Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Wednesday, February 26, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 707)
Politics

Clancy-Secret-Service-Stingray

Joseph Clancy, acting director of the United States Secret Service, testifies during a House Judiciary Committee Hearing, right, and left, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office shows the StingRay II, manufactured by Harris Corporation, of Melbourne, Fla.

In between the brouhaha of Joe Biden’s stand-down from the presidency and Hillary Clinton’s staged stand-up to Benghazi-tied accusations by Congress, comes this, courtesy of the federal government: The Fourth Amendment, the one guaranteeing protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, is no longer in effect.

Or, in the words of the government’s appointed spokesman, Homeland Security assistant secretary Seth Stodder, in widely reported remarks: The Secret Service is now joining the Justice Department is claiming “exigent circumstances” to use cellphone tracking technology, i.e. Stingrays, without first obtaining warrants.

It’s just too dang time-consuming, he said. And the people who need protection, like the president, are just too important to subject to bothersome constitutional requirements.

He used fancier language, of course, while explaining just why federal law enforcement doesn’t need to abide the Constitution.

“The key exception that we envision is the Secret Service’s protective mission,” Stodder said, according to media reports. “In certain circumstances where you could have an immediate threat to the president and you have cryptic information, our conclusion in drawing the line between security and privacy here is to err on the side of protection.”

Well, isn’t that special.

In other words, the Secret Service mission — which is not only to protect the president, but also other high-ranking political officials deemed at-risk — is way more important than the preserving the integrity of our nation’s guiding legal document. They have to watch out for people who are way more important than the average American. And therefore, they get to circumvent laws that were put in place long ago, by Founding Fathers who wanted to prevent — get this — the very federal government from having the ability to intrude on citizens’ right to be secure in their persons and possessions, absent a judge-sanctioned warrant.

Stingrays, for those in the dark, are signaling devices originally developed for the military and now commonly used by civilian law enforcement agencies that capture cell phone data. They don’t tap into conversations or text messages, but they do alert to the identity and location of the cell phone holder — and that includes the holders of all the cell phones in the range of the Stingray.

Translation: Stingrays scoop up data on suspects and non-suspects alike. That means said scoopers are gathering private information on American citizens who aren’t even accused or suspected of doing anything wrong, absent court warrant. Isn’t this exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent?

Why yes. Why yes, it is.

And yet, we’re here: The Secret Service’s new policy is to allow an agent to cite “exceptional circumstances” to an “executive-level” dude within his or her own agency or at a U.S. attorney’s office, who can then sign an OK for the law enforcement official to use the Stingray tracking technology. That’s according to Stodder, who emphasized the federal government would only use the data in extreme circumstances, not simply routine criminal investigations.

We’re from the government – you can trust us, he says.

It’s for the sake of “protection” and security, he says.

It seems prudent at this point to quote Ben Franklin, and his works of wisdom about those who trade liberty for temporary safety “deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

It also seems judicious to wonder about this: If the supposed security of some is the standard by which we gauge the sensibility of the Constitution, how long will the Fourth Amendment last?

The answer’s clear – not long. Little by little, chip by chip, constitutional rights are being whittled, almost always for the reason of safety and security. At the same time, Americans are slowly being conditioned to buy into the well-worn, weary government sneak logic that we’re all worthy of protection – just some, much more than others.

[mybooktable book=”police-state-usa-how-orwells-nightmare-is-becoming-our-reality” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

The Secret Service is now claiming "exigent

Video

[brid video=”18632″ player=”1929″ title=”Jim Jordan Hits Hillary Clinton With Smoking Gun on YouTube Video”]

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, hit Hillary Clinton with the smoking gun at the House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing Thursday when he introduced e-mails that show the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya terrorism to family and the Egyptian prime minister.

Jordan asked Mrs. Clinton why it is she told Americans the Benghazi attack was a response to a YouTube video mocking Muslims, which it wasn’t, but e-mailed it was a terrorist attack to the Egyptian prime minister and family.

“You can tell the Egyptian prime minister it’s a terrorist attack, but you can’t tell your own people,” Jordan scolded Clinton.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): You just gave a long answer, Madam Secretary, to Ms. Sanchez about what you heard that night, what you’re doing. But nowhere in there did you mention a video. You didn’t mention a video because there was never a video-inspired protest in Benghazi. There was in Cairo but not in Benghazi.

Victoria Nuland, your spokesperson at the State Department, hours after the attacks said this, “Benghazi has been attacked by militants. In Cairo, police have removed demonstrators.”

Benghazi, you got weapons and explosions. Cairo, you got spray paint and rocks.

One hour before the attack in Benghazi, Chris Stevens walks a diplomat to the front gate. The ambassador didn’t report a demonstration. He didn’t report it because it never happened. An eyewitness in the command center that night on the ground said no protest, no demonstration; two intelligence reports that day, no protest, no demonstration.

The attack starts at 3:42 Eastern time, ends at approximately 11:40 pm that night.

At 4:06, an ops alert goes out across the State Department.

It says this, “Mission under attack, armed men, shots fired, explosions heard.”

No mention of video, no mention of a protest, no mention of a demonstration.

But the best evidence is Greg Hicks, the number two guy in Libya, the guy who worked side by side with Ambassador Stevens. He was asked, if there had been a protest, would the ambassador have reported it?

Mr. Hicks’s response, “Absolutely.”

For there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens’ front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable, Mr. Hicks.

He said, secondly, if it had been reported, he would have been out the back door within minutes and there was a back gate.

Everything points to a terrorist attack. We just heard from Mr. Pompeo about the long history of terrorist incidents, terrorist violence in the country.

And yet five days later Susan Rice goes on five TV shows and she says this, “Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction as a consequence of a video,” a statement we all know is false. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what others have said.

“Rice was off the reservation,” off the reservation on five networks, White House worried about the politics. Republicans didn’t make those statements. They were made by the people who worked for you in the Near Eastern Affairs bureau, the actual experts on Libya in the State Department.

So if there’s no evidence for a video-inspired protest, then where did the false narrative start?

It started with you, Madam Secretary.

At 10:08, on the night of the attack, you released this statement, “Some have sought to justify the vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

At 10:08, with no evidence, at 10:08, before the attack is over, at 10:08, when Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are still on the roof of the annex, fighting for their lives, the official statement of the State Department blames a video.

Why?

FMR. SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: During the day on September 11th, as you did mention, Congressman, there was a very large protest against our embassy in Cairo. Protesters breached the walls. They tore down the American flag. And it was of grave concern to us because the inflammatory video had been shown on Egyptian television, which has a broader reach than just inside Egypt.

And if you look at what I said, I referred to the video that night in a very specific way. I said, some have sought to justify the attack because of the video.

I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks.

And, in fact, during the course of that week, we had many attacks that were all about the video. We had people breaching the walls of our embassies in Tunis, in Khartoum; we had people, thankfully not Americans, dying at protests. But that’s what was going on, Congressman.

JORDAN: Secretary Clinton, I appreciate most of those attacks were after the attack on the facility in Benghazi. You mentioned Cairo. It was interesting what else Ms. Nuland said that day.

She said, “If pressed by the press, if there’s a connection between Cairo and Benghazi,” she said this, “there’s no connection between the two.”

So here’s what troubles me. Your experts knew the truth. Your spokesperson knew the truth. Greg Hicks knew the truth.

But what troubles me more is I think you knew the truth.

I want to show you a few things here. You’re looking at an e- mail you sent to your family.

Here’s what you said at 11:00 that night, approximately one hour after you told the American people it was a video, you say to your family, “Two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda- like group.”

You tell — you tell the American people one thing, you tell your family an entirely different story.

Also on the night of the attack, you had a call with the president of Libya. Here’s what you said to him.

“Ansar al-Sharia is claiming responsibility.”

It’s interesting; Mr. Khattala, one of the guys arrested in charge actually belonged to that group.

And finally, most significantly, the next day, within 24 hours, you had a conversation with the Egyptian prime minister.

You told him this, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.”

Let me read that one more time.

“We know,” not we think, not it might be, “we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.”

State Department experts knew the truth. You knew the truth. But that’s not what the American people got. And again, the American people want to know why.

Why didn’t you tell the American people exactly what you told the Egyptian prime minister?

CLINTON: Well, I think if you look at the statement that I made, I clearly said that it was an attack. And I also said that there were some who tried to justify…

(CROSSTALK) JORDAN: Secretary Clinton…

CLINTON: … on the basis — on the basis of the video, Congressman.

And I think…

JORDAN: Real, real quick, calling it an attack is like saying the sky is blue. Of course it was an attack.

(CROSSTALK)

JORDAN: We want to know the truth. The statement you sent out was a statement on Benghazi and you say vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material on the Internet. If that’s not pointing as the motive of being a video, I don’t know what is. And that’s certainly what — and that’s certainly how the American people saw it.

CLINTON: Well, Congressman, there was a lot of conflicting information that we were trying to make sense of. The situation was very fluid. It was fast-moving. There was also a claim of responsibility by Ansar al-Sharia. And when I talked to the Egyptian prime minister, I said that this was a claim of responsibility by Ansar al-Sharia, by a group that was affiliated — or at least wanted to be affiliated — with Al Qaida.

Sometime after that, the next — next day, early the next morning after that, on the 12th or 13th, they retracted their claim of responsibility.

JORDAN: Madam Secretary…

CLINTON: And I think if — if you look at what all of us were trying to do, and we were in a position, Congressman, of trying to make sense of a lot of incoming information…

JORDAN: Madam…

CLINTON: … and watch the way the intelligence community tried to make sense of it.

JORDAN: Madam Secretary, there was not…

CLINTON: So all I can say is nobody…

JORDAN: … conflicting — there was not conflicting information the day of the attack, because your press secretary said, “if pressed, there is no connection between Cairo and Benghazi.” It was clear. You’re the ones who muddied it up, not the — not the information.

CLINTON: Well, there’s no connection…

JORDAN: Here’s what — here’s what I think that — here’s what I think is going on. Here’s what I think’s going on.

Let me show you one more slide. Again, this is from Victoria Nuland, your press person. She says to Jake Sullivan, Philippe Reines. Subject line reads this: Romney’s Statement on Libya.

E-mail says, “This is what Ben was talking about.” I assume Ben is the now-somewhat-famous Ben Rhodes, author of the talking points memo. This e-mail’s at 10:35, 27 minutes after your 10:08 — 27 minutes after you’ve told everyone it’s a video, while Americans are still fighting because the attack’s still going on, your top people are talking politics.

It seems to me that night you had three options, Secretary. You could tell the truth, like you did with your family, like you did with the Libyan president, like you did with the Egyptian prime minister — tell them it was a terrorist attack.

You could say, “you know what, we’re not quite sure. Don’t — don’t really know for sure.” I don’t — I don’t think the evidence — I think it’s all in the person (ph) — but you could have done that.

But you picked the third option. You picked the video narrative. You picked the one with no evidence. And you did it because Libya was supposed to be — and Mr. Roskam pointed out, this great success story for the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department.

And a key campaign theme that year was GM’s alive, bin Laden’s dead, Al Qaida’s on the run. And now you have a terrorist attack, and it’s a terrorist attack in Libya, and it’s just 56 days before an election.

You can live with a protest about a video. That won’t hurt you. But a terrorist attack will. So you can’t be square with the American people. You tell your family it’s a terrorist attack, but not the American people. You can tell the president of Libya it’s a terrorist attack, but not the American people. And you can tell the Egyptian prime minister it’s a terrorist attack, but you can’t tell your own people the truth.

Madam Secretary, Americans can live with the fact that good people sometimes give their lives for this country. They don’t like it. They mourn for those families. They pray for those families.

But they can live with it. But what they can’t take, what they can’t live with, is when their government’s not square with them.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, hit Hillary Clinton

Politics

Paul-Ryan-candidacy-House-Speaker

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington on October 21, 2015. (Photo: AP)

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said on Thursday that he is “ready and eager” in declaring his candidacy for Speaker of the House. Rep. Ryan, the 2012 vice presidential nominee, made the announcement in a “Dear Colleague” letter after he gained support from several critical Republican groups.

In a “Dear Colleague” letter addressed to members of the House Republican Conference, Ryan said he was “ready and eager to be our speaker.”

“I never thought I’d be speaker. But I pledged to you that if I could be a unifying figure, then I would serve—I would go all in,” he said in the letter. “After talking with so many of you, and hearing your words of encouragement, I believe we are ready to move forward as a one, united team.”

The decision marks a stark reversal for Ryan, who quickly made it clear he did not want the job after House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., dropped out of the race unexpectedly. However, following the support of the Republican Study Committee and the so-called Tuesday Group, the former of which represents mainstream House Republicans and is over 170 members, said Thursday Ryan is “the right person to lead the House going forward.”

The latter group, or Tuesday Group, which is also comprised of moderates, announced they will back Ryan this week, as well. But their support comes after the House Freedom Caucus, which earlier had endorsed Florida Rep. Dan Webster, put out a statement Wednesday saying that the overwhelming majority of its members now support Ryan.

“I think Paul is someone who can unite the party and even see unanimous support,” Florida Rep. David Jolly, who initially backed Rep. Webster, told PPD following McCarthy’s announcement. Jolly, who refers to himself as a :governing conservative,” said Ryan was Republicans’ best shot to show a united conference in the upcoming budget battles.

Still, Ryan had laid out several demands as a condition for him running, including rules changes to overhaul what is known as the “motion to vacate the chair” — a parliamentary weapon members can used to oust a speaker.

Ryan also wanted to be able to spend time with his family, and not be on the road as much as previous speakers. House Freedom Caucus members maintain that they haven’t agreed to the conditions and that Ryan has agreed to push conservative reforms in welfare, deficit spending and other conservative hot topic issues.

“Paul Ryan has an opportunity to lead House Republicans in a new direction and in fulfilling their promises to the American people to keep spending caps in the year-end budget bill, insist on spending reductions as part of any debt ceiling plan and oppose reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank,” Club for Growth President David McIntosh said in a statement. “These steps will go a long way toward restoring pro-growth leadership to Congress. The House Freedom Caucus also correctly insisted that the new leadership restore integrity to the way in which Congress does the peoples’ business.”

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul

Economy

existing homes sales reuters

(Photo: REUTERS)

The National Association of Realtors said on Thursday existing homes sales in the U.S. jumped 4.7% last month to an annualized rate of 5.55 million units. The increase was more than the rise to 5.38 million units Wall Street has anticipated. Following August’s unexpected decline, existing home sales now increased year–over–year for 12 consecutive months, according to the National Association of Realtors, and all four major regions experienced sales gains in September.

“September home sales bounced back solidly after slowing in August and are now at their second highest pace since February 2007 (5.79 million),” Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist said. “While current price growth around 6% is still roughly double the pace of wages, affordability has slightly improved since the spring and is helping to keep demand at a strong and sustained pace.”

Median existing home prices for all housing types in September came in at $221,900, which is 6.1% above September 2014 ($209,100). September’s price increase marks the 43rd consecutive month of year–over–year gains. Meanwhile, first–time buyers decreased to 29% of total sales in September, which is still relatively high, after climbing to their highest share of the year in August (32%). Last year at this point, first–time buyers accounted for 29% of all buyers.

“Despite persistent inventory shortages, the housing market has made great strides this year, backed by an increasing share of pent–up sellers realizing the increased equity they’ve gained from rising home prices and using it towards trading up or moving into a smaller home,” Yun added. “Unfortunately, first–time buyers are still failing to generate any meaningful traction this year.”

The NAR report comes as the composite National Mortgage Risk Index (NMRI) released Wednesday for Agency home purchase clocked in at 12.09% in September, up 0.8% once again on a year-over-year basis. The monthly composite gauge of the share of mortgage risk in the housing market has gained year-over-year in each month since January 2014.

According to Edward Pinto, a former executive vice president and chief credit officer for Fannie Mae, the continued migration of Agency loan originations from large banks to nonbanks in September and throughout the previous 12 months has accounted for much of the upward trend in the composite NMRI. Nonbank lending is substantially riskier than the large bank business it replaces.

“The cut in FHA’s annual insurance premium early this year has largely resulted in the purchase of higher priced homes, not increased accessibility,” said Pinto, now codirector of AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk. “This demonstrates once again how affordable housing policies tend not to increase affordability, and in many cases reduce it.”

Yet, the NAR, which doubles as the housing lobby on Capitol Hill, continues to lobby lawmakers for further government intervention aimed at propping up the housing market. NAR President Chris Polychron, executive broker with 1st Choice Realty in Hot Springs, Ark., says Realtors strongly back the passing of H.R. 3700, the “Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2015.” Polychron testified in support of the bill yesterday before the U.S. House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance.

“This bill helps expand homeownership and rental housing opportunities at all levels and specifically includes changes to Federal Housing Administration policies that limit the flexible and affordable financing needed by many potential condo buyers — especially first–time buyers.”

But Stephen Oliner, a senior fellow at UCLA’s Ziman Center for Real Estate and codirector of AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk, said these legislative measures have historically hurt the very people they claim to help.

“The typical first-time buyer today puts little money down and chooses a mortgage that pays off very slowly,” said Oliner. “This combination means that many first-time buyers are only one recession away from being significantly underwater.”

Regional Breakdown (H/T:NAR)

September existing–home sales in the Northeast jumped 8.6 percent to an annual rate of 760,000, and are 11.8 percent above a year ago. The median price in the Northeast was $256,500, which is 4.0 percent above September 2014.

In the Midwest, existing–home sales climbed 2.3 percent to an annual rate of 1.31 million in September, and are 12.0 percent above September 2014. The median price in the Midwest was $174,400, up 5.4 percent from a year ago.

Existing–home sales in the South rose 3.8 percent to an annual rate of 2.21 million in September, and are 5.7 percent above September 2014. The median price in the South was $191,500, up 6.2 percent from a year ago.

Existing–home sales in the West increased 6.7 percent to an annual rate of 1.27 million in September, and are 9.5 percent above a year ago. The median price in the West was $318,100, which is 8.0 percent above September 2014.

The National Association of Realtors said on

Policy

Bernie Sanders

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a political rally at the Veterans Memorial Coliseum at Alliant Energy Center in Madison, Wis., Wednesday, July 1, 2015. (Michael P. King/Wisconsin State Journal via AP)

Whenever there’s a discussion of the Nordic nations, I feel conflicted. I don’t like the punitively high tax rates and socially destructive levels of redistribution in nations such as Denmark, but I also admire the very laissez-faire policies those countries have when it comes to regulation, trade, and property rights.

Indeed, on those latter issues, it’s worth noting that Nordic nations are more free market-oriented than the United States according to the experts at the Fraser Institute who put together Economic Freedom of the World.

Take the example of Sweden. That country has robust school choice and a partially privatized social security system.

Moreover, Nordic nations in general have lower business tax burdens and investment tax burdens than the United States. And Denmark and Sweden have both taken some modest steps to restrain government spending, so even in the realm of fiscal policy you can find some admirable developments.

But these countries need more than “modest steps” since the burden of government spending is still enormous. And excessive social-welfare expenditures are a major problem since such outlays depress labor force participation and encourage dependency.

I mention all these good and bad features of Nordic nations because Senator Bernie Sanders has suggested, as part of his presidential campaign, that the United States should become more like Sweden and Denmark.

If I got to pick and choose which policies we copied, I would agree.

But since Senator Sanders almost surely wants us to copy their fiscal policies (and presumably has no idea that those countries are pro-free market in other areas), I feel compelled to explain that he’s wrong.

And the good news is that other people are producing the evidence, which makes my job easy. Nima Sanandaji is a Swedish economist who just wrote a very illuminating article on this topic for the Cayman Financial Review.

He starts by noting how statists embrace the Nordic Model.

Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have high-tax social democratic systems that for long have been admired by the left. …The high regard comes as no surprise. Nordic societies are uniquely successful. Not only are they characterised by high living standards, but also by other attractive features such as low crime rates, long life expectations, high degrees of social cohesion and relatively even income distributions. …This is often seen as proof that a ”third way” policy between socialism and capitalism works well, and that other societies can reach the same favourable social outcomes simply by expanding the size of government.

But Nima explains that Nordic nations became rich when they had free markets and small government.

The best that can be said about the Nordic welfare state is that the damage is somewhat contained because of cultural norms.

If one studies Nordic history and society in depth, however, it quickly becomes evident that the simplistic analysis is flawed. …High levels of trust, strong work ethic, civic participation, social cohesion, individual responsibility and family values are long-standing features of Nordic society that pre-date the welfare state. These deeper social institutions explain why Sweden, Denmark and Norway could so quickly grow from impoverished nations to wealthy ones as industrialisation and the market economy were introduced in the late 19th century. …The same norms explain why large welfare systems could be implemented in the mid-20th century. Strong work ethics and high levels of trust made it possible to levy high taxes and offer generous benefits with limited risk of abuse and undesirable incentive effects. It is important to stress that the direction of causality seems to be from cultures with strong social capital towards welfare states that have not had serious adverse consequences, and not the other way around.

Dr. Sanandaji then hypothesizes that we can learn a lot by comparing Americans of Nordic descent with those that didn’t emigrate.

…the Nordic success culture is maintained when people from this region move abroad. …The American descendants of Nordic migrants live in a very different policy environment compared with the residents of the Nordic countries. The former live in an environment with less welfare, lower taxes and (in general) freer markets. Interestingly, the social and economic success of Nordic-Americans is on a par with or even better than their cousins in the Nordic countries. …Close to 12 million Americans have Nordic (Scandinavian) origins.

And he produces some dramatic data.

Simply said, people of Nordic descent do very well in America, where the fiscal burden is lower than it is back in Scandinavia.

According to the 2010 US Census, the median household income in the United States is $51,914. This can be compared with a median household income of $61,920 for Danish Americans, $59,379 for Finish-Americans, $60,935 for Norwegian Americans and $61,549 for Swedish Americans. There is also a group identifying themselves simply as “Scandinavian Americans” in the US Census. The median household income for this group is even higher at $66,219.

But here’s the most remarkable information from his article. Nordic-Americans are far more productive than their cousins back home.

Danish Americans have a contribution to GDP per capita 37 per cent higher than Danes still living in Denmark; Swedish Americans contribute 39 per cent more to GDP per capita than Swedes living in Sweden; and Finnish Americans contribute 47 per cent more than Finns living in Finland. …there is prima facie evidence that the decedents of Nordic people who move to the U.S. are significantly better off than those who stay at home.

Here’s the infographic Nima sent with his article.

Wow, this is game, set, match, as far as I’m concerned. Nima produced similar data a few years ago looking just as Swedes.

But this new data makes it clear that we’re not just looking at a one-nation phenomenon. The lesson is clear. Nordic people manage to be somewhat productive in high-tax, big-government nations.

But if they reside in a medium-tax country with a medium-sized government, they are highly productive (so just imagine what they could achieve in Hong Kong or Singapore!).

And Nima also points out that there is less poverty among Scandinavians in America than there is among Scandinavians in Scandinavia.

Nordic descendants in the U.S. today have half the poverty rate of the average of Americans – a consistent finding for decades. In other words, Nordic Americans have lower poverty rates than Nordic citizens.

So here’s the lesson that will be a nightmare for Bernie Sanders. It turns out that his role models actually teach us that big government makes people less prosperous.

…in the long run, the large welfare states have eroded incentives, and ultimately the social norms that bounded Nordic societies together. The U.S. system, with greater emphasis on personal responsibility, is more in line with the traditional Nordic system that allowed for the culture of success to develop in the first place. Thus, we should not be surprised that Nordic Americans have both higher living standard and lower poverty than their cousins in the Nordic welfare states.

To summarize, the recipe for prosperity is free markets (which you find in Scandinavia) and small government (which is absent in those countries).

But Senator Sanders wants to copy the bad parts of Nordic nations while ignoring the good parts. For those who care about real-world evidence, Dr. Sanandaji’s data suggests we should take the opposite approach.

Whenever there’s a discussion of the Nordic

Economy

Weekly-Jobless-Claims-Graphic

Weekly Jobless Claims Graphic. Number of Americans applying for first-time jobless benefits.

The Labor Department said Thursday weekly jobless claims, their proxy for layoffs across the U.S., gained by 3,000 to a seasonally adjusted 259,000 in the week ended Oct. 17. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 265,000 new claims last week.

The four-week moving average of claims–which is widely considered to be a better gauge as it evens out weekly ups and downs–fell by 2,000 to 263,250 last week. That was the lowest average level since December 1973, though the prior week was revised higher by 1,000 to 256,000, just slightly above the 42-year low touched in July.

The Labor Department, which said no special factors influenced data, said the number of continuing unemployment benefits, or claims by workers out for more than a week, rose by 6,000 to 2,170,000 in the week ended Oct. 10. Continuing claims, reported with a one-week lag, are still trending near the lowest level since November 2000.

The Labor Department said Thursday weekly jobless

Live

WATCH LIVE: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified at the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Thursday Oct. 22, 2015.

Please Note: You may have to refresh the page if the feed expires.

On September 11, 2001, the U.S. embassy and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, came under attack what was a preplanned, premeditated attack from Islamic terrorists. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed a YouTube video caused the attack in Benghazi attack and Democrats sought to obfuscate the tragedy with unrelated Middle East protests.

However, previously obtained documents published by PPD showed the fact is that Mrs. Clinton was never “making a general reference to widespread protests across the Middle East” when blaming what the Pentagon called “a non-issue” YouTube video.

“You never said spontaneous or characterized the motives, in fact you were careful in your first statement to say we were assessing motive and method,” Jake Sullivan, a top Clinton aide wrote to Hillary on Sept. 24, 2012. “The way you treated the video in the Libya context was to say that some sought to *justify* the attack on that basis.”

Clinton and the entire Obama administration, just three days after the attack, told the victims’ families before she made those remarks that they would “get the man who made the inflammatory video.” Unfortunately, the very first batch of Clinton-related emails released by the State Department prove Sullivan and Cheryl Mills, two of Clintons closest aides, knew full-well that the terror attack had absolutely nothing to do with the video.

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country,” Clinton said at Andrews Air Force Base on Sept. 14, 2012. “We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because. it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”

Yet, when asked in May 2013 if President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Susan Rice specifically told her the video was to blame for the attack that led to her son’s death, Sean Smith’s mother gave a crystal clear account of the statements made by these specific members of the Obama administration.

“Oh yes, they all told me about the reason that this happened was the video,” said Pat Smith. “Every one of them told me that. Yes, they actually did, and Susan Rice also. Nose to nose. I was with – they were hugging me!”

Without the House select committee on Benghazi, and despite the seven previous investigations Mrs. Clinton and Democrats repeatedly cite, the American people would never had learned of the private server unlawfully kept by the former secretary and now-frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Without the House select committee on Benghazi, which the overwhelming majority of the American people believe should continue their work, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) would not be conducting a criminal investigation into Clinton’s email practices and likely violations of the Federal Records Act and Espionage Act.

According to polls, upwards of 78% of American voters say they believe Hillary Clinton is lying about her role in the Benghazi terror attack and subsequent actions. If the House select committee on Benghazi can’t find the truth, then the FBI likely will.

WATCH LIVE: Former Secretary of State Hillary

Science

NASA-K2-mission-death-star-white-dwarf-artist-rendition

In this artist’s conception, a tiny rocky object vaporizes as it orbits a white dwarf star. Astronomers have detected the first planetary object transiting a white dwarf using data from the K2 mission. Slowly the object will disintegrate, leaving a dusting of metals on the surface of the star. (Photo: CfA/Mark A. Garlick)

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla.–Just in time for the new “Star Wars” movie, NASA says a white dwarf star in the Constellation Virgo turned out to be a “death star.” Scientists announced Wednesday that NASA’s exoplanet-hunting Kepler spacecraft discovered a rocky object in a death spiral being vaporized by a distant star it was orbiting.

“We are for the first time witnessing a miniature ‘planet’ ripped apart by intense gravity, being vaporized by starlight and raining rocky material onto its star,” said Andrew Vanderburg, graduate student from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., and lead author of the paper published in Nature.

This dead, dense star remnant is called a white dwarf. As stars like our sun age, they expand in size during their evolution into red giants. Then, they gradually lose about half their mass, shrinking down to 1/100th of their original size to roughly the size of Planet Earth. The data show the object in an orbit 520,000 miles from the white dwarf, which is roughly distance from the Earth to the moon, and back. Vanderburg and his team also found several additional chunks of orbiting material.

“The eureka moment of discovery came on the last night of observation with a sudden realization of what was going around the white dwarf,” Vanderburg said. “The shape and changing depth of the transit were undeniable signatures.”

The fictional Death Star in the cultural and iconic “Star Wars” series was the Empire’s enormous space weapon that destroyed an entire planet as punishment for disobedience to the centralized galactic government.

“For the last decade we’ve suspected that white dwarf stars were feeding on the remains of rocky objects, and this result may be the smoking gun we’re looking for,” said Fergal Mullally, staff scientist of K2 at SETI and NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California. “However, there’s still a lot more work to be done figuring out the history of this system.”

Here’s how it all unfolded:

During its first observing campaign from May 30, 2014 to Aug. 21, 2014, K2 trained its gaze on a patch of sky in the constellation Virgo, measuring the minuscule change in brightness of the distant white dwarf. When an object transits or passes in front of a star from the vantage point of the space telescope, a dip in starlight is recorded. The periodic dimming of starlight indicates the presence of an object in orbit about the star.

Ames manages the Kepler and repurposed K2 missions for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, while NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., managed Kepler mission development. Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corporation operates the flight system with support from the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

“This discovery highlights the power and serendipitous nature of K2. The science community has full access to K2 observations and is using these data to make a wide range of unique discoveries across the full range of astrophysics phenomena,” said Steve Howell, K2 project scientist at Ames.

The findings are being published this week in the journal Nature.

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla.--Just in time for the

Video

Bill O’Reilly, host of The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News, said we no longer are a nation of laws in response to Senate Democrats blocking Kate’s Law.

Senate Democrats on Tuesday blocked a popular Republican-sponsored bill that would’ve cracked down on sanctuary city policies by threatening to withhold funds to local governments that don’t abide by federal immigration laws. The bill, known as the Stop Sanctuary Cities Act, failed on a 54-45 vote and Republicans failed to peel off a single Democratic vote.

Kate Steinle, 32, was murdered by an illegal alien who was taking “sanctuary” in San Francisco. Francisco Sanchez, the 45-year-old multiple felon and deportee who confessed to Steinle’s murder, had been released from jail in March after San Francisco authorities didn’t honor an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer request. Sanchez, unfortunately, is not the only recent offender and Ms. Steinle, unfortunately, is not the only recent victim.

However, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kty., refused to allow Kate’s Law–which imposes a mandatory minimum sentence on criminal illegal alien felons who are caught in the U.S. after previous deportation–to stand alone for a vote on the floor of the Senate. Rather than allowing lawmakers to take an up or down vote on the legislation alone, which was written and cosponsored by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, McConnell instead attached it to a bill defunding sanctuary cities.

Worth noting, according to a recent poll, 58% want the federal government to cut off funds to cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants, while just 32% disagreed and 10% said they were not sure. Further, 62% of likely voters said the Department of Justice (DOJ) should take legal action against cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants. Meanwhile, 53 percent of all voters–including 76 percent of Republicans–agreed with Trump’s comments and say illegal immigration increases the level of serious crime in America.

Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor

Video

[brid video=”18557″ player=”1929″ title=”NLCS Game 4 Highlights Mets Sweep Cubs in Chicago Advance to World Series”]

NLCS Game 4 Highlights: The New York Mets swept the Pennant against Chicago Cubs in the National League Championship Series to go to the World Series for the first time since 2000.

Read Full Article — Mets Sweep Pennant Against Cubs, Go on to First World Series Since 2000

NLCS Game 4 Highlights: The New York

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe