Homebuilder sentiment ended it three-month slide in April, rising to its highest monthly reading in 2015, though the bar wasn’t set very high historically speaking. The National Association of Home Builders said on Wednesday the NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market index increased to a preliminary 56 from a revised 52 in March.
Economists polled by Reuters had predicted the index would rise to 55.
“As the spring buying season gets underway, home builders are confident that current low interest rates and continued job growth will draw consumers to the market,” said NAHB Chairman Tom Woods, a home builder from Blue Springs, Mo.
Readings above 50 mean more builders of new single-family homes see market conditions as favorable than poor. The index has not been below 50 since June 2014 and stood at 46 during April 2014.
“The HMI component index measuring future sales expectations rose five points in April to its highest level of the year,” said NAHB Chief Economist David Crowe. “This uptick shows builders are feeling optimistic that the housing market will continue to strengthen throughout 2015.”
The single-family home sales gauge rose to a preliminary 61 from 58 in March, and the gauge of single-family sales expectations for the next six months increased to a preliminary 64 from 59 last month, while prospective buyer traffic rose to a preliminary 41 from 37 in March.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, left, and President Barack Obama, right.
President Obama has withdrawn his veto threat on the Corker Iran bill, which passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously Tuesday 19–0. The bill, known officially also as the Corker-Menendez bill, gives Congress a voice on the Iran nuclear deal and will now move to the full Senate for a vote.
However, critics say the development is not at all a clear victory for the Republican-controlled Senate or the American people, the vast majority of which do not trust or want Obama to have the power to make a deal with the regime in Tehran with Republican Senate consent.
First, the bill would require that the administration send the text of a final deal, including classified material, to Congress as soon as it is completed. But it also reduces a 60-day congressional review to a 30-day congressional review regarding the lifting of sanctions, giving the president the ability to ease sanctions after 52 days without congressional approval as he promised the mullahs.
“We’ve gone from a piece of legislation that the president would veto to a piece of legislation that’s undergone substantial revision such that it’s now in the form of a compromise that the president would be willing to sign,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. “That would certainly be an improvement.”
Iran’s foreign minister and the Ayatollah, himself, accused the administration of lying to the American people in the “fact sheet” regarding the lifting of sanctions, an issue PPD examined and confirmed several weeks ago. Now, it would appear, that the Corker Iran bill would likely allow Obama to keep that promise.
How? Let’s examine.
A 60-day review period in the original Corker Iran bill was effectively cut in half to 30 days, which begins immediately after the White House submission to Congress. A rider has been attacked to that review period that would allow 12 days for the president to decide whether to veto a “resolution of disapproval” if Congress rejected the deal.
The review period would also limit Congress to just 10 days to override such a veto, meaning the president could lift sanctions after 52 days, regardless. If a final deal is not submitted to Congress by July 9, the 60-day review period will be reinstated. While that would prevent the administration from intentionally delaying the submission of the accord to Congress, critics rightfully point out that he really doesn’t need to resort to delay tactics.
Yet, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had a different take on the changes to his bill.
“I’ve had no conversations with the White House about the substance of the bill. I’ve had only push back. Even in the Kerry presentation he was pushing back against this legislation,” Corker said during a hallway interview on Capitol Hill Tuesday. “And my sense is they know this thing has run away and very likely is going to go well beyond the veto threat.”
When asked about the concessions, Corker said the White House was playing the media, not him, for a fool.
“This has always been what it is. This is the same legislation they’ve always opposed,” Corker told media reporters in the hallway. “They are spinning you mightily. It has always been a vote on the sanctions. They are spinning you guys.”
But clearly members of his own party aren’t sold on the watered-down version of the bill, which is underscored by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who says the Iran deal is a treaty and should be treated as such.
“If he is confident that this deal lives up to its billing, he should submit the final deal to the Senate for ratification,” Sen. Johnson said in a statement. “I will be either be introducing or supporting legislation that will require Senate ratification.”
The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation this month, and House Republican leaders have promised to pass it shortly after.
“Congress absolutely should have the opportunity to review this deal,” the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, said Tuesday. “We shouldn’t just count on the administration, who appears to want a deal at any cost.”
Meanwhile, Republicans are obviously not the only lawmakers vocalizing concerns over the deal regardless of the congressional review.
“If the administration can’t persuade 34 senators of whatever party that this agreement is worth proceeding with, then it’s really a bad agreement,” Sen. Chris Coons, D- Delaware, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee said. “That’s the threshold.”
Apr. 11, 2015: US President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro shake hands during their meeting at the Summit of the Americas in Panama City, Panama. (Photo: AP)
President Obama will rescind the State Sponsor of Terrorism designation placed on Cuba without obtaining any concessions from the brutal communist regime. After review, the president submitted to Congress the requisite report and certifications, a move the White House attempted to defend Tuesday by claiming it has been 6 months since Cuba supported terrorism.
Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States “has and continues to have significant concerns and disagreements with a wide range of Cuba’s policies and actions.”
However, critics point to the questionable review process by the State Department used as a premise for Obama’s decision. The review only considered whether Cuba supported international terrorism over the past 6 months and whether the country provided assurances they would not support acts of international terrorism in the future.
“The decision made by the White House today is a terrible one, but not surprising,” said Rubio, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and 2016 presidential candidate. “Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism. They harbor fugitives of American justice.”
The Republican-controlled Congress now has 45 days to vote to support or block the decision to further normalize relations with Cuba. It will face some degree of bipartisan opposition, including from the outspoken critic Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., a Cuban-American recently and suspiciously charged with corruption by the Justice Department.
Menendez and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie have been arguing the president should demand Cuba return convicted cop-killer Joanne Chesimard before normalizing diplomatic relations with that country.
Chesimard was found guilty of killing New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster in 1973 before she escaped from prison and fled to Cuba, where notorious socialist dictator President Fidel Castro gave her asylum. Fidel’s brother Raul, an equally oppressive tyrant, now leads the still-communist country.
The 67-year-old Chesimard, who now goes by the name of Assata Shakur in Cuba, has been given safe haven by the Cuban government ever since.
“Cuba’s provision of safe harbor to Chesimard by providing political asylum to a convicted cop killer … is an affront to every resident of our state, our country, and in particular, the men and women of the New Jersey State Police,” Christie wrote in a letter. “I urge you to demand the immediate return of Chesimard before any further consideration of restoration of diplomatic relations with the Cuban government.”
Menendez brought the case up again last weekend on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace as the president met with Cuban dictator President Raul Castro at the Summit of the Americas.
For Castro, removal from the terror list is a top priority, as it would greatly increase his ability to conduct financial transactions. Castro said Cuba should never have been on the list in the first place.
“Yes, we have conducted solidarity with other peoples that could be considered terrorism — when we were cornered, when we were strongly harassed,” he said. “We had no other choice but to give up or to fight back.”
Meanwhile, Rubio chose to announcement his presidential bid Tuesday at the Miami Freedom Tower, a move that sent a clear message.
“This sends a chilling message to our enemies aboard that this White House is no longer serious about calling terrorism by its proper name,” Sen. Rubio said.
Cuba, which was first put on the list in 1982 for promoting armed revolution by global organizations that used terrorism, was one of four countries on the U.S. list accused of repeatedly supporting global terrorism. The remaining countries are Iran, Syria and Sudan.
A top Senate Democrat immediately hailed the president’s decision.
“The removal of Cuba from the … list is a welcome move,” said Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the chamber’s No. 2 Democrat. “ While no fan of the Castro regime, I continue to believe that opening up the island to American ideas, vibrancy, and trade is the most effective way to see a more open and tolerant Cuba.”
Protesters rally for religious freedom in front of Philadelphia’s Independence Hall on Friday. Rallies took place nationwide to protest the mandate that some religious organizations cover the cost of contraception on March 23, 2015. (Photo: Alex Brandon/AP)
Religious oppression was one reason many of our ancestors came to America. They wanted to escape rulers who demanded that everyone worship their way. In Ireland, Catholics couldn’t vote or own a gun.
I assumed that because many of America’s founders came here to escape such repression, they were eager to allow religious freedom in America. After all, the very First Amendment in the Bill of Rights says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
But I was wrong. On my TV show this week, Chapman University economist Larry Iannaccone explains that many American settlers were just as tyrannical about insisting that everyone follow their religion: “In the Northeast, it was Puritanism or Calvinism. In New York and Virginia, Anglicanism, the Church of England. Elsewhere, it was Catholicism.”
Only when colonists tried to form a nation, and met with others who practiced different religions (or none, like Thomas Jefferson), did they put freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights.
So what does that mean today? President Obama tells religious people that he supports “the right to practice our faith how we choose.”
But ObamaCare functionaries ordered Christian groups to fund employees’ purchase of birth control and the morning-after abortion pill. Some religious people believe both pills are a form of murder. Would their president force them to pay for what they consider murder? You betcha.
The Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, sued, and the Supremes ruled that some faith-based corporations can get an exemption from Obamacare. But it was a pathetically narrow victory, applying only to small, privately-held companies, and they still must hire lawyers to beg for an exemption. Non-profits and bigger groups such as Notre Dame still must fund what they consider to be murder.
Leftists still assailed the court for granting even this tiny exemption. Sen. Elizabeth Warren said she “can’t believe we live in a world where we’d even consider letting big corps deny women access to basic care.”
Harry Reid said, “If the Supreme Court will not protect women’s access to health care, then Democrats will.”
What utter nonsense! No one was “denied access” to anything. Anyone with a prescription can buy birth control pills at Wal-Mart for $9. Are leftists so in love with big government that they think government not funding something is akin to banning it? Apparently they do.
Hobby Lobby’s owners were represented in court by a group called the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Becket’s director, Kristina Arriaga, says Hobby Lobby isn’t stingy or cruel: “The Green family pays twice the minimum wage, closes on Sundays, gives very generous benefits to their employees, and they did not object to 16 out of the 20 drugs (for which coverage was mandated).”
I say it shouldn’t matter whether the Green family is good to its employees. No one is forced to work for them or any company. If business owners don’t want to fund birth control, alcohol rehab, haircuts or anything, that should be their right.
They created the company (or paid to buy it), and as long as they don’t collude with competitors, they should be allowed to impose whatever rules they want. Employees aren’t trapped. Anyone can quit. Companies that give more generous benefits will attract better employees. That competition protects workers better than government mandates ever will.
Letting government make so many one-size-fits-all decisions creates new problems. Iannaccone argues that religion is more vibrant in the U.S. because the American government has mostly left religion alone. In Europe, governments subsidized religion or set the rules. The state promised protection for all but ended up becoming an enforcer of orthodoxy. That made religion more homogeneous and less appealing. Forty percent of Americans say they go to church every week. In England and France, only 10 percent do. In Denmark, only 3 percent attend.
“Religion is a market phenomenon like other ones,” Iannaccone says, “and when you make the government the arbiter, the funder, (religion) operates like a typical lazy monopoly. Incentives are lost. The clergy get focused on pleasing politicians rather than the people.”
Government ought to leave us alone so we can do as we please, in collaboration with whatever God we believe in.
Dr. Ben Carson speaks during the Freedom Summit, Saturday, Jan. 24, 2015, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
Dr. Ben Carson will make a presidential announcement on May 4 in Detroit, Michigan according campaign officials who allegedly spoke to CNN Monday. The announcement is set to take place at the Detroit Music Hall Center for the Performing Arts, but the campaign says they are hardly finished hammering out some pretty important details.
Aside from the decision that the event will be ticketed, the rest of the details, including how many tickets will be distributed to supporters or the substance of the actual announcement itself, spokeswoman Deana Bass says are all still up in the air.
“He will make an announcement,” she said. “But he’s still very much in the exploratory phase, so he hasn’t made a decision yet.”
Carson, a political newcomer who rose to prominence after giving a speech criticizing the ObamaCare in front of the president at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013, would be the first African-American candidate to jump into the growing Republican field.
The 2016 presidential race on the Republican side kicked off with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in late March, followed by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul a few weeks later. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio announced his presidential candidacy at the Miami Freedom Tower Monday.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton became the first Democrat to announce her presidential campaign on Sunday via social media, and is now in Iowa attempting to convince voters she “wants to be that champion” this time around. The earlier-than-anticipated announcement comes after several polls show the email controversy hurt the former secretary of state, and now voters in key battleground states no longer view her as honest and trustworthy.
The retired neurosurgeon has been traveling the nation over the past six months, giving paid speeches and meeting with supporters to gauge interest in a bid. He recently traveled to Iowa and New Hampshire, and spoke last weekend at the National Rifle Association’s meeting in Tennessee, where he attempted to clear up past comments suggesting the Second Amendment does not apply to Americans who live in cities.
Carson’s nonexistent political inexperience has led to several gaffes already, however, he’ll look to turn it into an asset. He has repeatedly argued political newcomers such as himself are a common-sense solution to the problems created by life-long Washington politicians.
According to the PPD average of polls, Carson polls at a surprisingly strong 8.2 percent in nationwide Republican primary surveys. That’s just behind Paul (8.6 percent), Cruz (8.6 percent) and Rubio (6.2 percent). But PPD’s senior political analyst says the polls mean nothing at this point in the cycle.
“It’s way too early to draw any conclusions about firm support,” PPD’s Richard D. Baris says. “These numbers will go up and down. Some are even likely to stay sideways and go nowhere. Name recognition and news cycle headlines won’t win the nomination in the end.”
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) headquarters in Washington, D.C. (Photo: AP)
With so many Americans currently filled with anxiety about their annual tax forms, this is the time of year that many people wistfully dream about how nice it would be to have a simple and fair flat tax.
Unfortunately, there are many obstacles to better tax policy. I’ve previously addressed some of these obstacles.
1. Politicians who prefer the status quo make appeals to envy by making class-warfare arguments about imposing higher tax rates on those who contribute more to economic output.
2. Politicians have created a revenue-estimating system based on the preposterous notion that even big changes in tax policy have no impact on economic performance, thus creating a procedural barrier to reform.
Today, we’re going to look at another obstacle to pro-growth reform.
One of the main goals of tax reform is to get a low flat rate. This is important because marginal tax rates affect people’s incentives to engage in additional productive behavior.
But it’s equally important to have a system that taxes economic activity only one time. This is a big issue because the current internal revenue code imposes a heavy bias against income that is saved and invested. It’s possible, when you consider the impact of the capital gains tax,corporate income tax, double tax on dividends, and the death tax, for a single dollar of income to be taxed as many as four times.
And what makes this system so crazy is that all economic theories – even Marxism and socialism – agree that capital formation is critical for long-run growth and rising living standards.
Yet here’s the problem. The crowd in Washington has set up a system for determining tax loopholes and that system assumes that there should be this kind of double taxation!
This is why I organized a briefing for Capitol Hill staffers last week. You can watch the entire hour by clicking here, but if you don’t have a lot of time, here’s my 10-minute speech on the importance of choosing the right tax base (i.e., taxing income only one time).
Since I’m an economist, I want to highlight one particular aspect on my presentation. You’ll notice near the end that I tried to explain the destructive economic impact of double taxation with an analogy.
I shared a Powerpoint slide that compared the tax system to an apple tree. If you want to tax income, the sensible approach is to pick the apples off the tree.
But if you want to mimic the current tax system, with the pervasive double taxation and bias against capital, you harvest the apples by chopping down the tree.
Needless to say (but I’ll say it anyway), it’s utterly foolish to harvest apples by chopping down the tree since it means fewer apples in following years.
In this analogy, the apples are the income and the tree is the capital.
But as I thought about the issue further, I realized my analogy was imperfect because our current system doesn’t confiscate all existing capital.
Which is why it is very fortunate that one of the interns at Cato, Jonathan Babington-Heina, is a very good artist. And he was able to take my idea and come up with a set of cartoons that accurately – and effectively – show why discriminatory taxation of capital is so misguided.
By the way, this isn’t the first time that an intern has come to my rescue with artistic skill.
My highest-viewed post of all time is this famous set of cartoons that shows the dangerous evolution of the welfare state.
JP Morgan Chase & Co. headquarters in New York City. (Photo: REUTERS)
JPMorgan Chase & Co (NYSE:JPM), the largest U.S. bank by assets, posted a better-than-expected quarterly profit on Tuesday fueled in part by gains in fixed-income revenue trading. The bank’s net income rose to $5.91 billion, or $1.45 per share, in the first quarter ended March 31, from $5.27 billion, or $1.28 per share, a year earlier.
Analysts had forecast earnings of $1.40 per share, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.
Revenue from trading fixed income, currencies and commodities (FICC) rose 5 percent to $4.07 billion, adjusted for the sale of businesses last year, including a physical commodities operation.
“Asset Management had $16 billion of net long-term inflows, generated strong investment performance and continued to grow loan and deposit balances,” Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan Chairman and CEO said.
The bank’s shares rose about 1 percent to $62.70 in premarket trading on the news, which shows across-the-board strength. Consumer and Business Banking also rose by 9 percent.
“Consumer & Community Banking saw healthy growth in deposits, investment assets and loans and continued to deepen relationships – winning four TNS Choice Awards in 2015, including #1 in consumer retail banking nationally for the third consecutive year,” Dimon added. “In Mortgage, we had higher originations and continued to add high-quality loans to our balance sheet while managing expenses.”
JPMorgan’s investment bank, which includes FICC trading, is the biggest in the world by revenue according to research firm Coalition. But the unit has been under pressure to cut costs because customers have reduced their trading since the financial crisis and regulators have demanded that big banks take fewer risks, hold more capital and improve controls.
The Corporate & Investment Bank maintained its #1 ranking in Global IB fees with strong fees across products, and 100 bps of market share gains over the last year,” Dimon said. “The Markets business saw an increase in activity in both Fixed Income and Equity Markets.”
JPMorgan is the first of the large U.S. banks to report quarterly results. Overall, results are expected to show that trading profit, debt underwriting fees, and mortgage refinancing volumes were strong, even as low interest rates cut into the profitability of loans.
The results for the latest quarter included an after-tax charge of $487 million for legal expenses.
Non-interest expenses in the bank’s investment banking division rose to $5.66 billion from $5.60 billion.
JPMorgan has been gearing up to cut annual expenses in its investment bank by $2.8 billion by 2017, excluding legal costs, though some of the savings are expected to be offset by more spending on measures to improve risk controls.
Company-wide expenses, adjusted for legal costs, fell by $402 million to $14.2 billion, while provision for credit losses increased 12.8 percent to $959 million.
The bank’s net interest margin fell to 2.07 percent from 2.20 percent as banks continue to increase profits in a low rate environment.
JPMorgan’s return on tangible common equity was 14 percent in the quarter, just 1 percent shy of it’s longer-term target and a gain from 13 percent a year earlier.
“JPMorgan Chase continues to support consumers, businesses and communities and make a significant positive impact,” Dimon concluded. “We have an outstanding franchise which is getting safer and stronger, and is gaining market share over time. We continue to build the company for the long-term, we are investing in controls, infrastructure, systems, technology, new products and bankers. We will continue to navigate challenges and deliver for our clients, shareholders and communities.”
A security camera of an Ohio Chipotle spotted Hillary Clinton ordering her food.
Democratic president candidate Hillary Clinton, sporting dark glasses, headed into a Chipotle restaurant in the battleground state of Ohio Monday — but nobody noticed. The irony of the visit is that — for better or worse — the former secretary of state and first lady has the highest name recognition out of any of the 2016 presidential candidates and even stayed for 45 minutes.
“This truly underscores the difference between Hillary and her husband,” says PPD’s senior political analyst Richard D. Baris. “Bill would’ve been serving people food before the end of the visit, which would have lasted for two hours. Instead, secret agent Hillary is reaching out to everyday voters in a battleground state while reading her iPad.”
Clinton, seen in the surveillance video footage with aide Huma Abedin, the wife of disgraced congressman Anthony Weiner, ordered the chicken burrito bowl with guacamole at the Mexican-food eatery just outside Toledo. Charles Wright, the Chipotle store manager, said no one recognized Clinton in her dark shades, and he only released the security video of Hillary’s nosh stop after he was contacted by journalists at The New York Times.
“She got great food,” the manager said. “Everybody loves Chipotle.”
Clinton, in an attempt to not recreate the mistakes of 2008, has been trying to appeal to working-class voters as she campaigns for the 2016 Democratic nomination. People did notice her on Sunday when she stopped at a Pennsylvania gas station, where she tweeted an image posing with a a family from Democrat-friendly Michigan.
Road trip! Loaded the van & set off for IA. Met a great family when we stopped this afternoon. Many more to come. -H pic.twitter.com/5Va7zeR8RP
“Road trip!” Hillary tweeted, “Loaded the van & set off for IA.”
Meanwhile, according to the Democratic Party Chair Dr. Andy McGuire, Hillary has a lot more work cut out for her when she gets there than conventional wisdom seems to hold.
The latest polling shows voters in the state no longer believe Mrs. Clinton is honest and trustworthy.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva, a Democrat from Arizona and member of the Committee on Natural Resources in the House of Representatives.
How long will this country remain free? Probably only as long as the American people value their freedom enough to defend it. But how many people today can stop looking at their electronic devices long enough to even think about such things?
Meanwhile, attempts to shut down people whose free speech interferes with other people’s political agendas go on, with remarkably little notice, much less outrage. The Internal Revenue Service’s targeting the tax-exempt status of conservative groups is just one of these attempts to fight political battles by shutting up the opposition, rather than answering them.
Another insidious attempt to silence voices that dissent from current politically correct crusades is targeting scientists who do not agree with the “global warming” scenario.
Congressman Raul Grijalva has been writing universities, demanding financial records showing who is financing the research of dissenting scientists, and demanding their internal communications as well. Mr. Grijalva says that financial disclosure needs to be part of the public’s “right to know” who is financing those who express different views.
He is not the only politician pushing the idea that scientists who do not march in lockstep with what is called the “consensus” on man-made global warming could be just hired guns for businesses resisting government regulations. Senator Edward Markey has been sending letters to fossil-fuel companies, asking them to hand over details of their financial ties to critics of the “consensus.”
The head of the National Academy of Sciences has chimed in, saying: “Scientists must disclose their sources of financial support to continue to enjoy societal trust and the respect of fellow scientists.”
This is too clever by half. It sounds as if this government bureaucrat is trying to help the dissenting scientists enjoy trust and respect — as if these scientists cannot decide for themselves whether they consider such a practice necessary or desirable.
The idea that you can tell whether a scientist — or anybody else — is “objective” by who is financing that scientist’s research is nonsense. There is money available on many sides of many issues, so no matter what the researcher concludes, there will usually be somebody to financially support those conclusions.
Some of us are old enough to remember when this kind of game was played by Southern segregationist politicians trying to hamstring civil rights organizations like the NAACP by pressuring them to reveal who was contributing money to them. Such revelations would of course then subject NAACP supporters to all sorts of retaliations, and dry up contributions.
The public’s “right to know” has often been invoked in attempts to intimidate potential supporters of ideas that the inquisitors want to silence. But have you heard of any groundswell of public demand to know who is financing what research?
Science is not about “consensus” but facts. Not only were some physicists not initially convinced by Einstein’s theory of relativity, Einstein himself said that it should not be accepted until empirical evidence could test it.
That test came during an eclipse, when light behaved as Einstein said it would, rather than the way it should have behaved if the existing “consensus” was correct.
That is how scientific questions should be settled, not by political intimidation. There is already plenty of political weight on the scales, on the side of those pushing the “global warming” scenario.
The fact that “global warming” models are not doing a very good job of predicting actual temperatures has led to a shift in rhetoric, with “climate change” now being substituted. This is an issue that needs to be contested by scientists using science, not political muscle.
Too many universities are too willing to be stampeded by pressure groups. Have we forgotten Duke University’s caving in to a lynch mob mentality during the “gang rape” hoax in 2006? Or the University of Virginia doing the same thing more recently?
Politicians determined to get their own way by whatever means necessary may have no grand design to destroy freedom, but what they are doing can amount to totalitarianism on the installment plan.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.
At the Miami Freedom Tower on April 13, 2015, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio announces he is running for president and will not seek another Senate term.
Read Rubio’s Closing Arguments Below:
I recognize the challenges of this campaign, and the demands of the office I seek. But in this endeavor as in all things, I find comfort in the ancient command to, “Be strong and courageous! Do not tremble or be dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go.”
I have heard some suggest that I should step aside and wait my turn. But I cannot. Because I believe our very identity as an exceptional nation is at stake, and I can make a difference as President.
I am humbled by the realization that America doesn’t owe me anything; but I have a debt to America I must try to repay. This isn’t just the country where I was born; America is the place that changed my family’s history.
I regret my father did not live to see this day in person. He used to tell me all the time: En este pais, ustedes van a poder lograr todas las cosas que nosotros no pudimos.
“In this country, you will achieve all the things we never could.”
On days when I am tired or discouraged, I remember the sound of his keys jingling at the front door of our home, often well past midnight, as he returned from another long day at work. When I was younger, I didn’t fully appreciate all he did for us, but now as my own children grow older, I fully understand.
My father was grateful for the work he had, but that was not the life he wanted for his children. He wanted all the dreams he once had for himself to come true for us. He wanted all the doors that closed for him to be open for me.
My father stood behind a small portable bar in the back of a room for all those years, so that tonight I could stand behind this podium in the front of this room.
That journey, from behind that bar to behind this podium, is the essence of the American Dream.
Whether or not we remain a special country will depend on whether that journey is still possible for those trying to make it now:
The single mother who works long hours for little pay so her children don’t have to struggle the way she has…
The student who takes two buses before dawn to attend a better school halfway across town…
The workers in our hotel kitchens, the landscaping crews in our neighborhoods, the late-night janitorial staff that clean our offices … and the bartenders who tonight are standing in the back of a room somewhere…
If their American Dreams become impossible, we will have become just another country. But if they succeed, the 21st Century will be another American Century. This will be the message of my campaign and the purpose of my presidency.
To succeed on this journey, I will need your prayers, your support, and ultimately, your vote. Tonight I am asking you to take that first step with me, by joining us at marcorubio.com.
My wife Jeanette and my four children are here tonight. The next 19 months will take me far from home. I will miss watching Amanda run track, Daniella play volleyball, Anthony play football and Dominick play soccer.
But I have chosen this course because this election is about them. Theirs is the most important generation in American history. If we can capture the promise of this new century they will be the freest and most prosperous Americans ever. But if we fail, they will be the first generation of Americans to inherit a country worse off than the one left for their parents.
The final verdict on our generation will be written by Americans not yet born. Let us make sure they record that we made the right choice. That in the early years of this century, faced with a rapidly changing and uncertain world, our generation rose to face the great challenges of our time.
And because we did, there was still one place in the world where who you come from does not determine how far you can go.
Because we did, the American miracle lived on.
And because we did, our children and theirs lived in a new American Century.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.
