administration had to exploit a loophole in the current arms control law to execute the weapons sale Senator Bob Menendez expressed his dismay with this situation: “I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the Trump administration has failed once again to prioritize our long-term national security interests or stand up for human rights, and instead is granting favors to authoritarian countries like Saudi Arabia.” Pompeo reiterated his support for the Trump administration’s decision asserting that “Iranian malign activity poses a fundamental threat to the stability of the Middle East and to American security at home and abroad.” Trump should be commended for not getting America involved in any direct military conflicts. However, his maintenance of the entangling alliance with Saudi Arabia and his decision to not cut aid in the Yemeni Civil War shows that there is still not much of an appetite to scale back from foreign conflicts. Defense industries still maintain the iron grip over American policymaking and will find ways to make sure the U.S. does not fully retract from foreign conflicts. Trump campaigned on an America First platform, which means no more nation-building and meddling abroad. It also means re-assessing alliances, phasing out foreign aid, and reducing the use of sanctions when conducting foreign policy. Former Congressman Ron Paul is correct in noting that foreign aid “is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich.” This kind of aid serves to prop up corrupt regimes and represents another immoral redistribution program. This time, these programs benefit foreign oligarchs, like the Saudi royal family, at the expense of the everyday taxpayer. If we’re going to have a State, it should at least nominally serve the interests of its people. Not getting into new conflicts is a good start. Trump can continue the pushing envelope by phasing out foreign aid and allying with countries that actually value freedom. This is what foreign policy of genuine non-interventionism looks like.