More Cronyism

/

Suggested reading by Prof. Sabrin, Ph. D

Alejandro Mayorkas, Joe Biden's choice for Homeland Security chief if he becomes president, was flagged in 2015 by the agency's internal watchdog for improperly intervening to help Democrat-connected foreign investors involved in the EB-5 work visa program, records show.

Then-Homeland Security Inspector General John Roth wrote that the Mayorkas interventions as President Obama's deputy homeland secretary proved exceedingly rare because as many as 15 "courageous" whistleblowers inside the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service came forward to report his behavior and nearly all wanted to keep their identities secret to avoid retaliation.

"Each conveyed the same factual scenario: certain applicants and stakeholders received preferential access to DHS leadership and preferential treatment in either the handling of their application or petition or regarding the merits of the application or petition," Roth wrote at the time.

He added: "Being a whistleblower is seen to be hazardous in the Federal Government, and a typical investigation would have one or perhaps two. That so many individuals were willing to step forward and tell us what happened is evidence of deep resentment about Mr. Mayorkas' actions related to the EB-5 program."

You can read the report here.

File

DHSOIGMayorkasReport2015.pdf

The IG report sharply rebuked Mayorkas for creating the "appearance of favoritism and special access" by intervening in three EB-5 visa matters involving companies that "were prominent or politically connected" to Democrats.

"Mr. Mayorkas was in contact, outside of the normal adjudication process, either directly or through senior DHS leadership, with a number of applicants and other stakeholders having business before USCIS," the report said. "This method of communication violated established USCIS policy for handling inquiries into the program."

In the three cases cited by the IG, the report alleged that Mayorkas:

  • "[P]ressured staff" to expedite the review of a Las Vegas casino investment at the urging of the then-top Democrat in the Senate Harry Reid.

The Legacy of Thanksgiving is Free Enterprise

Thanksgiving is normally a time of family festivities, when relatives and good friends come together for a fine meal, catching up with what has been happening in everyone’s life, and a general good cheer. A month later Christmas and New Year’s brings an end to the old year and the start of another. But things are very different this time around because of the coronavirus and the government response.

Government regulations restrict or ban other than minimal sized groups gathering in one place. Everyone is cautioned or commanded to wear face masks and stay at least six feet apart. And the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) strongly recommends that people not travel for Thanksgiving, and instead isolate at home with no one else or only with the smallest number of others. 

The idea that people should be free and at liberty to make their own best judgments on such matters without the heavy-handed control and command of the government seems to be a thing of the past – at least for now. We far too willingly and easily allow our self-responsibilities and our self-governance to be taken away and transferred to the decision-making of political paternalists who presume to know how we should act, with whom, and for what purposes. 

Political Paternalism Thwarts Self-Responsibility

But don’t we need government to take on these duties and responsibilities for us, since we oftentimes seem irresponsible and thoughtless in our actions in general, and certainly in the company of others? But even if this may sometimes be so, how shall people be expected to learn how to act more wisely in terms of themselves and others, if the need and opportunity to act in more thoughtful and responsible ways are increasingly narrowed or taken away by government agents telling us, instead, what to do and not do, and where and when?

In one of his famous essays, the 19th century British social philosopher, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), suggested that less responsible people can only hope for a benevolent dictator to guide them until they have matured enough for self-rule. His British contemporary, the historian, Thomas B. Macaulay (1800-1859), replied that such a prescription reminded him of the fool in the old story who said that he would not go into the water until he knew how to swim. If you wait under paternalism until you are ready for self-responsibility, you will never have learned the lessons through the necessities of everyday life by which the ability for more mature and thoughtful decision-making are acquired. 

Now we are facing an acceleration of such paternalism with a new incoming presidential administration in Washington, D.C. starting in January 2021 that proposes and promises even more political paternalism at ever-increasing costs. These increasing costs will come not only in the form, perhaps, of higher taxes and increased business regulation and more income redistribution, but in the rising cost of less personal liberty of choice and decision-making in more corners of our lives. 

Embracing or Avoiding the Word, “Socialism”

The use of the word “socialism” is being bandied about in the face of these prospective political changes in the United States. There are some more radical “progressives” who say that we should embrace it and not be afraid. Others are afraid of it, not because they don’t support a more and bigger government, but due to the fact that it carries a negative connotation that some of those holding or running for political office do not want as an ideological albatross around their neck when facing the voters.

Others use “socialism” as a word of criticism and condemnation. But sometimes some of those using it in this fashion, it turns out, are conscious or unwitting advocates, themselves, for a larger orbit of activist government policies without thinking a bit that some of what they take for granted or propose are also aspects or variations on the socialist theme. 

Few are the voices, I would suggest, who really understand that a free society is one with a lot less, indeed, a far more minimal, government than most people realize or can conceive as feasible because they have lived so long under forms of political paternalism that they cannot imagine life without it. (See my book, For a New Liberalism [2019].)

The Plymouth Colonists Practiced Plato’s Communism

It is not surprising, then, how few Americans really know and appreciate the meaning and relevance of Thanksgiving in terms of its origin in the history of the Puritans – the “Pilgrim Fathers” – who came 400 years in November 1620 to the New World, landing at what today we know as Plymouth, Massachusetts. Desiring to turn their back on what they saw and considered as the material corruption of the Old World, they wanted to erect a New Jerusalem that would not only be religiously devout but be built on a new foundation of communal sharing and social altruism.

Their goal was the communism of Plato’s Republic, in which all would work and share in common, knowing neither private property nor self-interested acquisitiveness. What resulted is recorded in the diary of Governor William Bradford, the head of the colony. The colonists collectively cleared and worked the land, but they brought forth neither the bountiful harvest they hoped for, nor did it create a spirit of shared and cheerful brotherhood.

The less industrious members of the colony came late to their work in the fields, and were slow and easy in their labors. Knowing that they and their families were to receive an equal share of whatever the group produced, they saw little reason to be more diligent in their efforts. The harder working among the colonists became resentful that their efforts would be redistributed to the more malingering members of the colony. Soon they, too, were coming late to work and were less energetic in the fields.

Collective Work Equaled Individual Resentment

As Governor Bradford of the Plymouth Colony explained in his old English (though with the spelling modernized):

“For the young men that were able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children, without recompense. The strong, or men of parts, had no more division of food, clothes, etc. then he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labor, and food, clothes, etc. with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignant and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc. they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could husbands brook it.”

Because of the disincentives and resentments that spread among the population, crops were sparse and the rationed equal shares from the collective harvest were not enough to ward off starvation and death. Two years of communism in practice had left alive only a fraction of the original number of the Plymouth colonists.

Private Property as Incentive to Industry

Realizing that another season like those that had just passed would mean the extinction of the entire community, the elders of the colony decided to try something radically different: the introduction of private property rights and the right of the individual families to keep the fruits of their own labor.

As Governor Bradford put it:

“And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end . . . This had a very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted then otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little-ones with them to set corn, which before would a ledge weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”

The Plymouth Colony experienced a great bounty of food. Private ownership meant that there was now a close link between work and reward. Industry became the order of the day as the men and women in each family went to the fields on their separate private farms. When the harvest time came, not only did many families produce enough for their own needs, but also they had surpluses that they could freely exchange with their neighbors for mutual benefit and improvement.

In Governor Bradford’s words:

“By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God. And the effect of their planting was well seen, for all had, one way or other, pretty well to bring the year about, and some of the abler sort and more industrious had to spare, and sell to others, so as any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.”

Rejecting Collectivism for Individualism

Hard experience had taught the Plymouth colonists the fallacy and error in the ideas that since the time of the ancient Greeks had promised paradise through collectivism rather than individualism. As Governor Bradford expressed it:

“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst the Godly and sober men, may well convince of the vanity and conceit of Plato’s and other ancients; — that the taking away of property, and bringing into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.”

Was this realization that communism was incompatible with human nature and the prosperity of humanity to be despaired or be a cause for guilt? Not in Governor Bradford’s eyes. It was simply a matter of accepting that altruism and collectivism were inconsistent with the nature of man, and that human institutions should reflect the reality of man’s nature if he is to prosper. Said Governor Bradford:

“Let none object this is man’s corruption, and nothing to the curse itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdom saw another course fitter for them.”

The desire to “spread the wealth” and for government to plan and regulate people’s lives is as old as the utopian fantasy in Plato’s Republic. The Pilgrim Fathers tried and soon realized its bankruptcy and failure as a way for men to live together in society.

They, instead, accepted man as he is: hardworking, productive, and innovative when allowed the liberty to follow his own interests in improving his own circumstances and that of his family. And even more, out of his industry result the quantities of useful goods that enable men to trade to their mutual benefit.

Giving Thanks for the Triumph of Freedom

In the wilderness of the New World, the Plymouth Pilgrims had progressed from the false dream of communism to the sound realism of capitalism. Whether our family gatherings this Thanksgiving be small or almost nonexistent due to the regulations and intimidations of government, we need to recall and remember the lesson to be learned from that first Thanksgiving.

Big-state governor just fully reopened

/

Blogger/historian/ economist Tom Woods daily commentary.

In Florida, where I live, Governor Ron DeSantis announced phase three of the state's reopening, in which essentially all restrictions are lifted, and private institutions of all kinds may operate at full capacity.

As Alex Berenson says, this makes him by far the best big-state governor. Just yesterday, DeSantis held a virtual roundtable featuring Harvard Medical School's Martin Kulldorff, and Michael Levitt and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford. Every minute of it is worth watching. No hysteria, no panic, and plenty of common sense. DeSantis himself is impressive in the video. He has a real command of the state of the literature on COVID-19, and he also knows the weaknesses in the case for lockdowns.

When I saw this roundtable, I knew what it meant: DeSantis was getting ready for phase three (which in Florida means complete reopening), and he wanted to cover himself by having unimpeachable experts go on the record with him in opposition to lockdowns. I had no idea that the phase three announcement would occur the very next day. DeSantis asks all three scientists: would you say at this point that lockdowns are off the table?

All said yes, of course. Bhattacharya described the cost of lockdowns as "catastrophic." This is truly fantastic news. Paul Krugman, meanwhile, is aghast. He says that Florida is still experiencing roughly 100 deaths per day, and that DeSantis' move will "kill a lot of people" (kind of like the lockdowns themselves, eh, Paul?). Of course, Florida is not experiencing 100 deaths per day. It is reporting about that many. Half of the deaths being reported are from a month or even two months ago, and the rest are scattered throughout September.

The heroic Jennifer Cabrera reports on this every single day. The spike is over, Paul. Be happy, not a ghoul. Meanwhile, the roundtable is definitely worth watching. As reporter Jennifer Cabrera said about it, if you've been wondering where the adults have been in all this, well, here they are.

Enjoy: https://www.tomwoods.com/major-dose-of-covid-19-truth/

Tom Woods

Daily Deaths from COVID-19 Falling Sharply: It’s Over

/

Ron Ross says “The pandemic is history“, and shows this graphically (daily deaths data). See also this graph.

We are not down to 0 daily deaths, but yesterday the number was 358 nationwide. That’s about 1 per million people.

There are still people getting sick and some dying, but the worst appears to be over.

Here in Erie County, New York, peak weekly deaths were 92 in the week ending May 7, four months ago. Since early July, the record pf deaths attributed to COVID-19 shows

7/4 639 Three
7/11 646 Seven
7/18 657 Eleven
7/25 663 Six
8/3 669 Six
8/10 671 Two
8/20 676 Five
8/26 678 Two
9/2 681 Three
9/8 681 Zero

We may as well begin telling ourselves “It’s over, it’s over”. We need to get back to our normal routines and practices. Government officials everywhere especially need to tell themselves, “It’s over”. Airlines need to wake up. Pelosi needs to wake up. De Blasio needs to wake up. Restaurants should be opening. “It’s over.” Schools of all kinds should be open for students. Businesses of all kinds should be showing signs saying “We’re open”. States should be removing any barriers and checkpoints to inter-state travel. At most, people entering airports from foreign lands can be checked if those lands have not peaked out in infections.

Worldwide, the decline is occurring too.

If I were dispensing advice or suggesting health practices, I’d focus on the elderly vulnerable and on those entering the country from foreign places where the falloff in COVID deaths may not be as steep as here. Otherwise, I think it’s important to restore normality to a much higher degree. There should be no general lockdowns. Social distancing can be ended. We can revert to the usual precautions of not exposing ourselves to intimate contact with people who have bad colds, the flu, coughing and sneezing, etc. Masking should be ended right away. Psychologically, we need to tell ourselves, “It’s over.” We need the relief to our nervous systems of believing this. We should not be making our behavior contingent on any vaccine. Any use of quarantine should be strictly voluntary. The centralized commands to doctors about what routines, regimens, vitamins, and medicines are allowable or approved or disapproved should be ended.

What we should now do is evaluate the ways in which the governing systems screwed up during this episode, and they did, and they still are. The goal should be to change them for the better. This includes the systems governing biological labs in which novel viruses and killer molecules can be created. And that’s not all. Every part of our society, from media down to us personally, reacted to this experience in ways from which we can learn.

Michael S. Rozeff

United Nations Secretary General is Signalling the 'Great Reset' is Coming

/

This should be an alarm bell for us all.

I have written before that under the cover of the COVID-19 panic the World Economic Forum is about to launch the Great Reset (See: BEWARE: The Global Crony Crowd is Going to Use COVID-19 as Cover to Reset the Economy and the World).

Now, António Guterres,  Secretary-General of the United Nations, has sent out a tweet encouraging the Great Reset:

They are going to use the COVID panic and mix it with Social Justice nonsense to attempt to rip up what is left of free markets and free people.

The World Economic Forum Great Reset conference was originally scheduled for January 2021 but has been postponed until the early summer of 2021.

This could be the most dangerous meeting of elites in history. In many ways, it could be comparable to The Constitutional Convention of 1787 but the outcome will have near-global application with much more sinister and anti-freedom goals.

 -RW

https://www.targetliberty.com/2020/09/united-nations-secretary-general-is.html