Penny Press 3 SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 · 2015-09-23 · Law was $123,792.00, while the median loan debt...

Penny PressNevada, USA Volume 13 Number 3 SEPTEMBER 24, 2015

PennyPressLogotype Pointedlymad licensed from: Rich Gast

Credits:Publisher and Editor: Contributing Editors:Fred Weinberg Floyd Brown Al Thomas Doug French Robert Ringer John Getter Pat Choate Ron Knecht Byron Bergeron

The Penny Press is published weekly by Far West Radio LLC All Contents © Penny Press 2015

Letters to the Editor are encouraged. They should be emailed to: [email protected] No unsigned or unverifiable letters will be printed.

775-461-1515 eFax: 201-304-0355

www.pennypressnv.com

THE PENNY PRESS,SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 PAGE 2

By DOUG FRENCHContributing Editor

Those of us leaning in the Austrian direction see bubbles and malinvestments around every corner and assume, wrongly as it turns out,

the market will right these wrongs lickity split. But, for the moment a rational market is no match for cheap money. “Any college that is thinking about capital expansion, now is a very good time,” Robert Murray, an economist at Dodge Data told the Wall Street Journal. “Several years down the road, the climate might not be as good.”

Now being a good time because

stock market gains have pumped up endowments, “and low interest rates have created a favorable environment for colleges to build,” writes Constance Mitchell Ford. The campus building boom marches on.

In 2014 colleges and universities commenced construction on $11.4 billion worth of projects, a 13% increase from the previous year. It’s the largest dollar value of construction starts since the heady days of 2008.

Ms. Ford’s piece highlights a $2 billion project at Cornell and 16 new buildings at Columbia worth $6 billion. But here in Auburn, Alabama the campus has been a construction zone since 2008 when I arrived. Mutliple new dorms, a basketball arena, a fancy student center, and various new classroom

buildings have been constructed at a time when funding from the state has been cut back. What’s now underway is the largest scoreboard in college football, with a plan to expand the stadium next.

Back in the 1985-86 school year, full time tuition at Auburn for a non-resident was $2,585. Thirty years later it is now $28,040. That’s a compounded annual growth rate of 8.27%.

According to Bloomberg, college tuition and fees have increased 1,120 percent since records began in 1978, and the rate of increase in college costs has been “four times faster than the increase in the consumer price index.”

Tuiton at state schools is rising even faster says Peter Cappelli, professor of management at the Wharton School of the University

of Pennsylvania. He told Becky Quick on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” the cost of an education has risen 50 percent faster at state schools versus private in roughly the last decade.

Cappelli said a critical question is whether students will graduate in the first place, noting that only 40 percent of full-time students earn a degree within four years, and 30 million—and perhaps as many as 35 million—young adults do not finish their studies.

Unfinished college is as useful as an unfinished building.

College degrees are similar to what Austrians call higher-order goods. It’s believed a student will gain knowledge and seasoning in college, making him or her more productive and a candidate for a high-paying career. The investment

Penny PressNEVADA USA 16 PAGES VOLUME 13 NUMBER 3 SEPTEMBER 24, 2015

Penny WisdomIt wasn’t people from Sweden that blew up the World Trade Center... —Donald Trump

The Conservative Weekly Voice Of NevadaInside:No Muslim In White House? OK With Us

See Editorial Page 6

RON KNECHT PAGE 5FRED WEINBERG PAGE 6ROBERT RINGER PAGE 7SHARON ROSSIE PAGE 9LEE HAMILTON PAGE 10MATT BARBER PAGE 11CHUCK MUTH PAGE 14

Cheap Money=Expensive College

Commentary

Continued on page4


of time and money in knowledge are undertaken for the payoff off higher productivity and a high future income. Higher education is the higher-order means to a successful career.

The assumption is those high-pay jobs, A) will require a college degree, and B) they will be plentiful when the student graduates. Borrowing $100,000 to earn a law degree is a malinvestment if the student ends up writing briefs for $15 per hour. A recent graduate of the Charleston School of Law put fliers on cars announced that he or she had borrowed $200,000 to attend school and is now working at Walmart for $35,000 a year.

A post on the “Above The Law” blog revealed, “As of the 2013-2014 academic year, the total cost of a three-year J.D. degree from Charlotte Law was $123,792.00, while the median loan debt per graduate was $159,208.00. Just 34 percent of the class of 2014 was employed in full-time, long-term jobs where bar passage was required….”

“More college graduates are working in second jobs that don’t require college degrees,” writes Hannah Seligson in the New York Times, “part of a phenomenon called ‘mal-employment.’ In short, many baby-sitters, sales clerks, telemarketers and bartenders are overqualified for their jobs.”

Ludwig von Mises wrote in Human Action,“The whole entrepreneurial class is, as it were, in the position of a

master builder whose task it is to erect a building out of a limited supply of building materials. If this man overestimates the quantity of the available supply, he drafts a plan for the execution of which the means at his disposal are not sufficient. He oversizes the groundwork and the foundations and only discovers later in the progress of the construction that he lacks the material needed for the completion of the structure. It is obvious that our master builder’s fault was not overinvestment, but an inappropriate employment of the means at his disposal.”

As it is now, parents and students still have the belief that college is the way to, if not riches, at least a well-paying career. In a 2011 piece for mises.org with what turned out to be the hasty title of “The Higher-Education Bubble Has Popped” I quoted PayPal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel, who questioned the value of higher education. He told TechCrunch,

“A true bubble is when something is overvalued and intensely believed. Education may be the only thing people still believe in in the United States. To question education is really dangerous. It is the absolute taboo. It’s like telling the world there’s no Santa Claus.”

Like most bubbles this one is being fueled by debt. USA Today reports, 40 million borrowers owe $29,000 each, totaling $1.2 trillion outstanding. Student loan debt is easy to get, but hard to get rid of. It’s hard to pay back without a high salary, nor can it be bankrupted away. “Government either guarantees or owns most of the student loans and has the power to sue and to garnish wages, tax refunds, and federal benefits like Social Security when borrowers default,” Kelley Holland writes.

Defaults are plentiful. In the 3rd quarter of last year, the three-year

default rate was roughly 13.7%, with the average amount in default per borrower just over $14,000.

These debtors “are postponing marriage, childbearing and home purchases, and…pretty evidently limiting the percentage of young people who start a business or try to do something entrepreneurial,” says Mitch Daniels, president of Purdue University

I administer funds for a small scholarship for graduating high school seniors in my old home town. This year, for the first time, an applicant wrote that he needed financial help for college because his father, a veterinarian, can’t help his children because he’s struggling to make payments on his own student debt.

The college boom is not just on campus. Student housing developers have been riding the college boom as well. Two years ago in a piece for The Freeman, I wrote about developers cashing in building dorms. These developers have even found Auburn, with its population of only 50,000. A project called 160 Ross has long-time residents in an uproar with its high density. But as much as locals don’t like it, students have snapped up units at $599 a bed.

That rack rate has large student housing developers coming to town and CV Ventures is ready to break ground for a six-story mixed-used project on just one acre featuring 456 beds, stumbling distance from the college bars, with a Waffle House across the street.

Meanwhile, everyday we hear about how online courses being the death knell for brick-and- mortar institutions. For the moment traditional colleges seem safe. “Because traditional campuses offer peer and teacher interaction,” writes Ron Kennedy, “as well as a plethora of other important benefits often sought by traditional, college-aged students, there will remain a need for traditional education.”

More importantly, Kennedy continues, “Research has shown that students who interact face-to-face with their instructors and other students tend to be more academically balanced than their online counterparts. This is one reason why most employers still prefer students who have attended traditional campuses.”

Trees don’t grow to the sky and neither will tuition. However, it’s doubtful young people will suddenly stay home with their parents and work toward degrees taking online class. Parents who can afford it want to relive their college days vicariously through their kids.

The higher education bubble continues to inflate.

34% of Law School Class of 2014 Have Full Time JobsContinued from page 3


The Values, Views and Politics of Democrats and Republicans

The key values, views and politics of Democrats and other statist liberals can be understood, we believe, via the party’s incumbent President, Barack Obama, and its presumptive nominee to succeed him, Hillary Clinton.

Those of Republicans and other limited-government conservatives show in their two candidates who have recently risen toward the top of the polls, Dr. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina.

So, a side-by-side comparison.Obama and Clinton both have

their political roots in the radical leftist community organizer, Saul Alinsky. Based in part on consultation with him, Clinton wrote her college senior thesis on his politics. Obama was a community organizer who rode those politics to electoral success in Chicago and wrote an essay included in a book memorializing him.

Alinsky’s values, views and politics were summarized in his 1971 book, Rules for Radicals, dedicated to the original radical, Lucifer. Rule #5 captured the essence: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” As did Rule #13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

He was about aggression, alienation, antagonism, coercion, confrontation, control, demands, domination, grievance, guilt-

tripping, intimidation, opposition, personalization, polarization, pressure, etc. If his politics was not based in pure hate, then at least in most of its close-relative instincts. As he said in an interview, the residents of hell were his kind of people.

The essence of his politics was creating enemies and waging battle against them until they were defeated and the radicals got what they wanted. He operated in the inherently coercive world of politics and government. The cooperative, constructive world of commerce, markets and normal and friendly human relations was alien territory to him.

Most important here is that the same has been true all their lives – not just in their young and foolish years – for Obama and Clinton. Obama even used Alinsky tactics in his presidential primary campaigns. Perhaps most telling, though, is that their lives have almost completely involved politics and government, the inherently coercive and thus conflict-based sector.

Carson and Fiorina have lived their lives almost exclusively in the private sector, where the essence of things is mutually voluntary interaction for mutual benefit. In market and personal realms, if transactions or relationships cease to benefit one side, that person quits the interaction. In the public sector, quitting or bypassing is generally not an option. So, private interaction generally promotes the public interest because it benefits both parties. Politics and government generally creates losers as well as winners, and so they have mixed effects on the public interest.

It’s unsurprising, then, that Carson and Fiorina embrace American exceptionalism, while it is anathema to Obama and Clinton. Further, these Republicans emphasize the positive while the two Democrats are obsessed with

the negative. And Carson and Fiorina are understated people of great professional and business accomplishment, while Obama and Clinton live on overstatement and little to nothing besides politics.

Carson says: “We must realize that we are all in the same boat and we can sink together in the quagmire of fractious accusations and hatred, or we can rise together to previously unexperienced heights if we learn from past mistakes and embrace the principles that created, in record time, the greatest nation in history.”

By contrast, Obama is the only President in memory who assiduously avoids celebrating America and its people and denies American exceptionalism. We’ve never heard him say anything like: “I love America and her people.” Nor do we expect to. He’s focused on endlessly blaming and demonizing Republicans, asserting claims by some people against others, stirring anger and resentment.

In the most recent debate, Fiorina’s answer to Donald Trump’s boorishness was a master of understatement. She stated her own case by being the most competent, visionary and articulate on the stage, not by saying we should support her because she’s a woman.

By contrast, Clinton has achieved little but a reputation for corruption (family foundation and cattle futures), incompetence (Benghazi) and dishonesty (personal email server). Her whole campaign is based on the entitlement claim that we must elect her because she’s a woman.

As Republicans, we’re proud of our candidates because they’re good people who represent our core values, views, politics and aspirations. Conversely, Democrats are embarrassed by theirs.

RON KNECHT and GEOFFREY LAWRENCE


The Penny Press Tips Its Cap To:Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker who ran a classy Presidential campaign and got out when it appeared he had no path to a nomination. At age 47, he has plenty of time and it’s easy to see him in the cabinet of the eventual nominee. Perhaps as Secretary of Labor?

Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, who has waded into the Planned Parenthood fetal tissue debate, send-ing a letter to the group's state affiliates asking for confirmation that they do not perform surgical abortions at their offices. Laxalt said in the letter. "Please confirm in writing that the Nevada facilities do not provide surgical abortions." Laxalt also asked for confirmation the affiliates do not participate in tissue donation and that the Nevada facilities are in full compliance with state and federal laws and regulations.

The Penny Press Sends A Bronx Cheer And A Bouquet of Weeds To:The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a cheesey Muslim pressure group, and the media for calling on Ben Carson to withdraw from the Republican Presidential race because he had the nerve to say he would not advocate for a Muslim in the White House. CAIR has been caught collecting money to fund terrorist front groups but that doesn’t stop the mainstream media for acting like they’re not the moral equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan. www.pennypressnv.com

Tips Of Our Capand

Bronx Cheers

Commentary: Ron Knecht & Geoffrey Lawrence

So the chattering class of the mainstream media—and make no mistake about it, that includes Fox News Channel—thinks that it is somehow déclassé to either suggest or not “correct” someone who suggests that we have a problem with Islam here in the United States and that problem could be the clown in the White House.

Last week, at a campaign event, a guy asked Donald Trump,

“We have a problem in this country. It’s called Muslims. We know our current president is one. You know he’s not even an American, We have training camps growing when they want to kill us. My question: When can we get rid of them?”

Trump gave a general answer and moved on.

Ben Carson, responding to a question on Meet the Press said,

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

The chatterers went magpie wild. Batguana crazy.

But let’s look at the issue. Do we have freedom of religion in this in this country? Of course we do.

What differentiates a belief in Islam from most other religions?

The Quran:

Quran (2:191-193) - “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (Translation is from the Noble Quran)

Now it is easy to say that Muslims no longer believe that. That it is a “perversion” of their religion.

It is obvious from world events, however, that many Muslims do see verses such as that as God’s law and, on that basis, it is very difficult to know the difference between “good, peaceful” Muslims and jihadists.

Is Barack Obama a Muslim? Maybe, maybe not. But when the time comes to stand with the ally which we helped to create in 1947, Israel, he has done everything possible to follow the radical Islam line and pee all over the Israelis.

I don’t have a problem elaborating on Carson’s statement. We don’t need a President who will make decisions on affairs of state from the viewpoint of the Quran. Any more than we need a President who will take orders from the Pope, the Chief Rabbi of Israel, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Southern Baptist Convention, the President of the LDS Church or the ghosts of Jerry Falwell and Oral Roberts.

Now all of the aforementioned religious figures and organizations occasionally weigh in with their opinions (including the ghosts of Falwell and Roberts who left us Universities in their wisdom) but none of them advocate violence—especially against non-believers.

Apparently, within the chattering class, there is a list of things a politician cannot say and the first thing on the list is talking about the list.

So these nimrods went nuts when Trump said that he is not morally obligated to defend Barack Obama and Carson said he would not be comfortable with a Muslim in the White House.

Fortunately, it appears that those same nimrods are no longer able to tell the voters what to think with any moral authority. Most Americans no longer take their knowledge from the Holy Trinity of the New York Times, CBS News and NBC News. And their lesser acolytes at Fox, ABC and CNN.

And, I’m guessing, that in their heart of hearts, a majority of American voters agree with Trump and Carson.

FRED WEINBERG


OPINIONFrom The Publisher...

No Muslim in White House? Bet American Voters Agree


The Connection between Evolution and Purpose

My last article about the origin of the universe raised a lot of interesting questions from readers. One, in particular, caught my attention. A reader who goes by the name of Joseph wrote, among other things:

“The meaning and purpose of life comes from you … I do believe that if life or existence is about anything, it is about … evolvement. Whatever meaning or purpose you give to your life, as long as it allows you to evolve as a human being, then I believe you are in harmony with life.”

Joseph finished by asking my thoughts about what he had written. The short answer is that I believe his comments were very insightful. People have been asking about the meaning of life from time immemorial, but since we know very little about our origins (i.e., if you set aside theories — big bang, evolution, etc. — and focus on fact). More important, from a first-cause point of view, we know absolutely nothing about why we’re here.

That being the case, instead of constantly reaching for the stars (again, the closeststar is more than 25 trillion miles away!), we would be much better off focusing on what’s inside our own heads. If there’s one thing I’ve learned about life, it’s that thoughts really are things.

Thoughts are, in fact, the forerunners of our actions. Depending upon the nature of your thoughts, they lead you to either good or bad decisions … good or bad actions … good or bad people … and good or bad situations.

Who determines whether a decision is good or bad? You.Who determines whether an action is good or bad? You.Who determines whether a person is good or bad? You.Who determines whether a situation is good or bad? You.That’s right — you are the sole judge and jury when it comes to

determining whether something is good or bad as it pertains to your own life. Obviously, this is not a popular position to take, but manmade laws and institutionalized mores regarding what is right … or fair … or just … or moral have proven to be very poor guidelines for exemplary behavior. In fact, freedom-loving people could make a strong case that many, if not most, of such laws and mores are in direct contrast to their code of ethics.

I should add that when I say you should determine your own code of behavior, it goes without saying that that does not give you a license to impinge on the rights of your fellow man. But other than this natural-law caveat, in a world saturated with what one is tempted to describe as “evil,” it’s up to you to be the guardian of your most sacred asset — your mind.

So, yes, I agree with Joseph’s observation. Perhaps the most meaningful life you can live — a life in which purity and self-satisfaction prevail — is to focus on your own evolution. I began doing this many years ago when I decided that what I wanted more than anything else was to constantly strive to be a better husband, a better father, a better son, and a better friend.

For many years now, I’ve tried not to worry too much about what others think. What is far more important to me is how I feel about myself. Overall, I believe that I’ve done pretty well in the above areas, but I admit that I have still fallen far short of where I would like to be.

So I constantly question myself about my shortcomings, and I’ve come to the conclusion that one of the most important things you can do to maximize your personal evolution is to not allow the bad actions of others to distract you — and, in extreme actions, dominate your thoughts.

When it comes to human interaction, I’ve been more fortunate than most, because over the past four decades I have, on the whole, been treated extremely well — not only by the thousands of readers who have sent me letters and emails thanking me for making valuable contributions to their lives, but by an untold number of people who have said similar things to me in person.

Even so, there are a handful of people who have succeeded in getting under my skin over the years, people whom I believe have had bad intentions. As just one example, I once had some unpleasant business dealings with an attorney (“Marty”) who got a great deal of media attention as a result of his wheeling and dealing in the public-company arena.

I hadn’t seen or heard anything about him in years, when one day I happened to be getting a haircut at the Beverly Hills Hotel and, from out of the blue, my barber said to me, “Did you read what (“Marty”) had to say about you in his new book?” I told him that I didn’t even know he had written a book, and that I had no interest in hearing what he had to say about me or anyone else.

Subsequently, a mutual acquaintance mentioned that Marty had been spreading an outrageous lie about me. Though it annoyed me a great deal at the time, I made a conscious, rationally selfish decision to ignore it. Whether his bad-mouthing of me was based on jealousy, an attempt to piggyback onto my fame, or just plain, old-fashioned malevolence, I have no idea. In any event, I struck Marty completely out of my mind after that.

But a few months ago, a friend happened to mention his name to me in a conversation, and guess what? He told me that Marty had died nearly twenty-fiveyears ago of a very rare, very painful disease.

Let me assure you that I did not feel a sense of happiness when I found out that Marty had long ago come to such an unpleasant ending. Nor did I assume it was a result of bad karma, because that kind of thing is way beyond my moral jurisdiction. However, what did cross my mind was how glad I was that I hadn’t wasted any time thinking about him all these years, because, as it turned out, the guy wasn’t even alive!

The moral for me is that it’s a waste of time to obsess over negative people, negative circumstances, or negative events. It makes much more sense to focus on evolving as a human being. Not evolving as others might want you to evolve — or as some of our institutions might want you to evolve — but evolving in ways that make you feel good about yourself.

Forget about the bad guys (bad guys by your standards) and focus on the kind of healthy thoughts and actions that attract good people into your life. If you make a conscious effort to be the best spouse you can be, the best parent you can be, the best son or daughter you can be, and the best friend you can be, everything else will pretty much fall into place.

As I said in my last article, just throw the bad stuff to the universe. It’s quite capable of handling everything you can send its way. By making this a habit, it will allow you to use your time to nourish the good stuff and strive to perfect those qualities that make you feel good about yourself and thus evolve as a person.

Given that we don’t know why we’re here, the case for personal evolution as a worthwhile purpose in life would seem to have a great deal of merit. Thanks for reminding me, Joseph. ROBERT RINGERRobert Ringer (© 2015)is a New York Times #1 bestselling author who has appeared on numerous national radio and television shows, including The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, ABC Nightline, The Charlie Rose Show, as well as Fox News and Fox Business. To sign up for a free subscription to his mind-expanding daily insights, visit www.robertringer.com.

Commentary: Robert Ringer


Call the number below and save an additional $10 plus get free shipping on your �rst order with Canada Drug Center. Expires June 30, 2014. O�er is valid for prescription orders only and can not be used in conjunction with any other o�ers. Valid for new customers only. One time use per household. Use code 10FREE to receive this special o�er.

Call toll-free: 1-800-950-1603

Compare our prices and see how much you can save! For more prices call us toll-free at 1-800-950-1603.

Save more today with an extra $10 off & free shipping!

Order Now! Toll-free: 1-800-950-1603 $10OFF

Get An Extra

And FREE SHIPPING

Get an extra $10 o� your �rst order today!

Prescription price comparison above is valid as of November 1, 2013. All trade-mark (TM) rights associated with the brand name products in this ad belong to their respective owners. *Generic drugs are carefully regulated medications that have the same active ingredients as the original brand name drug, but are generally cheaper in price. Generic equivalents are equal to their "brand" counterparts in Active Ingredients, Dosage, Safety, Strength, Quality, Performance and Intended use. It may vary in colour, shape, size, cost and appearance.

Please note that we do not carry controlled substances and a valid prescription is required for all prescription medication orders.

Bottle AManufactured By

PfizerTM.Typical US brand price

for 200mg x 100

CelebrexTM

$568.87 Bottle BManufactured By

GenericsManufacturers

Generic equivalent of CelebrexTM

Generic price for 200mg x 100

Celecoxib*$62.00

Their PriceOur Price

Are You Still Paying Too Much For Your Medications?You can save up to 75% when you fill your prescriptions with our Canadian and International prescription service.

NexiumTM $726.32Typical US Brand Price for 40mg x 100

Esomeprazole* $79.00Generic Price for 40mg x 100

VSAdvairTM $849.43Typical US Brand Price for 250-50 mcg x 180 doses

VS

ActonelTM $424.64Typical US Brand Price for 35mg x 12

Risedronate* $43.00Generic Price for 35mg x 12

VSEvistaTM $630.76Typical US Brand Price for 60mg x 100

Raloxifene* $74.00Generic Price for 60mg x 100

VS

Salmeterol & Fluticasone Propionate* $151.00Generic Price for50/250mcg x 180 doses


Commentary: Sharon RossieFederal Lands

When Sen. Ted Cruz came to Las Vegas last month to talk about what he’d do if elected president, Nevada Assemblywoman Victoria Seaman had one question for him.

Pointing to her copy of Solutions 2015, Assemblywoman Seaman asked Sen. Cruz where he stands on the issue of federal lands and what he, if elected, would do to transfer to the state some of the more than 56 million acres of Nevada soil the federal government occupies.

His position, as he explained it, is one I hope all presidential candidates — Democrat, Republican, or otherwise — take: the lands should be transferred to Nevada.

If you’ve been with the Institute for any length of time, you have likely read some of our previous publications and studies on the issue of federal lands and the problems that Nevada experiences as a result of over 81 percent of its territory being held by an institution 3,000 miles away.

Because the federal government owns a greater percentage of Nevada than any other state, no candidate should leave the state without saying how he or she will allow Nevada and its residents to finally experience prosperity off property that is rightfully theirs. Even with title to just a portion of these federal lands, Nevada could generate millions of dollars a year and tens of thousands of jobs could be created.

An analysis produced by Nevada’s Land Management Task Force showed that local jurisdictions could generate $205.8 million a year if they were allowed to lease and sell just 7.2 million acres currently controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. With access to 45 million acres — leaving National Parks, military bases, Indian Reservations and wilderness areas designated by Congress untouched — local jurisdictions could generate $1.3 billion per year.

Transferring federally held lands to their rightful owners would also

save taxpayers from across the country money, considering the amount of tax dollars the federal government wastes managing the acreage. According to the Property and Environment Research Center, for every dollar the federal government spends managing land, it loses 27 cents. States, on the other hand, create an average of $14.51 for each dollar they spend on such efforts.

The list of reasons to transfer the lands to Nevada go on and on (and are something we’ll be delving deeper into in an upcoming publication), but they all boil down to the fact that, as long as the federal government claims title to the vast majority of Nevada lands, the Silver State is helpless to achieve its full potential.

Fortunately, this important issue is not going unnoticed by some Presidential candidates and by concerned groups. Next week, the Black Mountain Institute will be hosting a panel discussion on the issue, aptly called, “This land is your land … or is it?”

The panel will include Gary Snyder, an environmentalist who has been called the “poet laureate of deep ecology;” Timothy Egan, a New York Times columnist and award-winning author; and economist and writer Terry L. Anderson, one of the leading advocates of free-market environmentalism. Virginia Scharff, a Western historian and director of the Center for the Southwest at the University of New Mexico, will moderate the panel.

The event, which I encourage you to attend if you’re in the Las Vegas area, will be held at 7 p.m., September 24, in the Philip J. Cohen Theatre at the University of Las Vegas student union.And, I encourage you to brush up on federal lands issues so if you happen to meet one of the many, many candidates for President, you can ask what he or she would do to make Nevada as prosperous as it can be. I know I will. SHARON ROSSIESharon Rossie is the President of the Nevada Policy Research Institute


What Do We Mean By “Representative Government”?

With a presidential election year fast approaching, we’re in for a lot of public talk about the state of American democracy. Much of that discussion will be insightful and thought-provoking, but there’s a good chance you’ll also find a lot of it vague and hard to pin down.

There’s a reason for this. Even our political leaders, the people who are most familiar with the system’s workings, have a hard time describing it.

In fact, they even have a hard time labeling it. Ours is not actually a pure democracy: it’s more accurate to say that we live in a “representative democracy” – that is, the people don’t themselves make decisions, but delegate that authority to their elected representatives. In this sense, we really live in a republic, a word you don’t often hear from the podium.

Perhaps the best way to start thinking about what American representative democracy really means is to recall the Pledge of Allegiance, which is an oath to the Republic that our flag symbolizes, and in particular to an ideal: that our nation will strive for liberty and justice for all. Plenty of well-meaning people, in the heat of the political moment, seize on one or the other of those twin poles to support their agenda — they insist upon liberty or they demand justice. The Pledge, however, makes it clear that these core principles are inseparable.

Still, they are ideals. They’re not sufficient to define a representative democracy.

Indeed, no single feature does. One of our core tenets holds that the people are sovereign — that we give our consent to be governed through regular participation in the elections that decide who will represent us. Yet elections in and of themselves don’t define our republic, either; there are plenty of countries around the world whose elections are used to distort democracy.

So the rule of law is also key, and along with it the notion that everyone ought to be subject to equal justice under the law. The separation of powers among the different branches of government creates a balance designed

to protect the people from overweening power. The rights guaranteed by our Constitution ensure that the rights of minorities of all kinds are safe.

The big challenge in all this is to set up the structures and practices that protect and defend these beliefs. The courts, legislative bodies and executive branches at the federal, state and local level are an example of this, along with a system of checks and balances that promotes accountability and transparency. So are the freedoms we often take for granted: under our Constitution, we do not put to a vote whether to continue protecting freedom of religion or the right to express unpopular sentiments or publish news that challenges those in power.

While representative democracy rests on a core set of principles, it remains a constantly evolving concept. At the beginning, ours was limited: our Founders began with an inspiring set of beliefs about how a nation ought to govern itself, but they also ignored women and chose to set aside the question of slavery. This was a democracy of white males of a certain age who owned property. Representative democracy by its nature is always a work in progress; we never really get the balance between liberty and justice exactly right.

This is worth remembering at the moment, when the problems we confront seem so overwhelming and our institutions are under so much strain. The problems they have to resolve — the outsized role of money in politics, excessive partisanship, the sheer complexity of the policy challenges we face — are daunting, but that doesn’t mean representative government itself should be called into question.

In fact, it is our great strength. It protects against arbitrary authority, strives for justice, hears our varied and conflicting opinions before it acts, and moderates tensions among competing interests. It works in a measured fashion that tends — over time — to encourage policymakers to find consensus. It is the form of government that, when allowed to work properly, is most likely to lead to wise policy, firmly rooted in the consent of the ordinary people on whose shoulders it rests. LEE HAMILTONLee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University; Distinguished Scholar, IU School of Global and International Studies; and Professor of Practice, IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

Commentary: Lee Hamilton

Donald Trump, Civility And Political Correctness

Full disclosure: As goes election 2016, I’m decidedly not in the Donald Trump camp. To compare Trump to Ronald Reagan, as some have done, is like comparing a Hostess Ding Dong to a seven course meal at Osteria Francescana. Though each may please the palate, the latter offers both substance and sustenance, while the former, a quick endorphin fix and empty calories.

Trump is no conservative. He’s a big-government, tax-and-spend liberal who has spent most his life supporting Democrats and Democratic causes. Mr. Trump’s moral compass lacks due north. Its needle spins faster than Hillary Clinton on a Tilt-A-Whirl. Donald Trump believes what Donald Trump believes because he’s Donald Trump – not because what he believes has any basis in fact.

Like many liberals, the Donald is prone to engage in the ad hominem attack when pushed into a corner on questions of substance (e.g., a propensity to mock the physical appearance of his detractors). Such personal insults are shallow, juvenile and, rather than representing a challenge to the dictates of political correctness, show a boorish lack of civility and decorum.

Still, don’t get me wrong. In some ways, and like millions of Americans, I find Trump both endearing and entertaining. I believe his conventional-wisdom-defying rise in the polls can be attributed, primarily, to three things:

First, he’s anti-establishment. The conservative base of the Republican Party is sick of the GOP leadership’s empty campaign promises, gutless lack of resolve and failure to use all means at their disposal to rein-in Obama’s lawlessness and hold him accountable. Bringing John Boehner and Mitch McConnell into political combat is like bringing a wet noodle to a sword fight.

Second is Trump’s bold, often witty and always delightful smackdowns of mainstream media so marinated in leftist ideology and political correctness that they wouldn’t recognize objective journalism if it bit ‘em in the … well, you get the idea. (For a great analysis of this phenomenon read Tristan Emmanuel’s short E-book, “Donald Trumps the Media.”)

Finally, and I think this is the big one, Mr. Trump has quickly come to both signify and personify Middle America’s utter disdain for all things politically correct. “I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness,” he told Megyn Kelly in the GOP’s first presidential debate. “And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either.”

Of course, not everyone agrees. In a recent op-ed titled, “Civilities: The current rage about ‘political correctness’ is both wrong and rude,” Washington Post columnist Steven Petrow laments, “‘Political correctness’ has long been considered a pejorative, an accusation hurled at those of us who choose our words carefully so as not to insult others. …

“Language evolves all the time, and a change that allows individuals and groups to claim their own identity increases civility, which costs the rest of us nothing.”

Ah, moral relativism – the secular left’s escape pod from reality. “Language evolves all the time.” Get that? That’s Orwellian for, “Yes, we liberals understand that words have meaning. That’s why, when we don’t like the meaning of words, we arbitrarily invent and ascribe a new meaning to those words to suit our pseudo-utopian political ends – the truth be damned.”

Petrow continues, “Far from restricting debate, the language of political correctness has returned a new dignity to formerly marginalized groups.”

Far from restricting debate? A new dignity? Tell that to presently marginalized groups like Christians and conservatives who prefer to operate

within the sometimes-jarring universe of objective reality, rather than the fantastical realm of Planet Progressivism. Tell that to Kim Davis – to the Christian baker, florist, photographer and other business owners who now face six-figure fines or even jail time for merely acknowledging the politically incorrect fact that marriage remains as it’s always been – the union of a man and a woman.

What Mr. Petrow has done here is to conflate political correctness with civility. These are two entirely different things. Political correctness is a barrier to truth and a doorway to tyranny. Its sole purpose is to silence dissent from leftist orthodoxy – to shut down open discourse and honest debate on the merits. Political correctness is marked by “progressive” wishful thinking, while actual correctness is marked by dispassionate truth.

And never the twain shall meet.Merriam Webster defines “political correctness” as “conforming to a belief

that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.”

The key words here are “offend” and “eliminated.” It should also be noted that “political sensibilities” is better described as “liberal sensibilities.” In other words, political correctness dictates that “language and practices” that “offend” liberals must be “eliminated.”

How uncivil.“I’m sensing something in the air these days, and it’s unsettling,” continues

Petrow. “At a recent dinner party, my host went on a rant about Caitlyn Jenner (whom she insisted on calling ‘Bruce Jenner’), which devolved, quickly, into a full-throttle tirade against being ‘politically correct.’”

Mr. Petrow’s reference to Jenner provides a wonderful opportunity to contrast political correctness with civility.

Politically correct version: “Caitlyn Jenner is a courageous woman who used to be a man named Bruce. She has transitioned to the woman she’s always been and is a wonderful role model for everyone, especially LGBT youth. She’s a hero. Off with the old, on with the new.”

Civil version: “Bruce Jenner is a mentally ill man who is pretending to be a woman. He has mutilated his body to appear feminine by adding artificial breasts, pumping himself full of synthetic estrogen and having cosmetic surgery. He ostensibly intends – if he has yet to do so – to have his genitalia destroyed as well. Bruce still has, and will always have, an X and a Y chromosome. He will always be male and he will never be female. He is to be pitied rather than emulated. Bruce Jenner, and others who suffer from gender identity disorder, need psychiatric help, our sympathies and our prayers.”

As you can see, the politically correct version, though flowery and nice sounding, is completely untethered from reality, while the civil version, though jarring to those who choose to deny reality, happens to be true. Mr. Petrow calls America’s growing rejection of political correctness, “unsettling.” I can see that. To folks who prefer the makeshift murkiness of relativism, the crystal clarity of absolute truth must be unsettling indeed.

And so back to Donald Trump. To the extent this intransigent GOP front-runner continues to hold the Republican establishment’s feet to the fire, debunk the myth of an “unbiased media” and undermine the postmodern concept of political correctness, I say, go get ‘em, big guy.

Beyond that – well, I’m just glad the primary isn’t Tuesday. MATT BARBERMatt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).



Commentary: Matt Barber


The Nation’s LeadingEmergency Food ProviderEmergency Food Provider

CALL NOW AND RECEIVE A FREE SAMPLE800-259-0321

FEATURED ON:

“No matter where you are or howprotected you think you may be,emergencies can strike at any time.You must have a plan. Wise FoodStorage makes it easy to preparefor the unexpected and you cantake action today.”

STOCKING UP KITS ARE EASYTO STORE AND ACCESS

RECIPES INCLUDE:CHEESY LASAGNA

PASTA VEGETABLE ROTINICHILI MACARONI

SAVORY STROGANOFF

MEALS ARE TASTY, SIMPLE,EASY TO PREPARE, AND

HAVE A 25 YEAR SHELF LIFE.

THE WISE SOLUTION

STARTING AT$1/SERVING

99% CUSTOMERSATISFACTION RATE

100% QUALITYGUARANTEED


STREAMING AT: www.mixlr.com/KELY1230

Nevada Conservatives Lose Great Patriot, Good Man

A couple of years before I got into politics full time, I got into the passenger seat of a high-speed sports car that barreled down a 90-mile stretch of a lonely Nevada highway pushing 200 miles per hour. It was 1991 and I had been hired by Phil Henry to videotape the Nevada Open Road Race – the only legal street race in the United States.

I don’t remember the type of car I was in - probably a Porsche - but I do remember it was driven by a professional driver named Terry Herman.

Here’s a description of the race from the event’s website…“The State of Nevada closes down 90 miles of Route 318 and more than

200 drivers from around the world converge on the little town of Ely in the central high desert of Nevada. Why do they come? To experience first-hand the adrenaline rush of driving flat-out on a public highway. Not just professional racers, but men and women from all walks of life, pursuing the Walter Mitty dream of speed, horsepower, and high performance.”

At close to 200 mph, an adrenaline rush, indeed! And dangerous, to be sure.

In fact my driver, Terry Herman, died in the race the very next year when the car he was driving “left the roadway about 25 miles into the race, struck an embankment, rolled end-to-end and burst into flames.”

The day before the race everyone converged on the little rural town of Ely. The drivers would all park their cars on the football field in town and everyone had a blast checking out everyone else’s car. It was a festival of sorts and, as the saying goes, a good time was had by all.

It was, indeed, an absolutely unforgettable experience. I videotaped three of those races for Phil before getting into politics, shutting down my videography business and losing touch with him.

Years later, we caught up to one another again. Apparently Phil fell in love with Ely and moved there. Not only that,

he got swept into the tea party movement and became the Tea Party leader for White Pine County. That’s how he and I reconnected in 2010 and why it was particularly sad to learn of Phil’s unexpected death this week.

Like many others, Phil was loving how Donald Trump’s candidacy was driving the establishment Republicans nuts, and we exchanged a number of emails on the subject just days before his passing.

Phil was a solid conservative, but as genial of a gentleman as you’ll ever want to meet. A fierce competitor who loved this state and this country and embodied the phrase “happy warrior.” He was, quite simply, a good man.

Nevada conservatives have lost a true patriot and hero. I was happy to know Phil, and proud to call him my friend.

RIP, Phil. You made a difference, and you’ll be missed. CHUCK MUTH(Mr. Muth is president of CitizenOutreach.com and the publisher of www.NevadaNewsandViews.com. You can reach him at ChuckMuth.com)


Commentary: Chuck Muth Every week in Nevada, someone is trying to screw us.

Most of the time, we elected that someone.

That's why we conserva-tives NEED a WEEKLY voice.

That's why the Penny Press has made sticking up for us little guys a whole new Nevada tradition.

Penny Press775-461-1515

eFax [email protected]

pennypressnv.comwww.pennypressnv.com


SparksReno

Carson Citywww.LaMejorReno.com

Penny Press 3 SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 · 2015-09-23 · Law was $123,792.00, while the median loan debt...

Documents

Transcript of Penny Press 3 SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 · 2015-09-23 · Law was $123,792.00, while the median loan debt...