Democracy arose in Britain and in America as a fight for rights. In the 1600s, Parliament stood up for their rights against King Charles I. Charles wanted to concentrate all political power in himself, much as the Tudor monarchs had done the previous century. But Parliament was not overawed by the king and protested when the king  violated the established tradition of relying on Parliament to pass taxes and jailed people without trial who did not pay the taxes he demanded. People have been leaving California in large numbers; Florida is gaining. Common sense is not so easily extinguished in America. There was a showdown, and the king backed down and gave his assent to the Petition of Right, which appealed to rights granted by King John to his people in the Magna Carta: the right not to be imprisoned without trial, and the right not to be taxed save through an act of Parliament. Sixty years later, Parliament obtained the consent of the monarchs William and Mary to the Bill of Rights, in which a long list of rights were confirmed by the monarchs as limitations on their power, such as a prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and of excessive fines, the affirmation of a right to bear arms, the prohibition of quartering armies in people’s homes in peacetime, the freedom to speak in Parliament, and more. About a century later, America passed a Bill of Rights of its own. In all these landmark fights, the rights were all limitations on concentrated government power. In Britain, rights meant limitations on the king’s powers; in America, they meant limitation on the government’s powers over the states and over individuals. The key argument was always that these rights belonged naturally to those who were demanding them, and the bills and petition were only fending off those things being taken away. Rights remain dear to us, but the meaning of “rights” in our present conversation has changed. Most of the rights being asserted by the Left are things that others need to provide — a right to medical care, for instance, means that people will be forced to pay for other’s medical care; FDR’s right to be free of want meant that others will be forced make up the want for us. People have been born with an ability to speak freely. They have not been born with medical care or equitable pay or competence. Those things have to be acquired from others, or else coerced from them. These new kinds of rights are entirely different from the rights Parliament fought for or which the Framers enshrined in our Constitution. Does that mean we should not try to alleviate misery, disease, and want? The call of the prophets through Scripture to consider the forgotten people, the people without power, as our human equals, has moved our spirits through the centuries. How do we acquit ourselves of our conscience’s demand to act for our common humanity? It is by considering the genuine want of others to be our responsibility. In the biblical equation, proper power and proper responsibility advance in tandem. As we increase in power, our responsibilities grow. To be human we realize we must use our power for the good of all, not because they have a right to it but because we diminish our own humanity by not using the power we have attained for the greater good. In that greater good and nowhere else do we find our own greater self. The Bible begins by describing God’s creation of the world and by asserting that the human being is created in God’s image. The world’s creation is an unforced act of love. Acting without the least selfishness, God gave of His existence to creatures large and small. The human being is capable of seeing marriage of power and benevolence in God and of realizing that is the measure of his or her own humanity. How well we realize that in our lives is the measure of who we are, and that is not imposed on us from anyone else. It is a gift, to be able to walk in God’s pathways — lehidamot bidrachav, to emulate His ways, in the language of the Rabbis; imitation Dei, as the Scholastics deemed it. We feel the imperative in the depths of our souls. It is a responsibility to our deepest self as well as to others — a responsibility before God. One might object that this is mere quibbling — in the end, one must acknowledge the demands of society, our fellows on the Left might say. But it makes all the difference in the world whether the demand comes from powerful other humans or from our own selves. Americans fought against taxation without representation, not against taxation, but against taxation imposed entirely from without, as if we as a people could not act responsibly on our own, not only as individuals, but as a commonality, as nation. We can see in a most empirical way the difference between governance based on demanding things from others as rights and that based on assuming responsibility. California’s Imposition of ‘Rights’ California is exemplary for its assertion of many rights that require satisfaction at the expense of others. The right to be free of fear of a climate catastrophe means that you will pay more there for gasoline for your car and that dangerous heavily congested highways will not be remedied. The right to a pristine natural environment is established by destroying the lives of farm families who can no longer be allowed to irrigate their fields sufficiently, and by endangering the lives of people from fires by no longer managing flammable undergrowth. The right to be free from discomfort is achieved only by introducing a version of Newspeak, so that real problems can no longer be talked about publicly and dissent is equated with defamation, incitement, or treason. What is anathema to such a place is a culture of responsibility. Who is responsible for the unprecedented inability to control the Los Angeles wildfires? The man in charge of the state says that he is going to investigate — after the fact, of course, and for the purpose of assigning blame and ducking responsibility, rather than protecting the people who delegated their sovereign power to him as their governor. He has, however, been taking responsible care of his image — just check him out on Podcast America. The mayor of LA was exercising her right to change her mind about her campaign promise not to go on one foreign junket after another. In enjoying that right, she was thousands of miles away as the likelihood of catastrophic fires in LA became more certain by the second. The fire chief was also busy attending to the equity rights of identity groups, which she touted with pride as the most important work she was doing. She is good at blame, and some of it is well-deserved, such as her faulting the mayor for slicing $17 million from the FD budget. What could go wrong there? In such a culture, no one should be surprised that when the disaster came, no one took responsibility. Not for controlling super-flammable brush accumulations. Not for the empty reservoir in the Palisades that resulted in hydrants with inadequate pressure or which were completely dry. And no one took responsibility for the collapse of the culture of merit that had built the city. Instead, they celebrated that demise as a cultural triumph. Florida’s Culture of Responsibility Compare this to the culture of another state that also regularly experiences natural disasters — Ron DeSantis’ Florida. As Hurricane Milton approached this year, Florida’s governor was on top of planning the response, whether in immense prepositioning operations, staging emergency food, water, and medicine as well as crews to deal with power, gas, and water lines, or whether in speaking directly to the people with honesty and to good effect, and issuing emergency orders that were timely and effective. No blame games, just responsible government and what used to pass for common sense. A sick culture gaslights those who still value common sense. But increasingly, people are refusing to be fooled. People have been leaving California in large numbers; Florida is gaining. Common sense is not so easily extinguished in America. We know our own lives are enriched by taking responsibility. We know our own lives sink into chaos and misery if we demand others take the responsibility that we don’t take up ourselves. See how much responsibility is asserting itself in the face of this immense tragedy. Even legacy media has been filled with stories of how much people are giving of their own to help the thousands whose lives have been upended by the LA fires. It is the demand of their own souls that they are obeying in giving and volunteering, taking it upon themselves as definitive of their own humanity. They are living one hundred percent. The blame for these people is a secondary consideration — it will inform their local politics. But right now, they are helping in any way they can their fellow Angelenos. We are with them too. The political reckoning will wait a little. Right now, we join beyond politics to help heal those who are hurting so badly. It’s the responsible, common-sense thing to do. As we approach Inauguration Day, let us rededicate ourselves to the rebirth of a culture of responsibility and common sense. READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: Biblical Values Strike Back Against Mass Rape Freedom is America’s Strength The post Rights, Responsibility, and the LA Wildfires appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

President-elect Donald J. Trump is to be inaugurated Monday and his mass deportation program is slated to begin Tuesday. While a number of Catholic bishops have spoken out against Trump’s deportation plans (I’ve covered the subject for The American Spectator here, here, and here), the Catholic Church has actually long supported the right of nations to defend their sovereignty, their borders, and their national culture and identity. The Catholic Church’s teachings on national sovereignty, culture, and identity are perennial and immutable. The Church and the Sovereignty of Nations In what would surely be characterized as a nationalist hate screed if published today, Pope Leo XII wrote in 1885, “Nations have their own distinct character and genius, bestowed upon them by divine Providence, and it is the duty of the state to ensure that these unique identities are respected and fostered in the development of society.” In 1937, Pope Pius XI wrote that the Catholic Church “never places limits to the rights of individuals or nations to develop according to their ethnic characteristics.” The Pontiff’s encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, written in German instead of the usual Latin, was intended as a warning against the ascendant Nazi regime which was about to ignite the Second World War. Thus, Pope Pius XI cautioned, “However, it [the Church] strongly condemns any exclusion or superiority that leads to division and discord.” It is worth noting that even in the midst of Germany’s descent into the violent ideology of neopagan Nazism, the Pontiff upheld the nation’s right to value and preserve its ethnic heritage. Two years later, Pope Pius XII continued his predecessor’s work, strongly condemning racially-motivated violence and ethnic cleansing while firmly supporting a nation’s right to protect its ethnic and cultural heritage. In Summi Pontificatus, he wrote, “In the unity of the human family, races, and peoples have their own characteristics which they may and must guard, preserve, and develop, yet always in harmony and in the service of the common good.” Pope Pius XII continued, “Nations and races … are manifestations of the divine plan, as they contribute to the richness of human life and culture. Each particular community, whether large or small, is destined by nature to form a harmonious part of the whole human family, under the fatherhood of God.” Considered by some to be a more progressive Pontiff due to his instigating the Second Vatican Council, which brought about sweeping reforms and changes in the Church in the tumultuous 1960s, Pope St. John XXIII wrote in 1963’s Pacem in Terris, “Men from different ethnic origins and cultural backgrounds have the right to their own way of life, to live according to their own traditions, and to develop in accordance with their own genius.” Pope John XXIII’s successor, Pope St. Paul VI, also wrote in 1967 that “no people should be deprived of the right to preserve and develop its cultural and ethnic traditions.” The Catholic Church’s teachings on national sovereignty, culture, and identity are perennial and immutable, and the declarations of popes on the subject did not end with Pope St. Paul VI. In 1987, Pope St. John Paul II told nations, “Your cultures, traditions, and ethnic identities are gifts that contribute to the richness of human society. The Church respects your heritage and recognizes the importance of preserving your unique identities.” He continued, in his 2001 address for the World Day of Peace, “Every culture, as every people and every nation, has its own unique identity and contributes to the common heritage of humanity.” Pope St. John Paul II added, “The recognition of this uniqueness is an essential element of peace and mutual respect among the human family.” His successor, the late Pope Benedict XVI, wrote in his 2009 encyclical Caritas in Veritate, “Human communities, when they respect their own identities and traditions, can offer a richer contribution to the common good. This requires recognizing the particularities of each nation, ethnicity, and group.” Long before any of these popes wrote their letters and encyclicals, the intellectual and theological giants of the Church clarified and defined the Church’s stance on national sovereignty, culture, and identity. St. Augustine wrote in The City of God on a nation’s right to protect itself from war and invasion and St. Thomas Aquinas clarified that love must be extended to one’s neighbors and countrymen before those of other nations. Support the President As Trump prepares to take office again, America’s Catholic bishops would do well to recognize that the incoming President intends to preserve and protect the national sovereignty, culture, and identity of these United States. His deportation program is not a means of demeaning, degrading, or dehumanizing immigrants but of ensuring that America’s laws are respected, her people protected, and her national and cultural identity, which Pope Pius XII said ought to be treated as a “sacred inheritance,” preserved. The bishops may also want to examine the effects that mass immigration — and especially illegal immigration — has had on the nation. American women have been raped and murdered, hundreds of thousands of children have been sex trafficked across the border, and hundreds of American lives have been ended — and hundreds of thousands more ruined — by the diabolical drug trade the border crisis has permitted. It may also be prudent for the bishops to reflect on their own role in the immigration invasion now eroding the nation’s security and cultural heritage and ask whether they truly do value human dignity and the teachings of the Church or just their swollen pocket books. READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: US Bishops Denounce Trump’s Immigration Plans The Devil in D.C. The post America’s Bishops Should Heed Church on Sovereignty appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

WASHINGTON — I remember when the networks called the 2020 election for President Joe Biden. It was a Saturday; that evening, as he addressed his gleeful supporters in Wilmington, Delaware, the new president-elect declared victory in “the battle to restore decency.” And how did Biden win the Oval Office? In 2020, he signaled that if he won, he would not run for reelection. “Decency,” of course, was code for “Not Trump.” Before Biden’s one term ended, voters were ready for Trump Again. They’d had enough of Biden’s vaunted “decency,” after four years of watching Biden hide behind his better-person persona even as his policies failed American families and shrank America’s posture on the world stage. Biden’s botched withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan resulted in the loss of 13 U.S. service members and made America look weak. There were consequences. Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. On Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas killed some 1,200 in Israel and took 250 hostages back to Gaza. Biden deserves credit by sending arms and money to Ukraine and Israel. I was impressed. But then his constant push for a ceasefire in Gaza emboldened Hamas and Iran. Now Trump can claim credit when Israel exchanges the remaining 33 hostages, thanks to his threat that “all Hell will break out” if a deal to release the hostages is not struck before he takes the Oath of Office. As a candidate for president in 2020, Biden preened about his intent to open the border. “If you want to flee and you are fleeing oppression, then come,” Biden told the world. On his first day in office, the Democrat revoked Trump’s robust border actions. In the next couple of years, there were more than 6.3 million migrant encounters at the border. The Southwest border was jammed with asylum seekers, unaccompanied children who crossed the hostile terrain and men with criminal records who seized opportunity. When Biden finally acted to stanch the flow of migrants, it was too little too late. Then he claimed credit when border crossings decreased — as if he was strong on the border. There’s a decency angle in the border debacle. When an individual believes that everything he does is honorable, because he’s so honorable, it’s harder to see failures when they occur. I have to believe that a different Democrat would have acted far sooner than Biden to patch the holes. As a U.S. senator, Biden was a war-on-drugs zealot who pushed for draconian sentences for federal drug offenders. So it was a good thing when Biden used his pardon power to commute the sentences of some 2,500 nonviolent federal drug offenders Friday. “I have now issued more individual pardons and commutations than any president in U.S. history,” Biden boasted. Is it wrong to mention that the president wasn’t close to that record before he pardoned his son Hunter on tax-evasion and drug-related charges in December? I don’t begrudge Biden his decision to keep his son out of prison, but I wonder at the lack of self-knowledge that led him to insist he wouldn’t use his pardon power, when everyone knew that he would. He loves his son. And how did Biden win the Oval Office? In 2020, he signaled that if he won, he would not run for reelection — which made it easier for voters to support a candidate who would be 78 when he assumed office. Then in 2023, Biden announced he would run in 2024 after all, because only he could beat Trump. A cynic might argue that Biden always knew he would run for reelection, but he sent the one-term message because he couldn’t win without it. When Biden did get out of the race, Vice President Kamala Harris didn’t have the chops or the organization to win the general. Many Democrats will never forgive Biden for failing to get out in time. Or his faltering debate performance. There’s an Ancient Greek saying: Know thyself. But I don’t think Biden understands the concept. Trump is far from perfect. In short order all eyes will be on his shortcomings. But I’ll say this for Trump: He knows who he is. READ MORE from Debra J. Saunders: Facebook Ends Dubious Fact-Checking. Biden Objects. A Well-Deserved Takedown of the California Political Class — From Newsom to Bass Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM The post President Biden’s ‘Decency’ Led to His Undoing appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I have everything I need to attend Donald Trump’s inauguration on Monday from afar. Due to the low temperatures in Spain, my ceremony will also be held indoors. I’ve filled the walls with American flags, I’ve ordered half a dozen 10-story hamburgers, two cases of beer are chilling in my fridge, and I plan to parade down the hallway with an urn full of Wokeism’s ashes. I’ve been practicing the Donald Trump holiday dance at the gym for weeks and I must say that my biceps already look like Hulk Hogan’s. As of Monday … there will finally be an adult in the classroom of international politics. As of Monday, we will be closer to the end of the absurd wars that are ruining the West, the schoolyard will cease to be chaos, and there will finally be an adult in the classroom of international politics. As of Monday, a new era begins for the West. It will be a magical moment. Suddenly, human beings will once again be divided into two sexes, we will be able to call Hamas terrorists, Hamas terrorists, and nature and its resources will once again be at the service of man, and not the other way around. On Monday shouting “law and order!” will not be a thing of fascists but of good men, we will have a president in the White House capable of leaving the stage without falling into the void, and the vice-presidential office will be cleared of the empty vodka bottles lying on the floor. As of Monday, illegal immigrants will have to go back home and look for a good reason to become legal like everybody else, the police will feel supported by the Government when fighting crime, and the Government will take some of its 25 hands out of the citizens’ pockets. As of Monday no one will be laughing with Nicolas Maduro‘s idiotic jokes, abortionists will once again occupy the lowest rung in social scum, and no public authority will work to divide and pit Americans against each other based on race, sex, or political ideology. Starting Monday, no one will be able to consider you a climate terrorist for driving a damn gas guzzler, maybe America will be able to get back to joyfully pumping its oil, and we’ll see the start of a comprehensive government audit for inefficiencies, redundancies, and nonsense, leading to an immediate slimming down plan. It will be a real pleasure to see how this morbidly obese government slowly begins to regain the figure of Melania Trump. As of Monday, we will be closer to the end of the absurd wars that are ruining the West, the schoolyard will cease to be chaos, and there will finally be an adult in the classroom of international politics. As of Monday, the tap from which gushes the immense public spending destined to brainwash children in schools with aberrations such as Critical Race Theory, transsexualism, or the sexualization of minors will be turned off. As of Monday, the idiots at the UN and NATO will have to get off their asses and get to work to convince the United States that there is any point in remaining there, in the midst of these antiquated organizations that have been left only to act as a loudspeaker for the woke nonsense of the moment and other mental flaws of the globalist left. Starting Monday it will be a bad idea to become a drug dealer in the United States, Islamists will have to think twice before setting foot in the country, and the idiots in charge of Mexico, Canada, and China will have to eat Trump’s much-anticipated tariffs. As of Monday, the suckups in the European Parliament, crazy von der Leyen, the German Social Democrats having wrecked the Old Continent, with other leftists, centrists, and conservatives who are self-conscious about being conservatives, will have to get rid of their Kamala Harris T-shirts and caps, start respecting Trump, and stop demonizing the patriotic conservative sentiment that is growing throughout Europe, even though the idiot center-right and the left keep joining forces in an effort to stem the tide. In this sense, it is a fair and wonderful decision that on Monday, on Capitol Hill, neither the Spanish socialist president Pedro Sánchez, nor the leader of the opposition Alberto Núñez Feijoo (whose party timidly voiced their preference for Kamala Harris) will be invited, but the leader of Vox, Santiago Abascal, the only one who supported from the first moment Donald Trump’s campaign and who defended the urgent need of a great conservative movement throughout the West. At the end of my domestic ceremony I have set up a podium by the window, with a PA system outside, through which I will read this article to my neighbors. I will conclude solemnly before sounding the anthem, with these words for posterity: “Starting Monday, at last, America will be better and freer, and the world a little better and a little freer.” Next we will drink until we are unable to spell the word “Trump.” READ MORE from Itxu Diaz: Pitfalls of the Good Sociologist: Examining Gallup’s New US Professions Survey Everyone and Anyone Can Be Wise The post Monday Begins a New Era for the West appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

There’s nothing more predictable than progressives in power finding new ways to tax the middle class under the guise of reducing Manhattan traffic or solving a crisis. New York’s congestion pricing scheme is the latest offender, a cash grab masquerading as urban policy. But this is not just another tax; it’s a direct assault on the lives of hardworking New Yorkers — nurses pulling double shifts, small business owners struggling to stay afloat, and delivery drivers who keep our city fed and supplied. New Yorkers have watched as tolls, taxes, and fees were all supposed to improve transit. This isn’t about cleaner air or less traffic — it’s about forcing working-class families to pay for Manhattan’s priorities. The GOP has an obligation to fight this injustice and stand with the very people who are being crushed by Albany’s arrogance. Punishing New York’s Working Class, Again For Manhattan elites, congestion pricing is a minor inconvenience, barely worth a shrug. They’ll never know what it’s like to choose between paying for gas or groceries. They can hop on a subway, hail an Uber, or bike to their co-working spaces. But for the rest of New York, driving isn’t a luxury — it’s a necessity. Imagine a nurse finishing her shift at 3 a.m., faced with the thought of walking home in the dark because congestion pricing made her commute unaffordable. Or a single mother in Queens driving her kids to school before heading to her job as a cleaner in Manhattan. These are the New Yorkers who will be hit hardest when fees range from $9 to $23 per trip. With inflation rising 4.3 percent year over year in the New York metro area, families are already at their breaking point. Adding hundreds of dollars a month to their commuting costs isn’t just unfair—it’s cruel. And who benefits? Wealthy Manhattanites, who enjoy reduced traffic and noise while paying none of the costs. Transportation Inequity: A Progressive Lie Progressives love to talk about “equity,” but congestion pricing exposes the hollowness of their rhetoric. It’s easy to champion public transportation when you live in Manhattan or trendy parts of Brooklyn, where subway stations are plentiful and reliable. But what about the outer boroughs? In Queens, 27 percent of residents live in transit deserts, where public transportation is unreliable or non-existent. Staten Islanders endure the longest commutes in the city, averaging 58.6 minutes one way. For these residents, driving isn’t a choice; it’s their only option. And yet, Albany is asking them to subsidize a system that has failed them for decades. Families in working-class neighborhoods will pay more, even as they watch the wealthy avoid the fees altogether. It’s a policy designed to shift burdens from the privileged to those struggling the most. One has to wonder: how can progressives claim to fight for equity while punishing the very people they claim to protect? This isn’t equity — it’s exploitation. Trusting the MTA Is a Fool’s Errand Then there’s the cruel irony of it all: trusting the MTA with more money. This is the same agency that wasted $11 billion — double its original budget — on the East Side Access project for the Long Island Rail Road, finishing a decade late. It’s the same agency with construction costs 7 times higher per mile than similar projects in London or Paris. And yet, they want us to believe that congestion pricing revenue—expected to generate $1 billion annually—will magically fix decades of mismanagement. How much more are New Yorkers expected to give to an agency that has proven time and again it cannot be trusted? This isn’t just a financial issue — it’s about broken promises. New Yorkers have watched as tolls, taxes, and fees were all supposed to improve transit. What they’ve gotten instead is overcrowded trains, constant delays, and fare hikes. Why should we believe this time will be different? A Betrayal, as Well as a Tax Congestion pricing isn’t just a tax — it’s a betrayal. It’s a policy designed by bureaucrats who have never had to choose between paying for childcare and affording a commute. It’s a scheme that punishes the very people who keep this city running: the nurses, delivery drivers, and small business owners who ask for nothing but fairness in return for their hard work. This is where Republicans must step up, not as partisans, but as defenders of New York’s working class. They must demand an end to this madness, rolling back congestion pricing and fighting for policies that reflect the values of fairness, equality, and accountability. Because if they don’t, who will? The voices of hardworking New Yorkers are being drowned out by the elite and the powerful. It’s time for someone to fight for them, before this city becomes unlivable for anyone but the rich. READ MORE from David Sypher: GOP’s Game-Changer: Winning Over Black Voters African Americans Deserve Fair Admissions to the US Naval Academy The post New York’s Congestion Pricing Class War appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

According to Fox News exit polling in the 2024 elections, 51 percent of the American electorate was “very concerned” with housing costs. Columnists spill oceans of ink bemoaning the difficulty young people face in buying into the American dream. From far left to far right, there is unanimous consensus that home prices are unacceptably unaffordable. Dropping our tariffs on Canadian timber would meaningfully reduce construction costs, home insurance premiums, and alleviate shortages. Yet, last August, the U.S. almost doubled tariffs on Canadian timber from 8.05 percent to 14.54 percent, increasing U.S. lumber costs. This is barking up the wrong tree if politicians’ stated desire to “make housing affordable” is sincere. Swaths of America beset with hurricane and fire damage need rebuilding. Historically high home prices preventing family formation need reducing. The Trump administration yearns to reshape the U.S.-Canadian relationship to our benefit. These facts point to an inexorable conclusion: Trump should lift our ridiculous tariffs on Canadian timber, but force changes to Canadian foreign and economic policy as a precondition. More affordable timber means cheaper housing, repair, and insurance, and more protection against foreign producers means higher domestic prices. According to a breakdown on the very conservative Bankrate estimate of $200,000 to build a 2,000 square foot home, lumber costs average 8 percent of construction costs, or $16,000. Assuming that the 14.54 percent tariff imposed on Canadian lumber is effective (which is to say, it makes Canadian lumber at least as expensive as American products and allows U.S. producers to predominate), then these tariffs are adding $2,300 to the asking price of a $200,000 home, and presumably around $4,600 to the average existing home sold in the US, which now brings an eye-popping $406,100. Obviously, houses that are more expensive to build are also more expensive to rebuild. As risk of loss and rebuild costs are the primary determinant of home insurance rates, lumber tariffs also mean higher home insurance premiums. Natural disasters, such as the fall hurricanes in the Southeast or the recent California wildfires increase demand for lumber, lay bare the cost of policies that prevent importation to alleviate shortages. As Thomas Sowell once asked: if we blockade other nations during wars to weaken them economically, why would we do such to ourselves in peacetime? Since the start of the year, lumber prices increased from $550 per thousand board feet to $594, a jump of 8 percent. Although lumber prices are still well below the crazy levels of the 2021-2022 COVID housing boom since which prices have fluctuated in a range between about $425 and $600, the wildfires have pushed prices to the top of that post-mania range. Leveraging Tariffs Dropping our tariffs on Canadian timber would meaningfully reduce construction costs, home insurance premiums, and alleviate shortages. However, the Trump administration should drop them as part of a comprehensive deal that addresses other immigration, energy, and foreign policy concerns rather than unilaterally. Trump has repeatedly (and reasonably) called on all NATO nations to hit at least the 2 percent of GDP minimum defense spending, yet Canada spent just 1.38 percent in 2023, and planned to not hit 2 percent until “2030, at the earliest.” Meanwhile, Trump and the GOP have placed great emphasis on the necessity of additional immigration and drug interdiction assistance from the Canadians. Between the carrots of enabling Canadian timber to compete in the U.S. without tariff hindrance and re-starting the Keystone XL pipeline to help Alberta tar sands producers get their oil to world markets (and in the process, reduce the world’s reliance on anti-Western regimes), getting Canadians to enact higher defense spending, lower barriers against U.S. exporters, distance itself from Chinese commercial influence, and assist at the border is commonsense. The fact that Canada is likely to have a conservative government after this fall’s election only helps the odds of such an agreement. The Trump administration can lower home prices for American families, reduce home insurance rates, encourage family formation, increase energy security, and enhance U.S. national security all at the same time. Let us hope that the talk of “universal” 25 percent tariffs on all Canadian goods is meant to get Canada to the table for negotiations that get down quickly to the lick-log: help us lay the lumber to drug gangs, cross-border crime, and burgeoning Chinese commercial influence, and we will open up America as a bigger export market for Canadian natural resources, lowering crucial costs for our citizens. READ MORE: Trump’s Tariffs and the Administrative State Tariffs: Preserving America’s Superpower Status The post Use Timber Tariffs to Leverage Policy Changes appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

President Trump’s announcement about the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to be jointly directed by entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy has created much excitement about the potential for reducing regulation, bureaucracy, and government waste. DOGE has also brought forth a renewed interest in restoring federalism. President Trump has an opportunity to not only reverse the course on this dangerous spending trajectory, but also help to restore constitutional principles. With the creation of DOGE, President Trump has an opportunity to address the out-of-control spending and the $36 trillion national debt that represents both an economic and national security threat. David M. Walker, who served as the former U.S. Comptroller General and chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation, recently testified before the House Budget Committee and warned that a 70 percent chance exists that the nation will be in a debt crisis within three to five years. The $36 trillion debt does not include unfunded liabilities from entitlement programs, and some estimates show that the debt could increase to $60 trillion by 2034. Already the national debt is above 100 percent of GDP and interest payments alone will start crowding out other priorities in the budget. “In fact, net interest payments are already the third largest component of federal spending, behind only Social Security and Health (which excludes Medicare),” wrote David Herbert, a Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research. Further, Herbert noted that “the United States spent more money in the 2023 fiscal year servicing the debt than on national defense.” The other economic consequences of a debt crisis include high inflation, slower economic growth, and true austerity budget cuts. It will also impact states because Uncle Sam provides substantial amounts of federal funding to the states. Will states be prepared when federal funds have to be reduced or eliminated as a result of a debt crisis? For too long policymakers have neglected to address the spending crisis. President Trump now has an opportunity to address the national debt and begin to lower spending. DOGE is just one part of the solution. Republicans in Congress will also have to rediscover their fiscal conservatism. Congress must also act and help to lower spending and work with President Trump on a pro-growth economic agenda. Renewing or making the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) permanent is one essential part of this pro-growth agenda. Critics will argue that the TCJA led to deficits and that renewing them will create further deficits. The problem is not with the TCJA, but rather with the uncontrolled spending. Tax cuts, while important, are not the only policy. President Trump must work to reduce the regulatory burden and to unleash America’s energy production and potential, which also includes ending the roadblocks to responsible mining operations. Finally, President Trump during the campaign repeatedly stated his policy preference for protective tariffs. A strategic tariff could potentially not only help with the President’s economic agenda, but the revenue obtained from tariffs could be used to lower taxes. The most important fiscal policy tool will be to address spending. President Trump and Congress must work together and begin to lower spending. This should also include serious consideration of a spending limitation or balanced budget requirement to force Congress to control their spending. From Coolidge to Trump Finally, President Trump should follow the example of President Calvin Coolidge. Coolidge regarded “a good budget as among the most noblest monuments of virtue.” Coolidge believed in “economy in government,” and although he believed in lower tax rates, he understood that spending had to be addressed first. The Coolidge economic policy of reducing spending, paying down the national debt, and lowering tax rates also included limiting immigration and using protective tariffs. These were all policies that Coolidge utilized to unleash one of the most productive economies in our nation’s history. The conservatism and economic nationalism of Coolidge should serve as a guide for the Trump administration. President Trump has an opportunity to not only reverse the course on this dangerous spending trajectory, but also help to restore constitutional principles such as federalism. READ MORE: The Only Path Leading All the Way Out of Our Inflation Quagmire Time to Put Our Fiscal House in Order John Hendrickson serves as Policy Director for Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation. The post Trump’s Economic Nationalism Can Restore Fiscal Sanity appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

by Steve Kirsch, Steve Kirsch’s newsletter: The only confirmed associated side effects are anaphylaxis, myo/pericarditis, and Bell’s Palsy. And maybe 2 deaths total. Executive summary The New Zealand DSMB safety report can be downloaded here. It seems this came out in 2023, but somehow I missed it. Bottom line: The very large committee (17 people) […]