Iranians March For Freedom From Tyranny : Donald Trump Agrees

Why are Iranians marching again for freedom? Why are they finding the courge to risk dying for a principle? Why did the United States the last time the Iranians marched for freedom and diedT we did nothing to support their heroic effort?

The question that remains is why do civilized people in this country still accept the progressive socialist liberals as legitimate holders of power tasked to defend the individuals rights under the Constitution of the Untied States? Why do democrats work to eliminate individual freedom in our country?

Did the progressive democrats actually accept the deaths of Iranians in the streets of Tehran as a good thing?

And given how the progressive media and the liberal democrats have accepted and approve the complete corruption of our justice system that supports their personal agenda and ideology, as well as how the government should and must function to sustain our way of life that we as a nation have fought so hard to defend, has been corrupted for a single purpose, to ''fundamentally'' change America into Barack's religious vision of a nation on it's knees, waiting to be blessed with his presence and some financial allowance as a reward for obedience.

Wonder no longer why Barack and his ilk among the socialist liberal democrats decided to stand down the last time the Iranian people marched for freedom, a million of them took to the streets to demanding their freedom and liberty as a people no longer willing to just wish for freedom but they acted and died while Barack golfed.

It was always clear Barack wanted nothing to do with people that want to be free, especially Iranians, Persian Muslims that he seems to have a fond connection with some how, and it's not just over the nuclear deal at the time, it goes deeper then that, although he made it clear nothing will stand in the way of that deal even people being murdered in the streets.

Once again the Iranian people have taken to the streets hoping this time they will have better results, and especially now since Donald Trump has taken a stand in their support for freedom. 

As those great song lyrics go, '' Freedom means having nothing else to lose''.

Once Manipulated by Obama Administration on Iran, Media Still Peddles Wrong Narrative

Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / January 03, 2018

Dramatic images of the protests rocking Iran should be a reminder of how good we have it in the United States and how easy it is to lose perspective. In America, a “war on women” is defined by progressives as failing to force nuns to pay for birth control. In Iran, a woman can be punished for not wearing a hijab and a man can be brutally executed for being gay.

While the left has a penchant for accusing America of oppression while excusing foreign malfeasance, its refusal to criticize Iran still stands out. CNN oddly defined the movement as “pro-government protests,” before issuing a correction.

The New York Times’ Tehran bureau chief, Thomas Erdbrink, reported on New Year’s Day that the protests were ongoing as the Iranian people “ignored calls for calm,” as if the movement were driven simply by a few rowdy troublemakers instead of having larger political implications for a tyrannical government.

Many have compared Erdbrink’s reporting to the actions of the Times’ infamous Moscow bureau chief, Walter Duranty, who denied the communists’ forced famine in Ukraine in the 1930s that killed millions of people.

In November, Erdbrink reported that Iranians had “united” in opposition to Trump and Saudi Arabia.
Clearly, they weren’t.

While the nature of the decentralized group of protests remains somewhat clouded, Jim Phillips, Heritage Foundation senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs, explained in The Daily Signal how continuing corruption under Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, a sudden surge in food prices, and importantly, the repressive Islamist ideology of the powers that be, have contributed to the toxic stew of resentment. “We don’t want an Islamic Republic,” “Down with Hezbollah,” and “Death to the dictator” are reportedly common chants by protesters.

The fact is that there is deep discontent with the Islamist theocracy that has ruled the country since the 1979 revolution and many are now willing to risk their lives to end its abuses. The nation’s rulers are hardly pro-Western moderates.

Phillips wrote:  Rouhani’s faction is more pragmatic than the ultra-hardliners, but it is by no means ‘moderate.’ Rouhani is the tactful leader of the Iranian state, but Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, remains the implacable spearhead of Iran’s Islamist revolution. The two have worked closely for years and continue to collaborate as a ‘good cop/bad cop’ tag team.

For a media that likes to perceive itself as speaking truth to power, coverage has been strangely tepid as it continues to define the government as a moderating force compared to more dangerous hard-liners. It has also danced around the Iranian government’s role in perpetuating Islamist doctrines, both at home and abroad.  This is par for the course.

The rest of the media collectively yawned last month when a bombshell Politico report claimed the Obama administration put the lid on an investigation into Iran-backed Hezbollah’s drug-trafficking and terrorism activities during the nuclear deal negotiations. So why is it that the media is ignoring this ongoing story and skating around the facts?

Conservative writer Lee Smith answered that question in Tablet magazine, writing that the nature of their reporting derives from two main sources of information: “the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Obama White House.”   “Without government minders providing them with story-lines and experts, American reporters are simply lost—and it shows,” Smith wrote.

President Donald Trump was quick to tweet about the protests and explicitly call out the Iranian regime’s repressive and destructive policies. ''Iran is failing at every level despite the terrible deal made with them by the Obama Administration. The great Iranian people have been repressed for many years. They are hungry for food & for freedom. Along with human rights, the wealth of Iran is being looted. TIME FOR CHANGE!
6:44 AM - Jan 1, 2018

''The people of Iran are finally acting against the brutal and corrupt Iranian regime. All of the money that President Obama so foolishly gave them went into terrorism and into their “pockets.” The people have little food, big inflation and no human rights. The U.S. is watching!''
6:09 AM - Jan 2, 2018

This contrasted sharply with then-President Barack Obama’s reaction to the wave of Iranian unrest that sprung up after a disputed election in 2009.

Obama initially said he was “troubled” by the turmoil, but ultimately hoped that Iran would sort things out. He refrained from explicitly condemning the regime and made no signal that he would support protesters, even rhetorically.  The legacy media still closely follows the message peddled by Obama and his former deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, who was one of the chief architects of the Iran nuclear deal. 

To lay the groundwork for the deal, Rhodes, whose background was in fiction writing, proudly boasted of manipulating clueless media allies in a 2016 profile of his work in The New York Times Magazine.  “We created an echo chamber,” Rhodes said in the profile. “They [the media] were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

Changing the negative public perception of Iran was a tall order. Not too long before, the George W. Bush administration had labeled the country, a long-term thorn in U.S. Middle East policy, as part of the “axis of evil” along with North Korea and Iraq.

To get Americans and Congress on board with this shift in strategy, the Obama administration had to convince them that loosening up sanctions on Iran was a good thing because Rouhani was a “moderate.”  Normalizing the regime provided a chance to cool its nuclear aspirations, so the reasoning went. This was a farce that the media ate up and still continues to peddle.

One doesn’t want to fall too much into the trap of thinking all populist, democratic movements, even ones under tyrannical governments, are good.  But it is important, when the time is right, for American leaders to forcefully rebuke tyranny and repression.

Right now, the media is too worried about Trump’s blocking people from his personal Twitter account and protecting Obama’s legacy to bother uncovering the truly heinous policies and ideology of a cruel Iranian regime.

Bartending Innovations : Robots (Humor)

I know it's Friday but that doesn't mean you can't take a minute to generate a smile to start the day, right?

A man goes into a bar where there is a robot bartender that can converse with the customers.

 The robot says, “What will you have? The guy replies, “Whiskey.” The robot brings back his drink and asks, “What’s your IQ?” The guy say, “168” The robot continues to talk about physics, space exploration, and medical technology.

 After the guy leaves and the more he thinks about it, the more curious he gets, so he decides to go back.

 The robot asks, “What’s your drink?” The guy answers, “Whiskey.” The robot returns with his drink and asks, “What’s your IQ?” The man replies, “100.” The robot talks about Nascar, Budweiser, the Lions, and LSU.

 The man finishes his drink, leaves, but is so interested in his “experiment” that he decides to try again.

 He enters the bar and, as usual, the robot asks him what he want to drink. The man replies, “Whiskey.” The robot brings the drink and asks, “What’s your IQ?” The man answers, “50.”

 The robot leans in real close and asks, “So . . are . . . you people . . .. still unhappy Hillary didn't get in ? 

 

Watch The ''View'' to Understand Depravity : People With Diminshed Capicity

All one has to understand here is to watch the ''View'' on television for 5 minutes and all will be revealed. Something beyond insane. The true face of progressive socialist liberalism.

Religious Freedom Under Assult In Canada : Progressives Attacking America As Well

It has always been the state of things with progressive socialist liberals in power. In America with Barack at the levers of power, he did everything he could to drive religious freedom into the background if not destroy it were ever he could. Barack promised ''fundamental change'' if elected and he did what he promised.

And yet, all the while professing his own religious jihad for 'changing' the civil society from a country of faith in a supreme being, Barack believed in a country of a supreme power held in the human hands of an all power government.

Little is left to wonder why Barack restricted Christians from immigrating to America, or why his stand on transgender bathrooms brought chaos and conflict, or his stand on the religious abjections to demand abortion, or why Barack sided with Muslims in the middle east while they slaughtered Christians by the thousands.

But thank God, Donald Trump understands the meaning of religious freedom, was elected by the people who understand as well how to stop the slaughter of Christians. They voted out the progressive socialist liberals. 

Religious Liberty Is Eroding in Canada. Here’s What Americans Should Learn.

Emilie Kao / @EmilieTHF / Zachary Jones / December 28, 2017

Outside of watching the occasional hockey game or purchase of maple syrup, most Americans pay little attention to Canada.

We may know of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s colorful socks, but little of how unpopular he is among his constituency. We may discuss the single-payer health care system, but are unfamiliar with the government’s disrespect for religious liberty of our neighbors to the north.

Faithful patriots in this country who are concerned by the attacks on free exercise of religion in America should also be concerned by the similar attacks on liberty echoing within Canada, a country with strong protections for religious liberty in its Charter for Rights and Freedom.

In light of the immense trade between our two countries, we must determine if religious intolerance is an intangible export that has escaped our notice.

Last month, Alberta’s Child and Family Services barred a Christian couple from adopting a child because their religious views about sexuality—views shared by orthodox Jews and Muslims—were incompatible with “the official position of the Alberta government.”

The Ministry of Children’s Services stated that the couple’s belief that sexuality should not be experienced or explored until a person is married, would not create a “safe, healthy, loving, and inclusive home.”

And in June, Ontario passed a law that gave state agencies the power to prevent families from adopting or fostering children if the parents would not affirm the child transitioning their “gender identity” from male to female or vice-versa, calling such a denial “child abuse.”

Similarly, the American Civil Liberties Union is suing the state of Michigan over legislation that allows faith-based adoption agencies to only place children into homes with mothers and fathers while under government contract.

And much like Ontario, Illinois is requiring foster parents to affirm the gender identity of any child in their care and aid in any medical procedures the child wishes to undergo.

The Canadian government has unilaterally taken positions on sexuality without the consent of its citizenry, much like the Obama administration’s unilateral decision to reinterpret the definition of “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity in Title IX.

But if Americans and Canadians can’t adopt or foster children because they don’t affirm a child undergoing potentially harmful hormone therapies and sex-reassignment surgeries or sexual activity outside of marriage, will the government also begin using this criteria for “good parenting” of biological children? Will they treat the parenting practices of Orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims as suspect if they simply refuse to adopt the latest sexual trends?

Also in Canada, the Supreme Court will soon determine if attorneys who hold orthodox religious beliefs on sexuality are eligible to practice law.

Before Trinity Western University could even open its law school, the accrediting legal societies within Nova Scotia, Ontario, and British Columbia voted not to accredit graduates from the university’s school of law, because the Christian university has Orthodox Christian beliefs about marriage and sexuality.

Trinity Western University is the only Canadian university to have received an A+ grade in quality of education over the past seven years, yet in 2014, the Law Society of Upper Canada labeled the students’ views as “abhorrent” and “not welcome in the public marketplace.”

Without a degree from an accredited law school, students cannot practice law in the province.

Similarly, in 2015, the mayor of Salem, Massachusetts, lambasted Gordon College, a Christian university, for its beliefs about marriage after the university president wrote to President Barack Obama asking for a religious exemption from a forthcoming executive order on hiring practices related to sexual orientation and gender identity.

The mayor decided to prohibit Gordon College and its students from using a local meeting hall they had used for years. Lynn Public Schools then banned Gordon College students who were majoring in education from training as student teachers at local public schools. The New England Association of Schools and Colleges even held a special meeting to consider revoking Gordon’s accreditation.

In both the United States and Canada, governments and accreditors are threatening the ability of graduates of Christian universities to work in the professions for which they have been trained.

Canadian members of parliament also denied member Rachael Harder the chance to chair the Status of Women Committee led by the Liberal Party solely because of her pro-life views. Despite the chair position being procedural, not political in nature, the Trudeau government refused to allow Harder’s “outrageous” views into any kind of position of authority.

Much like a scene from “Mean Girls,” politicians staged a walkout to protest Harder’s appointment because of her viewpoint on abortion. Ultimately, they gave the position to a member of parliament who did not want it.

In the United States, senators, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.; and Al Franken, D-Minn., and leftist organizations like the American Bar Association have smeared judicial nominees like Judges Amy Barrett and Steve Grasz and public officials like Kelvin Cochran and Russell Vought as “unqualified” and “hateful,” simply because of their Christian beliefs. Their ability to serve as judges, work in government, or lead a fire department is being questioned solely because of their religious views.

In both the United States and Canada, the ability to work in government and pursue your dreams is becoming increasingly dependent on one’s beliefs about sexuality, biology, and the beginning of human life. These developments should concern all those who believe in the right to not only hold religious beliefs in private, but to exercise them in public.

Canada was founded on the idea of religious pluralism, allowing Catholics living in Quebec to freely practice their faith. The United States was founded as a refuge for religious dissenters, as the Puritans fled persecution from the Church of England.

It is this commitment to religious liberty for all that has led America to defend religious minorities around the world, including Jews, Muslims, Baha’is, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians. The U.S. and Canada were the only two countries that had ambassadors for international religious freedom. But Trudeau opted to dissolve Canada’s office of ambassador of religious freedom.

If America and Canada, who are traditionally the foremost defenders of religious freedom around the world, are now forsaking that value, what will happen to the Rohingya Muslims in Burma, the Christians and Yazidis facing genocide by ISIS, and the Jews who are facing renewed anti-Semitism in Europe, all of whom the U.S. has fervently advocated for?

Right now, Canadians and Americans of faith have the opportunity to form strategic alliances, especially as they relate to marriage, family, and the free exercise of religion. But the growing threats to religious liberty and freedom of conscience make it especially urgent that these partnerships develop quickly.

Many of the world’s most dire and violent religious conflicts are rooted in lack of respect for religious freedom and religious diversity. There is no time to waste.

Government Agencies Run-A-Muck : Supreme Court to Take Anothe Look

The problem is that for decades, progressive socialist have controlled the legislature and the office of the president which allowed them to appoint judges in the courts that are now and were then more then willing to allow agencies, like the EPA, the DNR and others to make decisions that are unconstitutional at the least and criminal at the worst.

Barack's over-riding agenda and ideology was taking the freedom from the citizens to chose. Barack understood what he could do with citizens without options.

Perhaps the worst agency of all is the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). For decades this agency, has made decisions that begs even the slightest notion of common scene, partisan and with criminal intent to destroy individual freedom.

Over the last 8 years this agency has move so far into the darkest reaches of unethical behavior of lawlessness it becomes seen as a governing body that is totally apart from the rest of the federal government. 

To say this agency was out of control under the progressive socialist democrats doesn't adequately describe the actions of the EPA. The hope now is that the new head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt will gut the monsters that have driven the narrative of this agency which demands total authority without question.

Why the Supreme Court Shouldn’t Bow to Government Agencies

Elizabeth Slattery / @EHSlattery / January 02, 2018

Many Americans would be surprised to learn that a series of Supreme Court decisions allow officials in administrative agencies—rather than judges—to have the final say in interpreting statutes and rules.

Administrative agencies touch on nearly every aspect of Americans’ daily lives—from highways to electricity to health, and often with limited supervision from the other branches of government. All three branches of government have acknowledged the problems posed by unaccountable government bureaucrats who perform legislative, executive, and judicial functions.

Congress has its Article I Project to regain authority lawmakers have ceded to agencies over the decades, and President Donald Trump is requiring agencies to cut two old regulations before enacting any new ones. Now it’s time for the Supreme Court to fix the problem it created when it mandated deference to administrative agencies.

Read more about “Doomed Deference Doctrines” in this new Heritage Legal Memorandum. In that series of decisions, the Supreme Court turned on its head Marbury v. Madison’s declaration that it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

The high court held in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council that when reviewing an administrative agency’s interpretation of laws it is charged with carrying out, judges should defer to the agency’s judgment if the law is not clear and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.

Decisions in Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. and Auer v. Robbins require judges to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations unless that interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent. Under National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, an agency’s interpretation of a statute can supersede a court’s interpretation, and City of Arlington v. FCC requires courts to defer to an agency’s jurisdictional determinations.

Taken together, these decisions stack the deck in favor of agencies. They require judges to “bow to the nation’s most powerful litigant, the government, for no reason other than it is the government,” as 3rd Circuit Judge Kent Jordan wrote in a concurring opinion last year.

Several Supreme Court justices have expressed concerns about these deference doctrines and indicated their interest in chipping away at Seminole Rock and Auer, in particular.

Justice Clarence Thomas frequently has commented on the constitutional problem created by both Seminole Rock and Auer. In a 2015 concurring opinion, Thomas explained that “giving legal effect” to an agency’s interpretation of regulations “effects a transfer of the judicial power” to the agency.
In the same case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that he would like to explore “the validity of Seminole Rock” and the “aggrandizement of the power of administrative agencies.”

Chief Justice John Roberts also indicated that he “await[s] a case in which the issue is properly raised and argued.” Though Roberts was more guarded in his views than some of his colleagues, he appears to be open to the possibility of revisiting—and potentially reversing—Seminole Rock and Auer.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a powerful concurring opinion when he was an appeals court judge, arguing that the Chevron decision is “difficult to square with the Constitution.” Though the case addressed judges deferring to agency interpretation of statutes, his criticisms apply with equal force to judges deferring to agency interpretation of regulations.

The Supreme Court justices won’t have to look far to find such a case. A petition currently pending before them squarely presents the opportunity to review Seminole Rock and Auer.

In Garco Construction Inc. v. Secretary of the Army, a construction company that had a contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build Air Force housing in Montana is seeking to recoup extra costs it incurred due to the Corps’ contradictory interpretations of an applicable regulation. The company lost in the lower courts (with the appeals court deferring to the government’s interpretation of the regulation) and asked the Supreme Court to take up the case.

The justices will have a chance to review and discuss this petition on Friday, Jan. 5, their first conference of 2018.

With any luck, the court will agree to hear the Garco case and heed the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who said a government agency “is free to interpret its own regulations,” but “courts will decide—with no deference to the agency—whether that interpretation is correct.”

The rationale for Seminole Rock and other deference doctrines is crumbling. It’s time for the Supreme Court to take back its authority to say what the law is.

 Listen to “SCOTUS 101”: Elizabeth Slattery and Tiffany Bates bring you up to speed on their Supreme Court podcast.

California Proposes Free Abortion Pills for Students : Who Are These People?

How do citizens that must live and work in the real world comprehend the complete and total insanity of those that are supposedly responsible for the general welfare of the public? As days go by, I am having increased difficulty finding the words to describe what I feel and think about how pathologically disturbed these people are. Every day it's something new that challenges our ethical and moral standards for living in a civil society.

Who are these people? Where in the hell do they come from? They can't all be in California, can they? It does seem though that if there are people with atrocious neurological diseases they find their way to California.

Here's a suggestion for the good people in California, stop voting for progressive socialist liberal democrats. If you don't stop voting for these depraved socialist sociopaths, California will become totally inhospitable. The great state of California deserves better.

California Democrat Wants to Mandate State Colleges Have Abortion Pills Ready for Students

Grace Carr / @gbcarr24 / December 29, 2017

California lawmakers are debating whether to adopt a bill that would require California’s public universities and colleges to offer abortion drugs at their health centers.

Senate Bill 320, sponsored by state Sen. Connie Leyva, D-Chino, will mandate that the state’s community colleges and public universities provide women with abortion pills for up to 10 weeks of pregnancy so they don’t face the “burden” of traveling to obtain an abortion.

While the bill—if passed—isn’t set to take effect until 2020, it would also require the state’s public university health centers that don’t already offer abortion pills to provide transportation to an abortion facility or to arrange an abortion for students requesting the procedure.

“If a UC, CSU, or community college already has a student health center, it makes sense that they provide this health care service within that facility so that students do not have to travel many miles away from their work and school commitments in order to [have an abortion],” Leyva said, according to LifeNews. She claims the bill is a necessity so that young collegiate women don’t have to foot the cost of abortions themselves or travel long distances to have abortions.

The state’s health centers already provide reproductive services like birth control, condoms, and STD testing, but this bill seeks to stretch its offerings to a whole new level. The bill would also require the schools to cover the cost of the abortions.

“Not only will this bill destroy the lives of innocent children, but the chemical abortion medication being mandated has a notorious reputation for being very painful and traumatic,” California Family Council CEO Jonathan Keller said, LifeNews reports. “These drugs are known for not just causing physical pain to the mother, but psychological anguish that could last a lifetime,” he added.

“These pills will hurt our daughters and end the lives of our grandchildren by forcefully inducing a miscarriage up to 10 weeks of pregnancy, with hemorrhaging and delivery of the baby into the dorm room toilet,” said Californians for Life, according to LifeNews. The pro-life group is made up of a diverse coalition of students, educators, legislative advocates, churches, families, business owners, and citizens who are united together to end abortion in California, according to its website.

Pro-lifers are also displeased that the already taxpayer-funded colleges would require citizens against abortion to fund those procedures at the state’s public higher education institutions.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Drone Warfare In The 'Brave New World' of Technology(Video)

Here is quick video of what the future might look like in drone warfare as technology moves forward. I don't know how real this is but I believe we are limited only by our ability to think and innovate.

Breaking News : Hillary Has Found Work - A Hands On Job

This might be breaking news - it has been learned that Hillary has a job for the near future and it pays well. She is supposed to scare rats off of trucks after the are loaded in the terminal.

I don't know if that is true but it looks and sounds reasonable enough given her present condition of employment.

It was said after  being kicked to the curb on the national stage, life was difficult at first coming to grips with being a loser again, but now she seems to have turned the corner and is looking to make up for lost time.

Go get 'em Hillary, we are all pulling for you.

Big Government Ideology and Ignorance : The Great Depression Failures

In reality there isn't any rocket science involved when the question comes up about government interference or regulation of any institution or industry that provides goods or services to the general public. The answer has to be NO! Never!

This history of when the ''feel gooders'' take a stand and demand government must act to level the playing field for everyone, it just means that instead of success for those that are smarter, work harder and show innovation will be penalized. 

What the progressive socialist means, it's better that everyone fails together. That way no feelings are hurt and misery has a lot of company. Oh, except for those in control, the socialist liberals located far away from the trenches.

How Big Government Made the Depression Worse, and Would Do Similar Damage Today

Walter E. Williams / January 03, 2018

We are a nation of 325 million people. We have a bit of control over the behavior of our 535 elected representatives in Congress, the president, and the vice president. But there are seven unelected people who have life-and-death control over our economy and hence our lives—the seven governors of the Federal Reserve Board.

The Federal Reserve Board controls our money supply. Its governors are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate and serve 14-year staggered terms. They have the power to cripple an economy, as they did during the late 1920s and early 1930s. Their inept monetary policy threw the economy into the Great Depression, during which real output in the United States fell nearly 30 percent and the unemployment rate soared as high as nearly 25 percent.

The most often-stated cause of the Great Depression is the October 1929 stock market crash. Little is further from the truth. The Great Depression was caused by a massive government failure led by the Federal Reserve’s rapid 25 percent contraction of the money supply.

The next government failure was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which increased U.S. tariffs by more than 50 percent. Those failures were compounded by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation. Leftists love to praise New Deal interventionist legislation. But FDR’s very own treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, saw the folly of the New Deal, writing:

''We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. … We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … and an enormous debt to boot!''

The bottom line is that the Federal Reserve Board, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, and Roosevelt’s New Deal policies turned what would have been a two-, three-, or four-year sharp downturn into a 16-year affair.

Here’s my question never asked about the Federal Reserve Act of 1913: How much sense does it make for us to give seven unelected people life-and-death control over our economy and hence our lives? While you’re pondering that question, consider another: Should we give the government, through the Federal Communications Commission, control over the internet?

During the Clinton administration, along with the help of a Republican-dominated Congress, the visionary 1996 Telecommunications Act declared it “the policy of the United States” that internet service providers and websites be “unfettered by federal or state regulation.” The act sought “to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.”

In 2015, the Obama White House pressured the FCC to create the Open Internet Order, which has been branded by its advocates as net neutrality. This move overthrew the spirit of the Telecommunications Act. It represents creeping FCC jurisdiction, as its traditional areas of regulation—such as broadcast media and telecommunications—have been transformed by the internet, or at least diminished in importance.

Fortunately, it’s being challenged by the new FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, who has announced he will repeal the FCC’s heavy-handed 2015 internet regulations. The United States has been the world leader in the development of internet technology precisely because it has been relatively unfettered by federal and state regulation.

The best thing that the U.S. Congress can do for internet entrepreneurs and internet consumers is to send the FCC out to pasture as it did with the Civil Aeronautics Board, which regulated the airline industry, and the Interstate Commerce Commission, which regulated the trucking industry.

When we got rid of those regulatory agencies, we saw a greater number of competitors, and consumers paid lower prices. Giving the FCC the same medicine would allow our high-tech industry to maintain its world leadership position.