New York Congressman Tom Suozzi (D) is taking heat for suggesting that a room full of voters may need to take up arms against the Trump administration if he doesn't folow the law. “I mean, this is where the Second Amendment comes in quite frankly, because you know, what if the president was to ignore the courts? What would you do? What would we do?” said Suozzi during a Q&A session last week with constituents on Long Island. "It's really a matter of putting public pressure on the president," he added. Following his comment, a constituent asked him what the Second Amendment was. “The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms,” said Suozzi. “That’s why we have it.” Suozzi's comment comes a month after he co-wrote a virtue-signaling article with Rep. Peter King entitled "Do the right thing on gun laws" following the Parkland massacre. "Too often the National Rifle Association’s response is “more guns.” That’s nonsense. Americans already own 300 million guns," the article reads. In response to Suozzi's comments, Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Chris Martin said "When resistance and obstruction don't work out, Tom Suozzi proposes violence," adding "He's completely out of touch." Suozzi's spokesperson denied he was calling for "armed insurrection" against Trump (he was just telling the audience that the 2nd amendment would come into play if Trump ignores the courts). “Taking a page from such great Americans as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, Congressman Suozzi explained why our founding fathers created the Second Amendment as a way for citizens to fight back against a tyrannical government that does not follow the rule of law," senior adviser Kim Devlin said in a Monday statement to Fox News. Devlin added: "To suggest his comments meant anything else or that he was advocating for an armed insurrection against the existing president is both irresponsible and ridiculous.” Suozzi made the comment about the Second Amendment when a constituent asked him a question about Trump and the United States’ “constitutional system of checks and balances.”-Fox News That sure sounds exactly like every pro-Second Amendment conservative's argument against Democrats who want gun control, but what do we know.
Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org, Robert Bartley, the late editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, was a free trade zealot who for decades championed a five-word amendment to the Constitution: “There shall be open borders.” Bartley accepted what the erasure of America’s borders and an endless influx or foreign peoples and goods would mean for his country. Said Bartley, “I think the nation-state is finished.” His vision and ideology had a long pedigree. This free trade, open borders cult first flowered in 18th-century Britain. The St. Paul of this post-Christian faith was Richard Cobden, who mesmerized elites with the grandeur of his vision and the power of his rhetoric. In Free Trade Hall in Manchester, Jan. 15, 1846, the crowd was so immense the seats had to be removed. There, Cobden thundered: “I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe — drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonisms of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace.” Britain converted to this utopian faith and threw open her markets to the world. Across the Atlantic, however, another system, that would be known as the “American System,” had been embraced. The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding Father of his country in his first address to Congress: “A free people … should promote such manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies.” In his 1791 “Report on Manufactures,” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Every nation ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence.” This was wisdom born of experience. At Yorktown, Americans had to rely on French muskets and ships to win their independence. They were determined to erect a system that would end our reliance on Europe for the necessities of our national life, and establish new bonds of mutual dependency — among Americans. Britain’s folly became manifest in World War I, as a self-reliant America stayed out, while selling to an import-dependent England the food, supplies and arms she needed to survive but could not produce. America’s own first major steps toward free trade, open borders and globalism came with JFK’s Trade Expansion Act and LBJ’s Immigration Act of 1965. By the end of the Cold War, however, a reaction had set in, and a great awakening begun. U.S. trade deficits in goods were surging into the hundreds of billions, and more than a million legal and illegal immigrants were flooding in yearly, visibly altering the character of the country. Americans were coming to realize that free trade was gutting the nation’s manufacturing base and open borders meant losing the country in which they grew up. And on this earth there is no greater loss. The new resistance of Western man to the globalist agenda is now everywhere manifest. We see it in Trump’s hostility to NAFTA, his tariffs, his border wall. We see it in England’s declaration of independence from the EU in Brexit. We see it in the political triumphs of Polish, Hungarian and Czech nationalists, in anti-EU parties rising across Europe, in the secessionist movements in Scotland and Catalonia and Ukraine, and in the admiration for Russian nationalist Vladimir Putin. Europeans have begun to see themselves as indigenous peoples whose Old Continent is mortally imperiled by the hundreds of millions of invaders wading across the Med and desperate come and occupy their homelands. Who owns the future? Who will decide the fate of the West? The problem of the internationalists is that the vision they have on offer — a world of free trade, open borders and global government — are constructs of the mind that do not engage the heart. Men will fight for family, faith and country. But how many will lay down their lives for pluralism and diversity? Who will fight and die for the Eurozone and EU? On Aug. 4, 1914, the anti-militarist German Social Democrats, the oldest and greatest socialist party in Europe, voted the credits needed for the Kaiser to wage war on France and Russia. With the German army on the march, the German socialists were Germans first. Patriotism trumps ideology. In “Present at the Creation,” Dean Acheson wrote of the postwar world and institutions born in the years he served FDR and Truman in the Department of State: The U.N., IMF, World Bank, Marshall Plan, and with the split between East and West, NATO. We are present now at the end of all that. And our transnational elites have a seemingly insoluble problem. To rising millions in the West, the open borders and free trade globalism they cherish and champion is not a glorious future, but an existential threat to the sovereignty, independence and identity of the countries they love. And they will not go gentle into that good night.
● How Luck Happens: Using the Science of Luck to Transform Work, Love, and Life By Janice Kaplan & Barnaby Marsh Review via Kirkus Review Seneca said it best: “Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” In this genial, upbeat overview, former Parade editor-in-chief Kaplan (The Gratitude Diaries: How a Year Looking on the […]
There are a lot of misconceptions and outright lies about the Second Amendment going around in 2018. Here are 9 of the biggest.
Jamie Fly and Laura Rosenberger crossed party lines to track the Kremlin propaganda campaign. Tweeters on the far right — and far left — aren’t happy about it.
Strands of the first US president’s hair thought to have been gift to book’s owner from James Alexander Hamilton, son of the famous Treasury secretaryA researcher at the Schaffer Library in New York has discovered what is believed to be a lock of George Washington’s hair inside an 18th-century almanac. The strands are thought to have been given to the book’s owner by the son of Alexander Hamilton, the first US secretary of the Treasury immortalised in the hit musical that bears his name.Archivist Daniel Michelson found the copy of Gaines Universal Register or American and British Kalendar for the year 1793 while digging through the oldest books held in the Schaffer Library, part of Union College in Schenectady, New York. Within the covers of the book, which is believed to have belonged to Philip Schuyler, son of one of Union College’s founders, General Philip Schuyler, he discovered a series of Philip Schuyler’s handwritten notes on topics including how to “preserve beef for summer’s use”. Continue reading...
В библиотеке Юнион-колледжа в городе Скенектади в штате Нью-Йорк был найден конверт с прядью волос Джорджа Вашингтона. Юнион-колледж – одно из самых старых учебных заведений США. Он был основан в 1795 году. Скенектади был населен преимущественно выходцами из Нидерландов, которые были приверженцами разных течений протестантизма. При основании колледжа представители тринадцати различных протестантских деноминаций решили, что ни одна из них не должна иметь преимущества, в итоге Юнион-колледж стал первым светским учебным заведением в стране. Библиотека колледжа носит имя Генри Шафтера и содержит представительную коллекцию изданий XVIII века. Также она поддерживает два онлайн-каталога: Early English Books Online (EEBO) и Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO). В EEBO содержатся оцифрованные копии почти всех книг на английском языке, напечатанных с 1473 по 1700 год, а в ECCO – с 1701 по 1800 год. Недавно архивист Даниэль Майкельсон обратил внимание на хранящийся в библиотеке альманах 1793 года издания (Gaines Universal Register or American and British Kalendar). На книге была дарственная надпись «Филиппу Скайлеру в подарок от его друга Филиппа тен Эйка, Нью-Йорк, 20 апреля 1793 года». Поскольку семья Скайлеров имеет непосредственное отношение к основанию Юнион-колледжа, да и вообще сыграла немалую роль в ранней истории США, библиотекарь Джон Майерс решил пристально изучить книгу. Первое, что он там обнаружил, был рецепт «как сохранить говядину летом», вписанный на страницы книги Филиппом Иеремией Скайлером – политиком, занимавшим кресло депутата палаты представителей от штата Нью-Йорк в 1817 – 1819 годах. Затем был найден вклеенный в книгу конверт с прядью седых волос. На конверте была надпись: «Волосы Вашингтона, Л. С. С. & Дж. Б. С. от Джеймса А. Гамильтона, подаренные ему его матерью». Историческая реликвия связана с отцом Филиппа Иеремии Скайлера – Филиппом Джоном Скайлером, который был военачальником в войне за независимость, депутатом Континентального конгресса, членом сената США и сената штата Нью-Йорк и личным другом Джорджа и Марты Вашингтон. Его дочь Элизабет, сестра Филиппа Иеремии, вышла замуж за другого отца-основателя США – Александра Гамильтона, Джеймс А. Гамильтон был их сыном. Вероятно, Марта Вашингтон передала Александру Гамильтону и его жене прядь волос своего покойного мужа в знак памяти о нем, как это было принято в XVIII веке. Их сын Джеймс передал реликвию своим родственникам. Весьма вероятно предположение, что Л. С. С. и Дж. Б. С. – это внучки Джеймса Луиза Ли Скайлер и Джорджина Скайлер. Подтвердить принадлежность волос Вашингтону путем анализа ДНК вряд ли удастся, так как их касалось слишком много людей, поэтому образец неизбежно будет загрязнен. К тому же Марта Вашингтон, не вырывала волосы мужа, а отрезала их ножницами, поэтому они лишены волосяных луковиц. Однако специалисты говорят, что почерк Джеймса Гамильтона на конверте совпадает с другими известными образцами его писем, что говорит в пользу подлинности находки. Юнион-колледж планирует выставить в библиотеке конверт с прядью волос и письмо 1804 года на имя Филиппа Иеремии Скайлера, которое также было найдено в книге.
Многое было написано об известном споре между Томасом Джефферсоном (Thomas Jefferson) и Александром Гамильтоном (Alexander Hamilton) по поводу соответствия первого центрального банка Америки, Банка Соединенных Штатов (BUS), конституции. Именно тогда Джефферсон, занимавший должность Государственного секретаря, сформулировал свои взгляды на необходимость «строгого соблюдения» Конституции. Он изложил свои доводы президенту Джорджу Вашингтону (George Washington), подчеркивая, что учреждение […]
Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning, After Trump announced the steep 30% U.S. tariffs on imports of solar panels and washing machines, the Chinese Commerce Ministry expressed “strong dissatisfaction” and said it “aggravates the global trade environment.” Trump is not done with tariffs. In the days and weeks ahead, we can expect further announcements with regard to steel and aluminum imports to the U.S. Again, such imports come largely from China, but the tariffs will likely affect all exporters to the U.S. Ironically these announcements came just as President Trump was preparing to go to Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum. The Davos elites vehemently oppose both trade and capital controls, preferring instead a globalist “one-world” approach. The only problem with the Davos elite theory is that it is empirically, historically and analytically wrong. The theory of free trade is based on an idea called “comparative advantage.” This idea goes back to David Ricardo, an early 19th century British economist. Ricardo’s theory was that countries should not try to be self-sufficient in all manufacturing, mining and agriculture. Instead countries should specialize in what they do best, and let others also specialize in what they do best. Then countries could simply trade the goods they make for the goods made by others. All sides would be better off because prices would be lower as a result of specialization in those goods where you have a natural advantage. It’s a nice theory often summed up in the idea that Tom Brady should not mow his own lawn because it makes more sense to pay a landscaper while he practices football. But, the theory is flawed. For one thing, comparative advantage is not static. It changes over time. Importantly comparative advantage can be created from thin air. Taiwan had no comparative advantage in semiconductors in the 1980s, but the government made a political decision to create the state-sponsored Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. Today Taiwan Semiconductor is the largest supplier of semiconductors in the world. The government nurtured Taiwan Semiconductor with tariffs and subsidies when it was most vulnerable to foreign competition. Today Taiwan Semiconductor is a publicly traded company that competes effectively around the world, but it would never have attained that status without government help in its early days. If the theory of comparative advantage were true, Japan would still be exporting tuna fish instead of cars, computers, TVs, steel and much more. The same can be said of the globalists’ view that capital should flow freely across borders. That might be advantageous in theory but market manipulation by central banks and rouge actors like Goldman Sachs and big hedge funds make it a treacherous proposition. In the depths of the Asian financial crisis of 1997, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir closed Malaysia’s capital account to preserve hard currency and defend his exchange rate. Mahathir was excoriated at the time by the likes of George Soros. Soros went so far as to call Mahathir a “menace to his country.” But scholars today agree that Mahathir made the right move. In recent years, even the IMF has said there are certain circumstances where capital controls are fully justified. If open trade, and open capital flows are flawed ideas, why do the Davos elite support them? The answer is that these theories, which have superficial appeal to everyday citizens, are the perfect smokescreen for the elites’ hidden agenda. That agenda is to diminish the power of the United States, and the U.S. dollar, in world affairs and to enhance the power of rising nations especially China. If several hundred million Chinese can be pulled from poverty by leaving the U.S. market open while China subsidies its companies, imposes its own tariffs, steals intellectual property, and limits U.S. foreign direct investment, then that’s fine. If U.S. workers lose their jobs in the process, that’s fine too. The elites don’t care about the U.S.; they only care about their “one world” vision. Trump is calling their bluff. When Trump says “America First” he means it. So does Trump’s top trade advisor Robert Lighthizer. Lighthizer is a veteran of the Reagan administration who forced the Japanese to move their auto plants to the U.S. in the 1980s by imposing steep tariffs on Japanese imported cars. Thousands of high-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs were created as a result. Lighthizer plans to run the same playbook against the Chinese today. Lighthizer is part of a hawkish “Trade Troika” consisting of himself, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, Jr. and White House trade advisor Peter Navarro. All three are urging President Trump to impose a set of tariffs on China involving not only washing machines and solar panels, but steel, aluminum, and theft of intellectual property. Opposing the Trade Troika are trade doves including National Economic Advisor Gary Cohn, Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the CEOs of major global corporations such as Boeing, Apple and General Motors that all derive large profits from Chinese operations. The hawks and doves fought each other to a standstill in 2017 because of wishful thinking about Chinese help on North Korea and the importance of a united front to pass the tax bill. With hopes for China now dispelled and the tax bill passed into law, the trade agenda is front and center. This is not a “kick-the-can-down-the-road” situation. Trump is confronting hard deadlines on key decisions. America has always prospered with high tariffs to protect its industries. From Alexander Hamilton’s plan for infant manufacturing to Henry Clay’s American Plan, the U.S. has always known how to protect its industries and create American jobs. Trump is returning to that tradition. The problem is that this will not be a smooth ride. It will take years for U.S. solar panel manufacturers to get back on their feet. (One of the largest U.S. firms filed for bankruptcy protection last year, but it continues to operate in reorganization under court supervision.) A full-scale trade war will hurt world growth even as it helps U.S. growth. Given the trillions in dollar-denominated debt in emerging markets, a full-scale foreign sovereign debt crisis could be in the making if those emerging markets countries cannot earn dollars from exports to pay their debts. Trump did not impose these tariffs in 2017 because he needed Chinese help with the North Korean situation. But, China did not do all it could in North Korea, and there is good evidence that China is helping North Korea cheat on existing sanctions. As if to rub salt in the wound, China reported today that its 2017 trade surplus with the U.S. was $275 billion, the highest ever. Once China’s lack of cooperation on North Korea became clear, Trump saw no harm in confronting China on trade, something he’s been talking about since the summer of 2015 during the early days of his campaign. The Chinese may choose to retaliate not so much with their own tariffs, but with other forms of financial warfare including its threats to persify its reserves away from U.S. Treasuries. As China buys fewer U.S. Treasuries, the most likely substitute asset class is gold. This is one more reason to expect that the recent weak dollar and strong gold trends to continue for the remainder of this year and beyond.
[_Amici Curiae_ in Janus v. AFSCME](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/16/16-1466/28326/20180118155219419_16-1466%20bsac%20Economists%20and%20Professors%20of%20Law%20and%20Economics.pdf): No. 16-1466 :: In the Supreme Court of the United States :: MARK JANUS, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: Henry J. Aaron, Katharine G. Abraham, Daron Acemoglu, David Autor, Ian Ayres, Alan S. Blinder, David Card, Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, Angus Stewart Deaton, Bradford DeLong, John J. Donohue III, Ronald G. Ehrenberg, Henry S. Farber, Robert H. Frank, Richard B. Freeman, Claudia Goldin, Robert J. Gordon, Oliver Hart, David A. Hoffman, Lawrence F. Katz, Thomas A. Kochan, Alan Krueger, David Lewin, Ray Marshall, Alexandre Mas, Eric S. Maskin, Alison D. Morantz, J.J. Prescott, Jesse Rothstein, Cecilia Elena Rouse, Jeffrey D. Sachs, Stewart J. Schwab, J.H. Verkerke, Paula B. Voos, David Weil: BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ECONOMISTS AND PROFESSORS OF LAW AND ECONOMICS IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS: **INTRODUCTION**: _Amici curiae_ are leading economists, including three Nobel laureates, along with distinguished professors of law and economics, who submit this brief to discuss the free-rider problem this Court identified in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977).1 In Abood, the...
Александр Гамильтон - первый министр финансов США, основатель центрального банка Соединенных Штатов и автор программы ускоренного торгово-промышленного развития страны.
Александр Гамильтон - первый министр финансов США, основатель центрального банка Соединенных Штатов и автор программы ускоренного торгово-промышленного развития страны.
While our presidents are not required to measure their intelligence levels, we know of a few from the past who would qualify.
Что тут важно? Думается, что не одна Хиллари может вести своеобразную «тетрадь смерти» своих недоброжелателей, но и многие иные влиятельные фигуры в США. А это очень многое говорит об уровне политической культуры в Соединенных Штатах. Кстати убийство и самоубийство как политический инструмент в США активно использовался практически с самого момента независимости Штатов, если не раньше
Главный редактор американского Forbes рассуждает о грамотной валютной политике и важности золотого стандарта
Public-health advocates say the effects of the Republican tax law will be dire.
Musicals have a reputation for being safe or stodgy. In fact, from Porgy and Bess to Cabaret, they are often daring in both subject and formEven in a culture where publicity increasingly suffers from giganticism, the American musical Hamilton, which opened in London this month, has been massively anticipated. Now British theatre critics have confirmed the mega-hit suggested by 11 Tony awards and the five-star social media buzz from the show’s Broadway run.Yet Hamilton seemed an unlikely theatrical triumph: a musical about Alexander Hamilton, the first US secretary of the treasury, with a score dominated by hip-hop. And, as theatre has been inching painfully towards colour-blind casting, Hamilton was provocatively contrary in making a point of casting African and Hispanic Americans as historical white males, offering an alternative history in which US citizens really were created equal. Continue reading...