news

Watershed Week

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

A watershed moment for Donald Trump’s second term, that’s what we may say in retrospect of this past week. Donald Trump’s two significant undertakings this time around, the Iran war and massive tariffs, are floundering. The war stalemate appears to only lead to pain for those we supposedly set out to help. The non-regime people of Iran, Israel, and our Gulf allies would benefit from the removal of the religious fanatics making existential threats far and wide. Instead, we’re dealing with a regime apparently more fanatical than the one featuring those we killed.

So long as both sides greatly restrict shipping through the Straits of Hormuz, neither the Gulf States nor Iran can export Oil, natural gas, or fertilizer, or receive needed imports. The pain is spreading to energy and fertilizer importers worldwide. U.S. farmers are already complaining about the lack of affordable fertilizer. Airlines from Europe to Australia are warning about an impending jet fuel shortage.

This situation couldn’t be what the Trump administration foresaw when they, along with Israel, undertook the latest attack on Iran. Their goals are still unclear. As I’ve pointed out, without a clear objective and a strategy to gain it, an unfocused, poorly planned effort, even if backed by massive forces, can fail.

Putin’s Ukraine invasion should’ve been a cautionary tale. In both wars, the attackers failed to appreciate their opponents’ ability to resist and anticipate possible reactions. The nimble and imaginative Ukrainians smashed the ponderous Russian columns. Years later, the stalemate continues. Of course, Donald Trump has called Putin a “Genius.”

It boggles the mind to think our leaders were unaware of the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz and the ability of Iranian drones, anti-ship rockets, mines, and small, swift boats to close it. Yet, here we are.

Both sides claim the stalemate favors them. Only one can be right. The U.S. believes its blockade will severely cripple Iran’s economy. No oil going out or goods coming in will cause oil fields to shut down and shortages of everything.

Continue reading →

A Timely Address

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas delivered an important address at the University of Texas and, in light of Progressivism becoming the face of the Democratic Party, a needed contrast with the Declaration of Independence. Not only are there more progressives running as Democrats, but supposedly moderate Democrats such as Joe Biden and newly elected Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger run as moderates, yet once in office, govern as committed Progressives.

Even the Republicans exhibit progressive tendencies. Using tariffs to restructure not only the U.S. economy but the whole world’s trading system is classic top-down industrial policy. The government taking an interest in certain companies isn’t free enterprise.

Justice Thomas paints a picture of how the Declaration holds that we are endowed with rights by our maker rather than whatever elite government “experts” deem to grant us. To the Progressive, our founding documents pertain to a bygone era and are irrelevant in the modern world. The Declaration and Constitution are quaint, but ill-suited to tackle today’s problems, such as Climate Change. They only impede necessary progress.

Thomas shows us the facts point in the other direction. Limited government with protections of person and property, even if they conflict with a government seeking the “greater good,” hasn’t ushered in the great wars and famines killing millions that top-down governments have spawned. Instead, they have fostered free markets to allocate resources more effectively, spurring innovation and enabling far more people to live longer, better lives.

Our 250th birthday is a good time to compare the route offered by what Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Gordon S. Wood termed the “Most Radical Revolution in History” with the progressive, top-down path. Before the American Revolution, dictates flowed from the top downward, while obligations moved only upward almost everywhere in the world.

Continue reading →

Anatomy of a Failure

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Middle East, Uncategorized , , , ,

We’ve ceased our offense against Iran, while the same Regime controls the vital Strait of Hormuz. Our Gulf allies are increasingly at the mercy of this ruthless gang. Israel is off bombing Hezbollah in Lebanon, trying to salvage something from this fiasco. Our other allies in Europe and Asia wonder why they’re suffering from this mess when nobody asked them. Yet the Trump administration expects them to clean it up.

How did the most powerful nation on earth end up behind the eight-ball? By breaking every rule for success. Presumably, we had an objective. We had already bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities, putting that program back, maybe for years. We controlled the skies over that nation. Having already mowed their capabilities, there is no need to mow again now.

\What was present was an Iran in dire straits. Sanctions, mismanagement of water resources, and the economy had sparked mass protests. The vast majority of Iranians demanded change. Other than those directly benefiting from the Regime, support evaporated. The Mullahs had never been in a weaker position. What was here was the chance to free the people to form a government that didn’t threaten their neighbors.

The Trump administration took notice. The President told the Iranian protesters we had their back. No question what our goal was, toppling the Regime. We started sending our forces to the area. The head Mullah and many of the key players in his government were killed from the air.

In the meantime, the Iranian government slaughtered in excess of 40,000 protesters. The streets went quiet. This result shouldn’t surprise anyone. We’ve seen this movie many times before. Ruthless dictatorial governments use their monopoly of weapons to trounce unarmed protestors. No matter how bad the government is, it stays in power because nobody can shoot back. Cubans have lived at the subsistence level for decades. Does it even have an economy? Still, the communists persist.

Oil-rich Venezuela has followed the same path. When faced with losing power, there is no limit to the pain the absolute rulers will inflict on their defenseless citizenry. The picture of an unarmed Tiananmen Square protester standing in front of massive tanks illustrates the imbalance.

The only successful revolutions in history took place where armed people existed from the start, or military units refused to fire on the people, and changed sides. Imagine how poorly our forefathers would’ve fared if only the redcoats had arms. Instead, we turned them back at Lexington and Concord. To have a “shot heard round the world, ” you have to have a gun. The minutemen had guns and knew how to use them. The rest is history.

Other revolutions, such as the French and Russian, saw military units refuse to fire on the people and turn against their rulers. No matter how great the air superiority, only armed resistance on the ground can drive out the despots.

Continue reading →

Not The Change We Need

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Don’t count on things getting better. When we’ve gone through a rough patch, we wish the next election would result in greater competence, but that’s hope over experience. The last election saw a voter revolt against the worst inflation in 40 years, wide-open borders, and the Afghan fiasco, which encouraged bad actors to start two ugly wars. The relatively solid economy and the absence of major fighting during Donald Trump’s first term fostered nostalgia.

Trump promised peace, safety, and prosperity in 2024. A little over one year in, we still have rising prices, albeit at a somewhat lower rate, violence on the streets in cities like Minneapolis, and an ever-widening war in the Middle East. Maybe we didn’t want wide open borders, letting in bad people, but we want the good contributing to our nation, treated humanely, not terrified and abruptly deported.

Given where we are, how is that election working out? More importantly, will the future election bring improvement? Plagued by high prices, poorly conceived international actions that have led to more bloodshed and increased costs, civil unrest, lawfare, executive orders that ignore Congress, and corruption, a change in leadership surely will lead to a different direction.

But will it? Everything we’re complaining about today has its roots in the prior Democratic administration: high prices, almost double-digit inflation. Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Gaza weren’t examples of international stability. The Black Lives Matter riots weren’t peaceful. Forgiving billions in student loans by executive order, the courts were Trump’s second home during the 2024 campaign, and if you wanted Biden’s attention, his son had a painting for you.

Yes, you can argue that the current Trump administration is worse in all these areas, but that is just because Trump exceeded them, not because he initiated them. Just as Trump followed and expanded on the Democrats’ path, there is no reason to believe the Democrats won’t build on and exceed the present administration in these areas. A continuing game of ” Can you top this?”

Instead of a fresh approach to our myriad of problems, the Democratic leaders with the loudest voices promise more of the same. From California to New York City, Newsome to Mandani, and all Blue spots in between, we hear the same old, same old. The rich are getting richer at the expense of the rest of us, and not “paying their fair share.” Corporations, you name the place, are price-gouging, and inequality is growing by leaps and bounds.

Given these diagnoses of our problems, the solutions have a familiar ring to them. Increase taxes on those nasty billionaires and millionaires’ ill-gotten gains. In California, increasing income taxes on the “rich” isn’t enough; we have to tax their accumulated wealth. Investigate companies whose prices have moved up significantly. Stronger price controls on things like rent in New York City. Hike up the minimum wage to give everyone a raise. Close the growing gap between the haves and have-nots by increasing transfer payments.

Continue reading →

The Real Trump

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

We finally have the Supreme Court tariff decision. Even though they took too long in a faster-moving world, it is as predicted. The Court ruled that all tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were illegal in a 6-to-3 decision. The majority acknowledged what the first article of our Constitution clearly states: that duties (tariffs), like all taxes, are the exclusive province of Congress.

Predictably, the President threw a hissy fit. His main ire fell on two of the justices he appointed, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett,, even going so far as saying their families are ashamed of them or should be. At the same time, he praised the three conservative judges who backed the tariffs, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh. The latter wrote the key dissenting opinion. He made three points: the statute gives unlimited tariff power, the linking tariff power to the ability to conduct foreign affairs, and refunding the money would be “messy.

All three justices claim to be Scalia originalists, meaning simply applying the original intent of the law. What is confusing about the original intent of the first article of the Constitution that gives the power of the purse, including duties, exclusively to Congress? The thinking behind this traces back through British history and law, and the framers’ intent is crystal clear. What part of “no taxation without representation” don’t they understand? The majority in Chief Justice’s opinion stated the obvious.

The contention that the President needs the power to impose a punishing tax on U.S. citizens to conduct foreign affairs would be news to the Founding Fathers. This idea is like a child demanding his way, or he’ll hurt himself. As two recent studies have shown, Americans, not foreigners, pay 90% of the tariffs.

Continue reading →