Author: Alice Salles
Like Venezuela, Nicaragua is making the world uncomfortably aware of what a disaster socialism truly is. But despite the bloody protests and a growing movement to remove Sandinista Daniel Ortega from power, common Nicaraguans are still far from reaching their goal. In the meantime, any group that speaks against violence is seen as an enemy of the state. And it is thanks to this policy of brutal oppression that it’s nearly impossible to be a Catholic in good standing and a Nicaraguan —unless, of course, you want the government breathing down your neck.
Much like Mexico during 70 years of brutal and violent persecution, Ortega and his wife, Rosario Murillo, have targeted Nicaragua’s Catholics for their opposition to the state’s policies, which appear to be heavily backed by the communist regime of Cuba. But as the country’s youth turn to the Church for a philosophy based on the idea of human freedom, it is clear that under a totalitarian regime, faith is seen as a deadly competitor.
In a 2018 interview, Bishop Jorge Solorzano said that “it’s a crime to be a Catholic young person today” in Nicaragua. Because the Church protected protesters who ran to the streets to demand new elections, the contention between the Nicaraguan state and the faithful widened, putting both lay people and clerics in danger.
“[W]hen the regime started brutally repressing our most basic rights, the bishops and many evangelical pastors, as shepherds of Christ’s flock, started forcefully denouncing the evil and brutal repression,” said Lesther Alemán, 21, a Nicaraguan student who became the face of the Nicaraguan anti-government movement. “The regime then turned against the Church, directing its mobs to attack priests, ministers, and bishops, as well as to desecrate churches. They threatened the Catholic Church’s leadership with murder.”
But as Ortega refuses to back down, doubling down against critics, Nicaragua’s economy is the hardest hit.
With the growing tensions, the country’s tourism industry suffered a tremendous blow, and because of the instability brought about the protests and violent response, banks and investment firms withdrew from the scene. Finally, America imposed sanctions on the small nation, further worsening the economic situation on the ground.
As political prisoners rot in jail and Catholics are treated like enemies of the state, many flee, afraid of losing their freedom — and even their lives — if they stay.
Did a US Bioweapon Program Help to Spread Lyme Disease?
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) wants the Department of Defense to explain whether the Pentagon used blood-sucking insects for biological weapon experiments between 1950 and 1975, reportedly helping to spread Lyme disease across the country.
According to the lawmaker, whose research is based on the book Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons by Stanford University science writer Kris Newby, evidence brought forward by the book shows that bioweapon specialists used ticks to cause severe disability and even death.
“With Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases exploding in the United States — with an estimated 300,000 to 437,000 new cases diagnosed each year and 10-20% of all patients suffering from chronic Lyme disease — Americans have a right to know whether any of this is true,” he said.
“And have these experiments caused Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases to mutate and to spread?”
But despite the congressman’s concern, Phillip Baker, the executive director of the American Lyme Disease Foundation (ALDF), told reporters that the lawmaker is pursuing a bad lead, calling him “terribly misinformed.”
“[Smith] would be well advised to check the facts by consulting the experts on Lyme disease at the National Institutes of Health or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] for accurate and reliable information before proposing such legislation,” he said.
In order to fully assess the government’s role, or lack thereof, in spreading ticks carrying Lyme disease, Smith wants the DOD to investigate. If something proves that research did happen, his legislation states, the Inspector General should then produce a report detailing the scope of the program and hand it over to lawmakers in the House and Senate Armed Service committees.
According to Bitten, scientists working with the Pentagon infected several insects, deliberately dropping them from the air during certain tests. The book also claims that uninfected bugs were also released into residential areas so officials had a better idea of how they would spread.
While the claims made by Newby may appear far-fetched, Smith is willing to press officials to find out more, especially because President Richard Nixon banned research into biological weapons in 1969. So if this program was, indeed, in place, Smith wants to know who put it into motion.
Government’s Dirty Tricks
It’s incredibly disheartening to think that a government agency would be willing to take part in a program with the goal of exposing countless innocent people to potentially deadly diseases. And what is worse is that the U.S. government was involved in similar if not more perverse actions in the past, going as far as pushing “eugenics-friendly program[s] designed to combat alleged overpopulation” in other countries. And more recently, the Barack Obama administration was using covert drone operations to kill Americans without any due process, putting the president in the position of judge, jury, and executioner. While it is our hope that this bioweapon program is, indeed, the product of someone’s wild imagination, it would not be surprising to learn that the government truly took part in it.Trump Gives Paul a Chance to Make a Deal With Iran
During a round of golf, Sen. Rand Paul got President Donald Trump’s permission to reach out to Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif on the president’s behalf. Proposed by Paul, the mission has the goal of extending an olive branch to the Persian nation in the hopes the tensions between the two countries are lessened as a result — a high task, considering the U.S. just shot down an Iranian drone.
The news may have come as a surprise to the countless critics of the Kentucky senator, especially after he blocked the 9/11 victims bill. But the reality is that Paul has long been a strong anti-war voice both in Congress and in the Republican Party, and the fact he’s willing to work with the president, whether he agrees with most of his policies or not, may help to prevent war with Iran.
In the past, Paul stood against President Barack Obama’s Iran deal, saying that while he preferred diplomacy to war, he thought a better agreement should be put in place. Now that America no longer upholds the deal, Paul could take over as the nation’s diplomatic emissary, breaking with Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign.
While it’s still not official that the senator will talk to Zarif, Trump’s blessing may be seen as a stab in the back by officials such as National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo due to the senator’s skepticism regarding foreign intervention. Considering that Paul went on the record praising the president for not caving in “amidst a chorus of voices for war,” that might be precisely why Trump accepted Paul’s offer.
In the past, Paul was one of the few in Congress to pressure Pompeo about Iran, asking the secretary whether he believed the president had authority to launch a war against Iran based on the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which helped President George W. Bush start the war in Iraq. After failing to answer the question during an April hearing, Paul then alerted the secretary that pursuing conflict without proper authorization from Congress was not going to happen.
“You do not have the permission of Congress to go to war with Iran,” Paul told Pompeo. “Only Congress can declare war.”
And when Obama was still in the White House, Paul made headlines for taking part in a 13-hour long filibuster to attack the then-president for his unconstitutional drone warfare.
While Paul may have had his low moments, making us all wonder if the apple had fallen far from the tree, it’s a relief to know that, at least when it comes to Iran, the senator has the president’s ear.
‘The Squad’ Can’t Survive Politically Without ‘Racism’
Today, House Democrats are expected to vote on a resolution that condemns President Donald Trump’s tweets targeting Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Ayanna Pressley over racism.
While it falls short from calling Trump racist, the resolution refers to the president’s “racist comments” on social media, adding that his attitude “legitimized and increased fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color.”
But before this unbinding document was put together, Rep. Nancy Pelosi was the one being accused of racism by colleague Ocasio-Cortez.
The freshman congresswoman from New York accused Pelosi of “singling out . . . newly elected women of color” for criticism. This comment prompted Trump to respond, calling Ocasio-Cortez’s comment a “disgrace.” And it was in that context that, on Sunday, Trump tweeted to, once again, attack those who accused the House speaker of racism, saying that those who were targeting Pelosi should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”
As explained by the Wall Street Journal, the focus on Trump might not be anything new. After all, he is known for making crass and inappropriate comments in public. But this resolution comes after “The Squad,” as the group of four congresswomen is known for, turned against the so-called moderate faction of their own party, showing that when it comes to scoring political points, accusing opponents of racism remains the go-to strategy of the socialist wing of the Democratic Party.
As this showdown plays out before our own eyes, we see a somewhat recoiled Pelosi coming out in support for the resolution, saying that she and her colleagues are “offended by what he said about our sisters — he says that about people every day, and they feel as hurt as we do about somebody in our family having this offense against them.” While there is no doubt that immigrants and children of immigrants may take offense in Trump’s comments, it’s clear that Pelosi is hanging by a thread. Will she be as willing to accuse herself of racism once Ocasio-Cortez and “The Squad” come after her?
Divide and Conquer
Pelosi never shied away from making racist comments involving white people. And even after being called out by members of her own party, she still didn’t apologize. With that in mind, it is safe to assume that when used as a tool by the Washington elite, racism isn’t really about the act of using collectivist assumptions to discredit an individual. Instead, politicians use the term to ignite the passions of their base and those who might not yet support them. To bureaucrats, what matters is to stay relevant — and working on actual solutions to the problems we face as Americans pales in comparison to standing in unison against the man sitting in the Oval office. As Ludwig von Mises said in Planning for Freedom, a bureaucrat’s goal is to swell the government’s payroll. And passionate racism accusations do just that, as they create the same kind of fearful and paranoid environment that President George W. Bush and his minions created following the 9/11 terrorist attack. It is in an environment thick with fear that politicians thrive, gathering support for their interventionist and tyrannical policies. “The Squad” may not admit to this much, but being new to Washington doesn’t make them any more willing to stand for the little guy than those they attack. And as they continue to play politics like the old white men do, using racism to shape their rhetoric and, ultimately, their policies, we should never forget why they do the things they do.How the Minimum Wage Increases Violent Crime
Work keeps people from committing crimes — at least that’s what years of research have proven, with a study from 2015 in particular demonstrating the importance of offering disadvantaged youth a summer job to reduce violent crime. So why aren’t we seeing a greater number of community leaders, labor organizations, and anti-violence advocates urging public policymakers to bring an end to minimum wage laws? After all, unskilled teens aren’t being able to obtain jobs on their own due to high minimum wage standards.
Instead, we see the opposite. Political groups and advocacy organizations actually joining the pro-minimum wage movement, pushing both local and federal lawmakers to impose ever-increasing wages on businesses and entrepreneurs, and forcing job creators to limit the number of unskilled workers they can afford.
As The Acton Institute explains in this article, African American males are much more likely to be victimized by high minimum wage laws than other groups.
With every ten percent increase in the minimum wage, data regarding those between the ages of 16 and 24 shows, employment is reduced by 2.5% for young white males, 1.2% for Hispanic males, and a staggering 6.5% for African American males. And while most of us have heard of the impact of the Great Recession on our economy, researchers found that wage hikes had an even more devastating effect, especially among the African American youth.
Considering the evidence, it’s imperative that groups that seek to help disadvantaged youth understand the unintended consequences of minimum wage hikes, whether skilled and experienced workers are able to obtain an artificial boost to their incomes or not.
If young people are unable to start somewhere, especially if they have little access to higher education, loosening minimum wage requirements is a sure and easy way to boost the economic opportunities for Americans in the lower income brackets.
As The Acton Institute elaborated, we could see a great drop in the number of violent criminal cases if wage laws were eliminated. So why not allow cities and states to experiment with this?
As economist Murray Rothbard once explained, a minimum wage law makes it criminal for individuals to accept voluntary wage contracts, transforming the law in compulsory unemployment.
“In short,” he wrote, “you can have as much unemployment as you want, simply by pushing the legally minimum wage high enough.”
There is nothing dignified in forcing disadvantaged people to choose between welfare or crime, and yet, that’s exactly what proponents of higher wage laws do. Until the young and unskilled are able to look for work and find it, they will continue to respond to the incentives created by these laws, looking at criminal actions or government dependence for sustenance.
Biden Turns Antiwar As His Frontrunner Status Dwindles
Presidential hopeful Joe Biden attacked President Donald Trump for his “America First” stance this week in New York, saying that he would put an end to “forever wars” if he’s elected president.
Calling the president’s foreign policy “incompetent,” the vice president said Trump is acting against U.S. interests by not playing the role of world police.
“The world’s democracies look to America to stand for the values that unite us … Donald Trump seems to be on the other team,” he said, adding that if the U.S. does not lead the world in a strong alliance to fight climate change and put together new trade agreements, “some nation will step into the vacuum — or no one will, and chaos will prevail.”
To Biden, Trump is toxic because he “[embraces] dictators who appeal to his vanity.” But could it be that the presidential candidate is only against eternal wars when North Korea isn’t involved?
After the two Democratic presidential debates, polls showed that Sen. Kamala Harris has become more popular. Biden, on the other hand, saw a considerable drop in support. It’s almost as if the promise of Medicare for All, abortions for all, immigration for all, and free college for all weren’t enough to get the public to warm up to President Obama’s former partner in crime. Now, he’s going where he never went before by promising peace — just not the type of peace that relies on diplomacy, of course.
When Obama was in the White House, Biden seemed less than confident that a restrained policy in Syria was the way to go. And while he voted against the first Gulf War in the 1980s as a senator, he did try to establish a no-fly zone in Darfur in 2007, suggesting that the U.S. should send troops to the region, just as the Obama administration did later in Libya.
He also voted for the Iraq war, saying in 2003 that he would do it again. And when Bill Clinton was in power, he acted as one of the loudest voices behind the 1999 bombing of Serbia. So much so that in 2009 when he visited the region, he was received by locals with posters calling him “Nazi scum.” Not surprising, as Biden was one of the reasons why Clinton felt confident enough to bomb them in the name of peace and democracy.
Additionally, Biden supported the war on Afghanistan, and was also a big supporter of Obama’s covert war in the Middle East led by drones, which allowed the president to put his kill list to use.
Trump might be no dove, and he’s definitely let down his own supporters by attacking Syria in the past for no apparent reason. But he is definitely not the hawk that Biden has been his entire career. So when the presidential candidate promises to put an end to forever wars, let us not forget his record, whether as a senator or as the vice president.
US Women’s Soccer Team Is Badass. Their Economics? Not So Much
The American women soccer team beat Netherlands in the final on Sunday, making this the fourth time USA takes home the Women’s World Cup. Following the historic win, the team used the ticker-tape parade organized in their honor to advocate for equal pay, claiming that women soccer players aren’t paid as much as their male counterparts.
This political campaign ended up turning into yet another public debate on the so-called gender pay gap, prompting lawmakers in Washington to threaten 2026 World Cup funding through legislation — unless female soccer players are paid as much as men.
Despite the political elite’s response, it appears that few pay attention to how much the female team produces in terms of earnings. Furthermore, it appears that nobody cares about how female soccer players in the U.S. turned out to be so good and how the opportunities would essentially disappear if it wasn’t for taxpayers. What most of the news outlets complaining about the “gap” seem to be doing instead is to ignore facts.
According to a Forbes report, the last World Cup, which was held in Russia, generated over $6 billion in revenue, with participating teams taking home $400 million. But when it comes to the Women’s World Cup, the event is expected to generate only $131 million for the entire four-year period between now and 2022. Participating teams would only take $30 million home.
In the end, the French soccer team took home $38 million from FIFA after winning the last World Cup, while the winning female soccer team, USA, will earn just $4 million. Despite this difference in earnings, and what the players themselves claim, individual female soccer players take home 13% of their team’s earnings while their male counterparts take home only 9%.
While it’s clear that what the women are making isn’t the same amount that male soccer players made, they are still pocketing a greater percentage of the earnings than the male team members. If the female team had a larger return on what the U.S. invests on them, the women players would clearly make more as a result.
Unfortunately, this game is rigged, and not because FIFA executives are playing the favoritism game. Instead, it is the U.S. government that is allocating much more taxpayer money to fund female athletes than it should, as the market may not be as responsive, or even excited, about the idea of a female soccer team. And if you doubt that, all you have to do is to review how much money the female soccer team earned when compared to the male team and ask yourself why this happened.
When consumers enjoy something, they pay for it. And when it comes to sports, they pay a lot to support their favorite teams.
In America, the U.S. government subsidizes women sports at high rates, putting other countries to shame. This overly confident investment, which is backed by taxpayer dollars and not by consumers of sports, gave the women who won this year’s Women’s World Cup an opportunity that, perhaps, wouldn’t exist without government intervention.
While it’s truly incredible to witness women playing sports and doing it as well as men, it is also absurd to think that they would be as successful today without government intervening to inflate the demand for female soccer players. Or perhaps, it isn’t that absurd, as the U.S. government isn’t giving women a chance to prove that, they too, could fill up arenas on their own and without government assistance.
If we truly respected female soccer players for how much they put into their craft, we wouldn’t be demanding more government subsidies and other artificially-raised funds to pay them as much as male athletes. Instead, we would let them prove their commercial appeal in the free market.
What Melania Should Know About Fighting Opioid Abuse
West Virginia is at the heart of the U.S. opioid epidemic, with the state having the highest rate of opioid overdose deaths in the country. With drug abuse and addiction being two main pillars of her “Be Best” campaign, it’s not surprising to learn that first lady Melania Trump visited the state this Monday.
During her visit, the first lady talked to state and local leaders to learn more about how local resources are being used to help residents. While this isn’t her first visit to the state to discuss the opioid problem, as she visited Lily’s Place, the infant recovery center helping families dealing with addiction, this might be an important trip policy wise, as she might learn some important details about the crisis from people actually living it. But what exactly should locals be telling her so that she could actually help potential victims?
Drug Prohibition Is Why We Have an Opioid Epidemic
When the drug war started to take roots in America with the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914, drug sellers started to take to the black market to provide consumers with their desired goods. Unfortunately, as the federal government implemented more laws targeting drug use and commerce, the black market expanded. Unfortunately, in a setting where drug suppliers are not constrained by product liability law and other factors that are often present in the legal drug market, drugs become more powerful — and lethal. And thanks in part to government’s interventionist policies, which end up creating virtual monopolies in the drug and medical industries, licensed doctors are compelled to write a great number of opioid prescriptions. Without real competitors in the drug market, as opioid manufacturers have patents that prevent others from developing similar products, doctors have fewer options. With patients suffering greatly due to the highly addictive nature of these drugs, they are left with very few options once their treatment is over. Going to the black market is one of them. As the demand for opioids grows, the potency starts to change depending on the batch. And as more users go to dealers for help, many either lose access to certain substances or begin to switch to more dangerous substitute ingredients such as Fentanyl, to boost their profits. For the most part, this is how we got the current opioid epidemic. If Mrs. Trump could take this knowledge back to the White House, she could compel President Donald Trump to become an advocate for less harsh drug policies. Additionally, she could even convince the president that drug patent legislation should also be addressed. After all, government-backed monopolies have proven deadly in this case.Congress Has a Problem with Tech Censorship: There’s Not Enough of It!
As I explained in another article for The Advocates, tech companies like Facebook, Google, YouTube, and others are all protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Meaning that they cannot be held liable for people’s posts. Despite this legal barrier, tech companies have, for the past couple of years, worked to weed out offensive content by labeling it as extremist or misinformation. But they haven’t done this alone, as they’re fully backed by elected officials.
Despite the industry’s efforts, lawmakers seem unhappy with the results.
During a hearing on Wednesday, tech giants failed to convince House members they were working tirelessly to make the Internet safe.
Additionally, they told officials, they are investing in both technology and trained professionals in order to deal with the potentially bad actors using their platforms. Unfortunately, lawmakers weren’t impressed, so they threatened to pursue legislation if firms “refuse to cooperate.
“They’re going to have to do more,” panel Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) told reporters, while Rep. Max Rose (D-N.Y.) accused tech firms of offering “technocratic” explanations while “people are being killed.”
This hearing, which was held three months after the Christchurch, New Zealand mosque shootings, served as a means for members of the House Homeland Security Committee to criticize Twitter, Facebook, and Google for not taking the matter seriously. Furthermore, Rose said that the Global Internet Forum to Combat Terrorism, a coalition of top tech firms sharing information on on violent users, is a “joke of an association,” with other members of the committee pressuring the firms to do more about the anti-vaccine sentiment spreading online.
But whenever the conversation focused on censoring content, some lawmakers raised concerns regarding freedom of speech, with a few even attacking the outlets for being biased against conservatives.
“Years ago, required reading I had was the book ‘1984,’” Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) said. “And this committee hearing is scaring the heck out of me.”
“If somebody Googles vaccines, the answer was, ‘Oh, we’re going to put over what the person is actually looking, for what we think is best,’” Lesko said. “Who are the people judging what’s best, what’s accurate? This is really scary stuff and really goes to the heart of our First Amendment rights.”
While technology has helped consumers and Internet users become more connected than ever, the online public forums of the day aren’t as free or as committed to putting the user first. Instead, companies like Facebook have long both feared and cooperated with government officials, exposing users to a series of abuses as a result.
But because government officials have the power to regulate any company out of existence, even those who have cooperated, we can’t expect to see tech giants acting any different from any other firm under Washington’s radar. Instead of standing up for users, and even making use of Section 230 to justify embracing a more hands-free approach, it’s clear that we’re about to see more censorship, not less. And who suffers because of this government-sponsored fishing expedition? Anyone who dares to question the status quo.
Don’t Like Drag Queens Reading Books To Children? Ban The Public Library
Drag Queens reading books to children is now a thing. And as you may have expected it, it’s funded and supported by government officials and tax-backed service providers such as public libraries.
While claiming the movement isn’t political, drag queen reading hour (DQRH) founders openly admit they are backed by political agents.
Using publicly funded spaces for their programs, the group uses books, stories, and activities to teach children as young as 3 that the physical differences between boys and girls aren’t to be noted, and that much like the adult man dressed as a queen before them, they, too, can create their own identity based on what kind of “gender” they prefer — all the while swearing nothing about these events is sexual in nature.
But despite how you feel about this classic example of indoctrination (hello there, public school system!), political power is what this controversy is really all about.
Whether the organization’s founders admit to it or not, the ideas propagated by DQRH aren’t being fed to young adults in a corporate setting or college grads taking a year off to backpack through Europe. They are being planted in the very young minds of impressionable children. And what’s worse, their parents are forcing others to pay for it.
The public library exists because the government gives it an endless pit of money backed by taxpayers. In a free market setting, however, the book-lending business would follow a very different model, one that relies on people who care to pay for services they want or find valuable.
The reality is that there’s a relationship between reward and performance. Considering that, so far, the gender fluid movement still represents a small percentage of the population, it’s fair to say that few entrepreneurs would be willing to open a fully privately funded space for groups such as DQRH. By tapping into public money and politicians, these groups are able to outperform their critics, forcing their presence into every community in the United States.
Timothy Gordon, in an article titled “Drag Queen Reading Hour Can Be Stopped,” argues that Christian parents can help ban DQRH events from their public libraries using the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, much like marijuana advocates are legalizing the substance across the country.
While he’s correct, there’s a far better and more effective solution, albeit a less likely one to gain broad support: ban the public library for once and for all. After all, the system was founded by a business magnate who wanted others to be forced to pay for his venture. In the age of the internet and private, little free libraries, public ones have run their course.
In order to develop a better system for self-education, both liberal and conservative parents must first realize that there’s nothing the state provides that can’t be better offered in the private realm. Additionally, the book-lending system could benefit greatly if the service provider relied on customers for their paycheck.
If there’s a market for DQRH events, then let parents who want to expose their children to it pay for it. Using tax levied on Christian families to support this type of program is nothing short of immoral, just as it is immoral to force those opposed to intervention in the Middle East to pay for an unwinnable war in Afghanistan.
Next Target In Trump’s Trade War: Olive Oil Consumers
One of the most overlooked consequences of any type of tax or tariff is that it often hurts the poorest among us. Unfortunately, politicians choose to ignore that small detail, promising that the tariff they are proposing is meant to help a certain cause or protect a particular industry.
But while imposing tariffs on exports isn’t a novelty in the United States, President Donald Trump’s trade wars with China and now with Europe have gained a lot of traction in the news. Recently, however, this war became all too personal for countless households in the country as the president is threatening to impose tariffs on European products that could considerably increase the cost of goods such as olive oil.
Olive oil consumption in the United States has grown exponentially over the years, with Spain, Italy, and Greece being the largest exporters.
If Trump has his way, and a tariff that may reach the 100% mark is imposed, the cost of a bottle of olive oil in America could double. Additionally, an increase in the demand for nationally produced olive oil would be so great that the supply would dwindle, forcing Californian producers to raise their prices as well.
Needless to say, more budget-conscious consumers would have to act accordingly, purchasing less expensive and less healthy alternatives or simply choosing to lower or completely cut on their consumption of the product instead.
As highlighted by a CBS affiliate, Trump’s proposal to slap products such as olive oil with incredibly high tariffs is a response to the years that Europe has spent subsidizing companies like Airbus, reportedly making members of the European aeronautics industry more competitive than American firms. Unfortunately, Trump’s decision to “hit back” isn’t going to pressure European officials to rethink their subsidies. Instead, it will only hurt small businesses and consumers here at home. One of these businesses belongs to Pam Shaia. Her small olive oil store in Florida would be certainly hit, she told CBS.
“Forty dollars on the consumer will wipe us out. No one is willing to pay $40 for a bottle,” she said.
Big Or Small, Tariffs Hurt Us All
Neither Europe nor China are blameless for the United States’ current trade wars, for they, too, play the protectionist game. By the same token, Democrats who are now raging against Trump for the way he’s pushing against other countries are also to blame, as many have remained quiet when members of their party took part in the same policy. But despite this reality, Trump is also to blame for continuing Washington’s neurotic and damaging policies. Instead of draining the swamp, the president is helping to make it deeper. In order to truly get back at Trump, what Europe and other countries should do, argues Richard M. Ebeling, is to lower their own import tariffs. By taking this step, Europe would not only make Trump look like a fool but would also help its citizens, as the price of many products would drop considerably thanks to a larger influx of cheaper goods. Unfortunately, it is rather unlikely that Europe will take this step. Instead, they might resort to even higher tariffs on American goods, further hurting their own residents as a result. In the end, both continents will suffer greatly due to their politicians’ stubbornness. And what’s worse, residents will be all the poorer too. As Murray Rothbard explained, tariffs aren’t meant to help anybody. Instead, they are put in place to attack the market and make it less efficient. As more nations embrace tariffs, he added, we should expect more poverty, and “a regression from civilization to barbarism.” https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/06/24/europe-tariffs-price-of-olive-oil-president-donald-trump-airbus-boeing/Thank God Trump ‘Chickened Out’ After Iran Shot Down US Drone
President Donald Trump decided to show restraint when discussing Iran’s shooting down of a U.S. drone, telling the press he believed the act had been a “mistake.”
While we cannot read the president’s mind, it’s clear he was attempting to play the instance down, perhaps precisely because U.S. military officials called this an “unprovoked attack,” and because his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, had already told the press the U.S. wasn’t provoking Iran with harsher sanctions.
Despite his cautious approach in public, news outlets, as well as Trump critics, didn’t wait long to accuse the president of “chickening out” of a conflict with Iran.
The attack, which happened Wednesday night, involved a $130 million U.S. unmanned aircraft flying in what the United States said to be international airspace. Iranian officials, however, say the drone was flying in Iranian airspace.
Last year, Trump announced the U.S. would no longer take part in the Iran nuclear deal, which had been brokered by President Barack Obama. And just prior to this incident, the U.S. blamed Iranian forces for an attack on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, which prompted the Trump administration to announce it would be sending 1,000 troops to the Middle East.
While Iran admits it shot down the U.S. drone, adding that it doesn’t seek war but will do what it takes to protect itself, the country claims it had nothing to do with the oil tanker attack. But considering the U.S. escalated tensions in the first place by reinstating crippling sanctions, the choice to dismiss this attack as a mistake might indicate that Trump isn’t necessarily trying to start a war with the Persian nation after all. However, some in the media seem a bit troubled by that.
In the past, mainstream outlets cheered Trump when he decided to bomb a Syrian military base, proving that both left and right are ready to support the president if he’s waging a war. But when Trump announced it would no longer uphold the Iran deal, the same outlets warned — rightly so — that the move would be seen as a provocation.
As former congressman Ron Paul explained, sanctions are an act of war. Therefore, any conflict borne out of his actions shouldn’t come as a surprise. But now that the U.S. took a blow directly from Iranian forces, it seems that war-thirsty elements are ready to use humiliation to force Trump to act in a more radical fashion. Hopefully, he won’t take the bait.