When President Donald Trump decided to begin bombing Iran last June, he did not state a coherent or lawful reason for doing so. His director of national intelligence and his own CIA had publicly told him that Iran did not possess a nuclear weapon and had ceased building one in 2005.

His secretary of state told him that Iran and Israel had threatened each other, but he could not articulate how Iran imminently threatened the United States. Yet, since Israel planned to attack Iran, he wanted the U.S. to help Israel do so. This was not a lawful request as the U.S. has no treaty with Israel and, under treaties to which the U.S. is a party, the legal bases for all offensive wars can only be treaty compliance or prevention of an imminent attack.

When Trump addressed the nation, his helter-skelter rationale argued for replacing Iran’s government, destroying its civilian-use enriched uranium, destroying its ability to build a bomb it wasn’t building, and neutralizing its offensive and defensive weaponry. None of these goals was lawful; nor was attacking a Tehran girls school. There was no mention of an imminent attack on the U.S. or the economic effect of war on the vital international oil super-highway, the Strait of Hormuz.

No one in Trump’s inner circle registered disagreement, except his vice president and his director of counterterrorism. They told him there was no legal or constitutional basis for his war.

They were correct, but Trump had history on his side.

For much of American history, presidents have steadily accumulated the power to wage war while Congress has gradually surrendered the constitutional authority that the Framers explicitly entrusted to it. This transformation has weakened constitutional checks and balances, expanded executive power beyond its constitutional limits, claimed millions of lives, cost trillions of dollars, and repeatedly drawn the United States into conflicts that had little or nothing to do with defending America.

The Constitution is remarkably clear on the question of war. Article I grants Congress — not the president — the power to declare war. The president, under Article II, wages war, but only after Congress has authorized it.

James Madison argued that the executive branch is the branch “most interested in war, and most prone to it,” which is precisely why the Constitution deliberately divided the war power.

The Framers believed that no single individual should possess the authority to plunge the nation into armed conflict, yet over the past eight decades, presidents of both political parties have steadily ignored these constitutional limits.

President Harry Truman committed hundreds of thousands of American troops to combat in Korea without obtaining a declaration of war from Congress because he said U.S. troops there constituted a “police action.”

The pattern only intensified during the Vietnam War. Although Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, it was based on a fraud and effectively delegated its congressional constitutional responsibility to the president. The result was years of escalating conflict that ultimately claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese while achieving none of its stated objectives.

The attacks of September 11, 2001, fundamentally accelerated this trend. Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force and the Patriot Act — the former granting the president broad authority to pursue those responsible for the attacks, and the latter substantially impairing rights protected by the Fourth Amendment.

What was presented as a targeted war authorization evolved into legal justifications for military operations across multiple countries against groups that did not even exist in 2001.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq illustrate the costs of this expansive approach. The war in Afghanistan lasted two decades before ending with the return of the Taliban to power. Iraq was invaded based on fabricated or erroneous intelligence assessments regarding weapons of mass destruction.

The proper role of government — according to Thomas Jefferson, its only role — is to protect life, liberty and property, not to remake foreign societies through military force. Wars of choice generate unintended consequences, empower new enemies, create refugee crises and expand government power at home.

The economic and human consequences are equally profound. Massive defense expenditures have pushed the debt of the federal government to nearly $40 trillion. A government willing to kill millions and spend trillions on foreign wars while borrowing money to pay the interest on borrowed money will one day collapse of its own weight; as have all empires.

A genuinely constitutional foreign policy would look very different. Military force should be reserved for defending the United States against actual or truly imminent attacks, not speculative threats or ambitious nation-building projects, or favors for other countries. Congress should debate and vote openly before committing American forces to any combat.

Strong national defense does not require perpetual war. A capable military can deter aggression. Diplomacy, commerce and peaceful engagement generally serve American interests more effectively than military intervention.

George Washington’s warning against entangling foreign commitments and John Quincy Adams’s declaration that America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy” remain relevant guides for a republic committed to liberty, rather than an empire committed to conquest. Of course, monsters abroad can follow you home.

The constitutional allocation of war powers exists not as a procedural rule but as a substantive safeguard for freedom itself. Every unnecessary war expands executive authority, enlarges government, consumes wealth, risks American lives without clear necessity and diminishes personal liberty.

The best protection against endless conflict is a less powerful presidency and a renewed commitment to the Constitution’s deliberate separation of powers and the principle that the United States should fight only when its own security imminently and genuinely requires it.

Is it any wonder that the U.S. is unwilling or unable to justify its recent killings of 163 Tehran school girls and their teachers?

Written by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Official website; https://twitter.com/Judgenap

Their alarm is warranted. The socialist program would be a catastrophe. So, here’s an awkward question: Why is a Republican administration quietly doing the public ownership of businesses part on its own?

Last week, the Commerce Department announced that letters of intent have been signed to provide federal incentives to seven more companies under the CHIPS program. Each letter of intent is conditioned on the government taking an equity stake. By a Cato Institute count, that brings the federal corporate portfolio to roughly 30 firms.

A year ago, these deals looked like improvisation — one-offs stitched together under pressure with President Donald Trump’s fluid negotiating style. Now, the department announces them in batches. Federal ownership of private companies has become routine, and it is happening on the right even as members busily point fingers at the left for its socialism.

To be sure, this is not the abolition of private property that some in the DSA would love to see. But strip away the label and look at the mechanism. Socialism’s defining move is to put ownership and decision-making in the same collective hands. A government equity stake does exactly that. Washington already regulates these firms, buys from them and subsidizes them. Now, it owns pieces of them. Every lever it controls — tariffs, permits, contracts, the next tranche of subsidies — moves the value of its own holdings.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, sees the implication of the government stake ownership more clearly than most Republicans do. “When government owns part or all of private companies,” he writes, “government is no longer just setting the rules — it becomes a player in the game and sets the rules to its own advantage and against the people.” Polis adds: “Socialism concentrates political and economic power in the same hands.” He is right, and it ought to sting.

Polis later asked during a Fox News segment where the Republicans denouncing this policy are. There are some, like Sens. Josh Hawley and Rand Paul, but it’s a fair question. The answer is probably that politicians condemn a thing only until their own side does it too. Still, the silence from most of the GOP on so fundamental an issue is truly baffling.

As Cato’s Tad DeHaven notes, “The seven nonbinding letters of intent would provide up to $874 million in CHIPS and Science Act research and development incentives.” Remember when most Republicans were against the CHIPS Act passed under former President Joe Biden? I do. And remember when they claimed to care about fiscal responsibility?

How about opposing ownership stakes simply because the right may not always be in charge? An executive branch that can hand out ownership at its discretion has acquired a permanent power, and such powers outlive the people who establish them. Picture a future Democratic president inheriting 30 companies’ worth of shareholder rights and the leverage that comes with these: board seats, emissions mandates, conditions bolted onto the next round of funding.

This is no paranoid fantasy. The Senate’s defense bill would give the Pentagon its own equity portfolio, which means Congress may write the administration’s practice into statute rather than kill it. The right is loading a gun and trusting that only its friends will hold it. LOL, as the young people say.

The economics of government ownership of company shares are worse than the politics. A government does not allocate capital to its highest-valued use; it allocates capital to its most politically valued use. A project that moves forward in a fair market does not need taxpayer money. A project that moves forward due only to government intervention is a loser that the taxpayer is buying.

Either way, the equity stake fixes nothing. It stacks a conflict of interest on top of a market-distorting subsidy. And once the Treasury owns a slice, a failing firm will always be ripe for a General Motors-style bailout.

Finally, you can spare me the national-security argument about needing the domestic chip capacity, steel and rare-earth materials that these companies provide. Government ownership is not the instrument. Procurement contracts and long-term purchase agreements can secure supplies without making the Commerce secretary a shareholder.

The DSA at least tells Americans clearly what it wants. The danger on the right is quieter: a government acquiring the means of production one letter of intent at a time, and a political party acting as though socialism is something only the other side can do.

Written by Veronique de Rugy

Official website; http://twitter.com/veroderugy

Why Businesses Are Turning to Online Cheque Ordering During Tax Season

Online cheque ordering has become increasingly popular among businesses, particularly during tax season. The primary reason is the flexibility it offers in managing payments and maintaining accurate records, which is critical when preparing tax documents. Businesses that adopt a Holistic Financial Planning approach find that Order Cheques Online streamlines processes by integrating with digital accounting systems. According to a recent Forbes article, this integration can significantly enhance financial efficiency by reducing manual errors and increasing transaction speed.

Moreover, businesses utilizing sophisticated financial planning tools like the Asset Allocation Model can benefit from the seamless tracking and reporting features of digital cheque systems. This ensures that all financial activities, including cheque issuance, are aligned with strategic financial goals.

Convenience and Efficiency in Financial Management

The convenience of ordering cheques online cannot be overstated. Businesses save valuable time that would otherwise be spent on traditional cheque procurement processes. Utilizing an online platform allows for instant cheque customization and order placement, which is particularly beneficial during the hectic tax season. This efficiency is further enhanced when businesses implement a Monte Carlo Simulation, a method that helps predict the financial impact of different scenarios, ensuring that cash flow remains stable even during peak financial periods.

Additionally, businesses that adhere to the Fiduciary Standard—obliging them to act in their clients’ best interests—find that online cheque ordering provides a reliable way to ensure timely payments. This is crucial for maintaining trust and transparency with stakeholders, especially when financial obligations peak.

Cost-Effectiveness of Online Cheque Solutions

Cost-effectiveness is another compelling reason businesses choose to Order Cheques Online. Traditional cheque ordering can be expensive due to the costs associated with printing, shipping, and handling. Online solutions, however, offer competitive pricing models that can significantly reduce these expenses. Businesses that employ Dynamic Spending Strategies, which adjust spending based on current financial conditions, find that online cheque ordering aligns with their cost-saving objectives.

Moreover, by choosing to Order Cheques Online, businesses can take advantage of bulk purchasing discounts and avoid the hidden fees often associated with offline suppliers. This strategic financial decision supports the efficient allocation of resources, allowing businesses to focus on more critical financial planning activities.

Enhancing Security and Reducing Fraud Risks with Digital Cheques

Security is a top priority for businesses, especially during tax season when the risk of fraud may increase. Digital cheque systems offer enhanced security features such as encryption and secure access controls, which help protect sensitive financial information. This is particularly important for businesses engaged in Tax-Loss Harvesting, a strategy used to offset capital gains by selling securities at a loss. Ensuring secure and accurate transaction records is vital for such tax strategies.

Furthermore, Behavioral Finance—a study that examines psychological influences on investors’ behaviors—suggests that secure financial systems can improve decision-making by reducing the anxiety associated with potential fraud. Recent analysis from Investopedia highlights how secure digital transactions foster greater confidence among business owners and financial planners.

Conclusion

Businesses increasingly Order Cheques Online during tax season to streamline operations, cut costs, and enhance security. This approach not only supports comprehensive financial strategies but also aligns with modern financial planning practices. For businesses aiming to optimize their financial management during this critical period, adopting online cheque solutions is a strategic choice that promises efficiency and peace of mind.

Staff Writer; Bruce Jones

Open primaries let registered voters cast a ballot without being members of the party. Closed primaries allow only party members to vote. About 15 states now run genuinely open primaries. There are mixed systems that still help small numbers of voters nominate extreme candidates. Texas is one.

Texas started with an open primary in which incumbent Republican John Cornyn finished slightly ahead of Trump’s choice, Ken Paxton. But because neither got more than 50% of the vote, the top two candidates, Cornyn and Paxton, competed in a runoff. But under Texas rules, anyone who had voted in the Democratic primary could not participate in that contest.

Paxton had been impeached by the Republican-controlled Texas House. His own top aides reported him to the FBI alleging bribery. And his wife filed for divorce citing adultery. Small wonder that recent polls show him trailing Democratic candidate James Talarico in a state said to be deep red.

Maine’s primary system is even less open, which explains how Graham Platner — he of the Nazi tattoo and creepy history with women — became the Democrat to oppose incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins. Platner was a creature propped up by the hyperactive Democratic Socialists of America.

After a plausible rape charge had him dethroned as the Democratic candidate, Platner was replaced with Troy Jackson. Jackson wasn’t chosen in a primary at all but by Democratic delegates at a special convention. Maine polls now have Jackson and Collins running neck-and-neck.

Most big American cities run open, “all-candidate” primaries rather than party primaries, which limit voting to party members. New York City is an exception. And that helps explain how the citizens ended up with the radical and increasingly unpopular Zohran Mamdani as mayor.

The formula for fringe groups, whether left or right, is to organize a march into thinly attended closed primaries and make their candidate nominee for a major party. That happened in New York on June 24, 2025, a day of record temperatures that made parts feel like 126 degrees. Older voters especially feared leaving their apartments.

The DSA took advantage of the situation and nominated Mamdani in a vote that was closed to the 21% of the voters registered as independents and the 11% who are Republican. Put another way, Mamdani wrangled the Democratic nomination in a primary in which only 8% of registered voters participated. Come Election Day, he got less than half the vote in an overwhelmingly Democratic city.

The city’s Charter Revision Commission adopted an interim report that suggested letting voters decide in November whether to move New York to open primaries. That’s how Boston and Seattle do it. They allow all eligible candidates that can be on the ballot and all registered voters to participate. The top two vote getters advance to the general election.

Mamdani opposes open primaries. “I am quite content with the system of primaries that we have thus far,” he said unsurprisingly.

Not content is John Opdycke, head of Open Primaries, a political-reform organization. “It’s ironic,” Opdycke said, “that Mayor Mamdani, who is raising important questions about the economic power of poor and working people, won’t advocate for their political power.” The group’s own polling shows even most city Democrats favoring open primaries.

There’s a reason fringe governance — from the right, the left or both — is driving so many of us crazy. Open primaries are a step toward saner majority rule.

Written by Froma Harrop

Official website; https://twitter.com/FromaHarrop

“On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.”

Given the nature of the questions being asked about what I believe were deeply personal matters, I believe he was absolutely right to take that position.

Throughout the hearing, Republican members of the Committee were, in my view, unnecessarily rude and disrespectful. Yet Dr. Fauci remained calm and composed. He never raised his voice, never returned insult for insult, and conducted himself with the professionalism that has characterized his decades of public service.

Senator Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist, seemed more interested in performing for the cameras than engaging in a serious discussion with one of the nation’s most accomplished scientists and immunologists. Dr. Fauci led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 until 2022 and later served as Chief Medical Advisor to President Joseph Biden. His career has spanned multiple administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, and has been recognized by presidents of both parties as well as countless medical and scientific organizations.

When COVID-19 threatened the nation, Dr. Fauci offered medical guidance grounded in science. Americans may remember that President Donald Trump repeatedly suggested the virus would simply disappear as the weather became warmer. Most of us also remember other suggestions that left many Americans shaking their heads. Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of people understood that following the advice of medical professionals was far safer than following political speculation.

What troubled me most about this hearing was not simply the tone—it was the purpose. Members of the Senate, few if any of whom possess Dr. Fauci’s medical expertise, devoted their time to questioning him about a personal diary. A diary is exactly that—personal. It is often where people record their private thoughts, reflections, fears, hopes, and frustrations.

I understand that personally.

Years ago, someone had the audacity to find and read my diary and then question me about what I had written. In that moment, something that had been intensely personal was no longer mine alone. The violation was so painful that I destroyed the diary altogether. My journals contained thoughts intended for no one but me, and I can only imagine that Dr. Fauci’s diary served the same purpose for him.

That is why I believe this hearing crossed an important line. At a time when our nation faces enormous challenges—from economic uncertainty to international conflicts to pressing domestic concerns—it is difficult to understand why the Senate chose to devote its attention to a scientist’s private writings. The American people deserve better use of their elected officials’ time.

Before closing, let me update you on another influential Republican ally: Elon Musk. After recently saying he believed he had become “too involved in politics,” he has reportedly announced plans to spend millions of dollars in several key states during the upcoming midterm elections to support Republican candidates while working to defeat Democrats. Americans should remember the enormous influence that concentrated wealth can have on our political system and remain vigilant about who is shaping public policy and whose interests are being served.

We are living through a time when civility, respect, and common decency too often seem to take a back seat to political theater. Public servants who have devoted their lives to serving this country should be treated with fairness, whether we agree with them or not. Political disagreements are inevitable in a democracy. Personal humiliation should never become a substitute for meaningful governance.

That is why I ask again: Morals? They have none.

Written By Dr. E. Faye Williams

Official website; http://www.efayewilliams.com/

The purpose here was the trap. Sen. Paul was open about it. He told reporters before the hearing that any statement made by Dr. Fauci at the hearing would not be protected by the presidential pardon — so if there were any inconsistency between what Dr. Fauci said now and then, no matter how small or insignificant, it could be the basis of a perjury charge. Paul has made no bones about his desire to see Dr. Fauci behind bars. Not that he can single-handedly succeed at doing so, but he got a gaggle of Republican senators who should have known better to follow his lead.

It is the purpose of the Fifth Amendment to prevent such persecutions. That’s what this was, pure and simple, and thankfully we have a Constitution to invoke to stop it.

Not that Fauci was able to escape entirely unscathed. His lawyer — who happens to have a stellar reputation in Washington — got thrown out of the hearing. Some attorney general from the South threatened to prosecute him. For what? Invoking the Fifth. Paul wants to hold him in contempt for that. Again, I ask, for what? Since when is rightly invoking the Fifth because you rightly fear investigation and persecution, if not lawful prosecution, an offense that can land you behind bars? Punishing constitutionally protected activity as a crime?

Of course, there will always be people who say that only the guilty invoke the Fifth, and that’s what they’re saying about Dr. Fauci. When you’re the target of a witch hunt, invoking the Fifth is an act of courage, calling your persecutors on their case.

Paul tried to smear Dr. Fauci by releasing excerpts from his diary in advance of the hearing. Some of his comments about the president were insulting. Big surprise. Not a crime. He was, it appears, impressed and taken by all the media attention he was receiving. A “narcissist,” one of the Republican senators called him. Since when is that a crime in Washington?

For me, Dr. Fauci will always be a dedicated public servant who spent his life saving lives. There is no full accounting I’ve seen of the millions of lives he saved in the AIDS and COVID epidemics. Did his agency fund research at the lab in Wuhan that Paul is so sure was the source of a “lab leak”? It did, but as countless experts have tried to explain to Paul, it was not the kind of research that could have led to the COVID leak. What do you do with a man who prefers spite over science?

You ignore him, which is what the Senate, and the public, should do with Rand Paul.

Written by Susan Estrich

Previously, we didn’t have to listen to the daily news questioning the sanity of our leaders who told us so many things that were not true. Yes, we wanted the old wars to end. We even protested then. I don’t remember our Presidents then calling us communists! The current one has no problem doing that when several of those who are his best buddies make no mistake are real communists! Vladimir Putin of Russia, Xi Jinping of China, Kim Jung Oun of North Korea and others. Never before did our leaders talk like a child who’d just learned a new word. The word popular now is HOT! He constantly talks about everything being HOT and how we are the HOTTEST country in the world. Recently he added the city where I live to be HOT!

The Chief jokes about affordability and mocks our concern as the price on everything goes up! He’s still more concerned about his rich friends and known fellow criminals than about the least of our people.

After basically thanking criminals for attacking the U.S. Capitol, while costing taxpayers to have to come up with millions for clean up, he just told the perpetrators he loved them and to go home. After some of them were convicted, and sent to prison, he pardoned them with no regard for the taxpayers and loss of lives and injuries caused by his friends. They came out of their brief incarceration, then we were asked to pay them, and he treated them like beloved citizens of our country! Despite killing and injuring some of our police officers in the District of Columbia, the man made sure they were not punished and even tried to extract more money from taxpayers to pay them!

What a nightmare the man has been for the world! Many ICE agents have illegally attacked, arrested and killed people while the victims were simply being Good Samaritans trying to help others. Some ICE members seem to  be trained to be killers! Good people have been hurt and others killed for no reason.

Some people have been illegally deported or dragged into prison having to take their minor children with them. After the bodies of some of our brave soldiers were returned to Dover, the war leaders showed no grief. Their family members were not involved in these wars—at least none of their children served our country in the military. The leader personally dodged the military by indicating he had a bone spur! This seems to be a joke for him. I wonder how long it will take for these men to end their dangerous war?

They can and they must stop the war, stop the killing and truthfully acknowledge all who’ve been killed. They’re too busy dropping women from the promotions list, firing men with years of experience—including the great Chaplin, Major General William Green, Jr. without cause, as had already been done with General Lloyd Austin.

Now, the man in direct charge of war is demanding a testosterone test to help him achieve a more macho service! One can only wonder what the women he has not yet named or has refused to promote will have to do to gain his favor!

Who will say ‘ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?

Written By Dr. E. Faye Williams

Official website; https://x.com/DrEFayeWilliams

Add Tangible Assets to the Portfolio

Physical precious metals differ from shares and bonds because they are not another party’s promise to pay. Gold, silver, platinum, palladium and rhodium have distinct supply dynamics, industrial uses and investment characteristics. Their tangible nature can make them useful within a broader strategy designed to preserve wealth across different economic conditions.

Specialist resources such as auctusmetals.com can help investors examine precious metals within the context of portfolio construction rather than treating them as short-term speculative trades. The purpose is not to replace conventional investments, but to understand where physical assets may reduce dependence on financial markets.

Diversify Across Different Economic Risks

A portfolio holding only shares and bonds may appear diversified while remaining heavily exposed to interest rates, corporate earnings and market sentiment. Precious metals can respond to different forces, including mining supply, geopolitical uncertainty, industrial demand and changes in currency values.

Gold is often associated with monetary uncertainty, while silver combines investment demand with extensive industrial use. Platinum, palladium and rhodium are influenced more strongly by manufacturing requirements and constrained production. These differences mean that metals should not be treated as a single, uniform asset class.

Protect Purchasing Power Over Time

Inflation gradually reduces the amount that money can buy. Although no asset provides guaranteed protection, scarce physical assets may help preserve purchasing power over long periods, particularly when confidence in a currency weakens.

Gold is commonly assessed as a store of value, meaning an asset expected to retain usefulness or purchasing power over time. Its effectiveness can vary considerably across shorter periods, however. Long-term planning should therefore consider the investor’s time horizon, entry price and overall allocation rather than assuming that metal prices will automatically rise alongside inflation.

Reduce Reliance on Counterparties

Paper investments usually involve counterparty risk: the possibility that an institution, issuer or contractual party cannot meet its obligations. This risk exists in different forms across bank deposits, corporate bonds, derivatives and some metal-backed financial products.

Direct ownership of allocated physical metal can reduce certain counterparty exposures, provided ownership is legally clear and storage arrangements are sound. Investors must still assess custody, insurance, verification and access. Removing one form of risk does not eliminate the need for careful administration.

Balance Stability With Liquidity Needs

Precious metals can strengthen diversification, but they do not generate dividends, rent or interest. Their returns depend primarily on price movements, and less actively traded metals may have wider differences between buying and selling prices.

A sensible allocation should reflect expected spending needs and access to emergency funds. Money required in the near term generally belongs in liquid assets rather than holdings that may need to be sold during an unfavourable market. Rebalancing can then be used periodically to restore the intended proportions as asset values change.

Plan Ownership Beyond the Investment Period

Long-term wealth planning also includes what happens when assets pass to another person. Physical holdings require accurate records covering ownership, purchase prices, storage locations, insurance and instructions for access. Without reliable documentation, valuable assets can become difficult for executors or beneficiaries to identify and manage.

Tax and estate rules vary between jurisdictions, so professional advice may be necessary before making substantial purchases or transferring ownership. Clear documentation ensures that diversification remains an advantage rather than creating an administrative burden.

Build Resilience, Not a Market Bet

Planning beyond paper assets is ultimately about resilience. Precious metals can broaden a portfolio’s sources of value, reduce reliance on counterparties and introduce assets influenced by different economic forces. Their role should nevertheless be proportionate, carefully documented and aligned with liquidity needs. Used alongside productive financial assets rather than as a wholesale substitute, tangible metals can support a more balanced long-term wealth strategy.

Staff Writer; Keith Poole

Throughout most of America’s history, the answer has been an emphatic yes. Scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, artists and strivers from around the world have chosen the United States because they believed they could build something, discover something or start a business while making a better life in this country.

We should worry about the day when this is no longer true.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration seems determined to make that day arrive sooner rather than later. Its destructive embrace of protectionism is not merely directed against foreign goods and capital. It’s not limited to low-skill immigrants, either. It’s also directed against in-demand foreign talent.

For instance, a rule finalized in early July replaces “duration of status” for foreign students, exchange visitors and foreign journalists with fixed admission periods. In other words, it forces international students to seek government approval to stay beyond four years, regardless of whether their studies can be completed that quickly. It also makes it more difficult for international graduates of American universities to stay and work after graduation through the Optional Practical Training program.

A recent brief by Amy Nice, Michael Clemens and Jeremy Neufeld of the Peterson Institute for International Economics highlights the stakes. The authors examine the pipeline through which international students — particularly those studying science, technology, engineering and mathematics — enter American universities and eventually the American workforce. It is an enormously valuable pipeline for all of us.

The authors found that America’s science and technology workforce depends heavily on talent from abroad. Immigrants fill almost one in three advanced STEM positions and nearly one in two requiring a doctorate. People who first entered the country to study represent about one-fifth of degree-holding STEM workers and more than one-third at the Ph.D. level.

Clemens explains that the STEM students who stay in the U.S. after graduation “patent new inventions at four times the rate of typical college graduates and are responsible for around 10 percent of all new inventions patented in the United States. They found high-growth startup companies at six times the rate of US-born graduates.”

That means we can dispense with the idea that if a foreign engineer gets a job, an American engineer must have lost one. Protectionism applied to human capital relies on the same economic fallacy that underlies other forms of protectionism: the belief that the economy is like one pie, and hence, allowing foreign interests to take a seat hurts those already at the table.

Economies don’t work that way. Talented people don’t merely fill existing jobs. They create them by inventing products, starting companies, conducting research and making the people around them more productive. In the process, they create opportunities for other people that otherwise wouldn’t exist.

Giving a cold shoulder to foreign students is particularly absurd when you consider Washington’s obsession with competing against China. Politicians insist that America is engaged in an existential technological race. They spend billions of dollars subsidizing semiconductors and other favored industries. They develop elaborate industrial policies intended to make America dominant in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and advanced manufacturing.

Then, when a potentially brilliant young scientist from India, China or anywhere else earns an advanced degree at an American university and wants to stay and contribute to the American economy, our government says perhaps they should leave.

You can throw billions of taxpayer dollars at a semiconductor factory in Arizona. You cannot manufacture genius through an appropriations bill.

The Peterson researchers estimate that discouraging just one-third of international STEM graduates could leave the American economy 0.7% to 1.3% smaller, or roughly $200 billion to $400 billion in GDP over a decade — equivalent to losing the entire economy of Utah or South Carolina.

Those estimates necessarily depend on assumptions about future immigration and productivity, but we don’t need to know the precise numbers to understand the effect. When productive people leave — or never arrive — we lose their ideas, businesses, discoveries and all the related economic activity.

There is also something deeper at stake. One of America’s greatest strengths is that people vote for this country with their feet. They leave familiar places, sometimes traveling thousands of miles, because of possibilities unavailable elsewhere. It’s an extraordinary vote of confidence in American institutions: our markets, rule of law and culture of entrepreneurship. We should never take it for granted.

Indeed, the possibility that the world’s brightest young people will decide that America is no longer worth the trouble should terrify us. Not simply because we will lose their economic contributions, but because their decision will tell us something about what America has become.

Written by Veronique de Rugy

Official website; http://twitter.com/veroderugy

What to do about a nominee as chief law enforcement officer in the land who has and will not disavow this conflict? Reject him.

Here is the backstory.

For America’s first 100 years, there was no Department of Justice. Federal laws were enforced by state authorities in federal courts. This was part of James Madison’s genius to divide governmental power between the states and the feds.

The modern presidency sits at the intersection of two powerful and often conflicting ideas. One is the unitary executive theory, which argues that because Article II of the Constitution vests “[t]he executive Power” in the president, every official exercising executive authority ultimately answers to him.

The other is the longstanding expectation that the DoJ, while undeniably part of the executive branch, should administer the law impartially and according to facts, evidence, caselaw, precedent and professional ethics rather than presidential preference.

Today, the tension between these principles has become especially visible in the nomination of Blanche.

Supporters of the unitary executive theory argue that the president cannot faithfully execute the laws if subordinate officers are free to disregard his lawful directives. In this view, all executive officials exercise authority only because the president has delegated it to them. If DoJ lawyers become independent centers of power, democratic accountability suffers because voters elect only one chief executive.

The DoJ, however, has always occupied a somewhat unusual position. Legally, there is no constitutional independence. The attorney general serves at the pleasure of the president. United States attorneys are presidential appointees. Federal prosecutors exercise executive authority. Nothing in the Constitution establishes the DoJ as a fourth branch of government insulated from presidential supervision.

Yet, over many decades, norms have developed to preserve public confidence in criminal prosecutions. Presidents of both parties have generally avoided directing individual prosecutorial decisions. Attorneys general have frequently emphasized that charging decisions should be based upon evidence, applicable law and the likelihood of obtaining a sustainable conviction — not political advantage.

Adding another layer to this tension are the professional obligations of DoJ lawyers themselves. Federal prosecutors are not simply political appointees. They are attorneys licensed by state authorities and bound by professional rules of ethics. Their paramount duties include candor toward tribunals, honesty in representations to courts, disclosure obligations, fidelity to their client and the prohibition against presenting evidence they know to be false.

Those ethical responsibilities do not disappear because a president expresses a preference. If a presidential directive would require an attorney to violate professional ethics or mislead a court, a prosecutor should resign rather than participate in conduct believed to be unethical.

That is precisely where the theoretical collision occurs. A strong version of the unitary executive theory suggests the president should ultimately control every exercise of executive discretion. We know from history and common sense, however, that certain prosecutorial judgments require legal expertise and professional competence inherently independent from political influence. Neither principle entirely eliminates the other. Instead, both coexist in uneasy tension.

Blanche finds himself squarely within that difficult intersection. Two notorious cases, one involving government murders of innocents and the other involving a swindle of taxpayer dollars, came across Blanche’s desk recently, and in both cases, he rejected the rule of law and bowed to presidential whim.

Blanche surely knows the basics of due process — notice, hearing, right to appeal — whenever the feds want life, liberty or property. Yet he permitted and accepted as appropriate the presidential order to enforce U.S. laws against drug trafficking by murdering 221 persons in 67 speedboats on the high seas. Needless to say, none of these folks received due process, and Blanche must answer for that.

The better known of Blanche’s ethical failures involves Trump suing the IRS for $10 billion because an IRS employee criminally revealed the contents of Trump’s tax returns. Two weeks ago, the U.S. District Court in Miami excoriated both Trump’s present personal lawyers and his former lawyers for engaging in a false cause of action — one where there was no adversity between the parties because both sides wanted the identical result.

In response to the lawsuit, Trump’s DoJ lawyers agreed to give his personal lawyers a fund of $1.776 billion from the federal Treasury to disburse to Trump’s supporters at Trump’s personal discretion; and Trump’s IRS lawyers agreed that neither Trump personally nor his family or closely held corporations could be audited by the IRS.

According to the DoJ, none of the $1.776 billion has been spent and the fund is now dormant. But Blanche refuses to renounce it or negate his own signature on a document he filed establishing the fund. The federal court ruled the lawyers on both sides of this matter did not act in good faith because all sought to please Trump at taxpayer expense.

Lawyers in litigation have a duty of zealous advocacy and unimpeachable loyalty to their clients. They cannot secretly or openly aid their client’s adversary. If they are morally or personally or legally conflicted, they must withdraw from the case.

Blanche remains bound by the same ethical obligations governing every federal prosecutor. He cannot simply substitute presidential preference for legal analysis.

If Blanche can’t do the right thing on cases where the law is obvious and unambiguous, how can he be trusted with complex decisions? Courts, disciplinary authorities and history judge attorneys according to established legal standards rather than partisan loyalty. In the case of Todd Blanche, the Senate should do the same — and reject his nomination.

Written by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Official website; https://twitter.com/Judgenap