NYC Just Did Something Astonishing For One Of America’s Most Infamous Traitors

Ethel Rosenberg was sentenced to death for treason in 1953 by the US, along with her husband, Julius Rosenberg. She was convicted of helping pass atomic secrets to the Soviet Union.

Now, she is being honored by the New York City Council.

Three council members praised Rosenberg, a Lower East Side resident, for “demonstrating great bravery” in her role in a 1935 strike against the National New York Packing and Supply Co. After she joined the workers’ union at that company, she became a supporter of the Communist Party.

The council members also said that she had been “wrongfully” executed by the United States.

Councilman Daniel Dromm, D-Queens, stated: “A lot of hysteria was created around anti-communism and how we had to defend our country, and these two people were traitors and we rushed to judgment and they were executed.”

Soviet spies such as the Rosenbergs were integral to Soviet efforts to build a bomb.

Because of their spying operations in the West, the Soviets knew of the Manhattan Project before even the FBI.

The Soviets ended up detonating their own atomic bomb in 1949, much earlier than expected.

At the peak of their arsenal in the 1980s, the Soviets had approximately 45,000 nuclear weapons in their stockpile.

What do you think of Ethel Rosenberg being praised by the New York City Council?

Wow: Hillary Just Suffered A Huge Unexpected Campaign Blow, And Trump Could Get A Big Win From It

In a stunning move, the Teamsters Union wants to meet with Donald Trump before endorsing Hillary Clinton for president. The move is uncharacteristic of the Teamsters Union, which has historically endorsed Democrat Party nominees.

The union backs up their endorsements with millions of dollars of contributions to Democrats each year. In 2014, their budget for Democrats, Democrat Pacs, and Democrat candidates exceeded 3.6 million dollars.

The largest recipient of their political contributions is the Senate Majority PAC, whose purpose statement reads “Senate Majority PAC is fighting to take back the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate.” That’s what makes the union’s desire to meet with Trump perplexing.

Trump is running for the Republican Party nomination for president, so the decision of the executive board of the Teamsters Union to reach out to Trump before endorsing Clinton has many questioning their motives.

Trump has declared that he will unite the American people and “make America great again.” While the Teamsters Union is still deciding who they will endorse for president, from all appearances, and from their own statements, they’re considering Trump.

FOX News has learned exclusively the 26 member board decided unanimously to withhold a presidential endorsement… Union executives told me they want to sit down with Republican candidates, most notably, front-runner Donald Trump who has collaborated with unionized work forces across his real estate career.”

Recently, Rand Paul called Trump a “clown.” Apparently, the Teamsters Union does not see Trump as such; and if officially endorsed by the union, Trump will undoubtedly receive a boost from union voters.

With the potential for an endorsement from the Teamsters Union, Trump stands to gain more credibility with critics who may see him as divisive.

What do you think? Should the Teamsters Union endorse Donald Trump?

Hillary Just Finally Announced Her Position On The Keystone Pipeline- Her Logic Is A Head-Scratcher…

On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton has been repeatedly asked about whether she supports the Keystone Pipeline, and she has repeatedly not answered that question definitively- until today.

Now, she has come out against the decision–but her logic in doing so is puzzling.

Speaking today in Iowa, she stated: “I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone pipeline as what I believe it is, a distraction from important work we have to do on climate change.” Right after that, she said: “And unfortunately from my perspective, one that interferes with our ability to move forward with all the other issues,” and then added: “Therefore I oppose it.”

Clinton added her reasoning for delaying the decision: “I was in a unique position as secretary of state at the start of this process, and not wanting to interfere with ongoing decision making that the President and Secretary (of State John) Kerry have to do in order to make whatever final decisions they need.”

She added: “So I thought this would be decided by now, and therefore I could tell you whether I agree or disagree, but it hasn’t been decided, and I feel now I’ve got a responsibility to you and voters who ask me about this.”

Activists interrupted a Clinton event on Friday, holding signs against the proposed pipeline and refusing to take a seat. They eventually walked out of the event.

Clinton has faced the difficulty of deciding to stand with environmental activists, who oppose the pipeline, and union activists, who have largely supported the pipeline.

Bernie Sanders, a rival of Clinton’s for the Democratic presidential nomination, said he was glad Clinton has “finally” decided to oppose the pipeline.

He stated:

As a senator who has vigorously opposed the Keystone pipeline from the beginning, I am glad that Secretary Clinton finally has made a decision and I welcome her opposition to the pipeline. Clearly it would be absurd to encourage the extraction and transportation of some of the dirtiest fossil fuel on the planet.

According to the New York Times, that is one of the chief reasons the pipeline is being criticized: the petroleum from the Alberta oil sands would be “an unconventional energy source requiring far more fuel, water and carbon emissions to extract than conventional oil and gas.”

On the other hand, the project is estimated to add $3.4 billion to the US economy.

What do you think of Clinton’s decision on the pipeline?

The Economics Of Hillary Clinton

In a recent Labor Day speech to union workers in Illinois, Hillary Clinton declared that if she is elected president of the United States, she would make sure that “some employers go to jail for wage theft and all the other abuses they engage in.” Her incendiary comments were obvious “red meat” for the audience, but it also helped to clarify her own economic views and how she would govern if elected.

Even though Clinton is somewhat mired down in a scandal involving her email servers used while she was at Foggy Bottoms, it seems that she will survive it — as she and her husband have survived every other scandal that has defined their political careers — and be the official Democratic Party nominee. Given the current state of US politics and given the fact that there doesn’t seem to be a Republican challenger who can stand up to her star power, at least from this current vantage point, it seems Clinton will slide into the office for where she has been “destined” since 1992.

Given that there is a very good chance Clinton will march into the White House in January 2017, we should scrutinize her economic beliefs and her proposed economic policies, as we may well have to be living them in less than two years. Not surprising for people interested in economics of liberty (or, better put, the economics of prosperity), Hillary’s policies will disappoint and disappoint greatly.

If one combines that Clinton line with other things she has said about economic policy, as well as what is written on her website about what she calls “the economy of tomorrow,” a picture emerges that does not bring confidence to anyone who understands the role freedom plays in a market economy. Like Bernie Sanders, whose policies and viewpoints I already have covered, Clinton takes a hardcore statist approach to economic policies.

When she was First Lady, Clinton spoke of “channeling Eleanor Roosevelt.” In the current campaign, at least what she declares on her website and in her stump speeches, she also channels Eleanor’s husband, Franklin. Although Clinton claims that her proposals are part of “the economy of tomorrow,” the hard reality is that they essentially are the economy of the New Deal, and the part of the New Deal that created so much damage that a Congress dominated by Roosevelt’s own party repealed much of it. Like her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, Clinton is trying to revive a second New Deal.

While Franklin Roosevelt placed his policies under the umbrella of the “Four Freedoms,” Clinton has characterized her proposals under the aegis of the “Four Fights” in which she promises to “fight” for this and “fight” for that. She especially claims to be fond of the American middle class, so we should see how her plans advance middle-class prospects.

Actions vs. Rhetoric

Before examining Hillary Clinton’s economic proposals, however, I remind readers that this is not another screed to satisfy the Hillary-phobia Republicans and what they have expressed in the past two decades. This opinion piece does one thing: scrutinize her economic ideas, and allow readers to make their own decisions about her candidacy.

We also need to separate Clinton’s rhetoric from her own actions, and especially the economics of her current life, for there are no greater champions for what is derisively called “crony capitalism” than Clinton and her husband, and perhaps no two people in current public life have benefited from this economic hybrid more than the Clintons. Hillary Clinton will champion the middle class in her rhetoric, but the dynamics and the history of crony capitalism tell us that the middle class and the poor suffer the most from such an arrangement of political economy.

The Crony-Capitalist Clintons

(To the credit of some on the Left, a couple of Progressive outlets have exposed Clinton’s close ties with the firms that dominate an industry that she denounces in her campaign rhetoric.)

When Bill Clinton left office, he and his wife essentially had a negative net worth, as their legal liabilities well outstripped their personal assets. Thanks to some outside help, they were able to find lodging in the tony Hamptons, which is not exactly a middle-class suburb; and soon afterward, money began to fill their bank accounts. Because Hillary was tied to her US Senate salary, having been elected to office by New York voters in 2000, the couple depended upon Bill making speech after speech and collecting huge fee after fee.

The focal point of the Clintons and crony capitalism is not the huge speaker fees that both Bill and Hillary received (after Hillary left the State Department), however, but the role that the Clinton Foundation has played in turning the Clintons into multi-millionaires. To be blunt, the Clintons essentially ran a protection racket through the foundation that would have made Don Corleone blush.

When she was at State, Hillary would grant a firm some legal or administrative favors, and then the firm would make large contributions to the Clinton Foundation or had Bill make a speech with an accompanying honorarium that could take care of numerous middle class families for a year. For example, there was the case of the Swiss Bank UBS, as noted in a recent posting by The Atlantic:

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs.The Wall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

Not only did UBS pay Bill directly, but it also contributed more than $600,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and this hardly was the only time something like this happened. There are no direct examples of the quid pro quo in which someone might have hard evidence that Hillary sold favors at State, but one cannot help but look suspicious.

The critics of Hillary’s actions correctly note that trading favors for large sums of money and running a populist campaign do not go together. Furthermore, as this article examines her “populist” economic platform, one suspects that competition from Bernie Sanders and the shadow of Elizabeth Warren in the background have had a lot to do with Clinton’s newfound “discovery” that Wall Street has some shady characters (including those who have donated to the Clinton Foundation or paid Bill and/or Hillary a tidy speaker’s fee).

There is no doubt that Clinton, like Sanders and Warren, has a “zero-sum” view of economic activity, and thus believes she is fully-justified in promoting her own versions of economic statism. Furthermore, she and her husband, along with about everyone else in her circle, has done well personally by pushing “protection racket economics,” and has come to see businesses and business owners as bottomless wells from which to draw funds both for herself and for her pet projects.

Clinton, Alinsky, and “New Era” Politics

Unlike her husband, Hillary Clinton was a disciple of Saul Alinksy, the radical Marxist who employed social activism as a means of destroying both private and governmental institutions so that a “new era” could take its place. Like so many other radicals, Alinksy was a master of destruction and knew which buttons to push and how to organize people to demand favors for themselves; but he had absolutely no understanding of how economics works, and, he had no interest in finding out. The entrepreneur, in his view, was a bloodsucker, and eliminating that parasite was foundational to all of his activism.

While Hillary is not as ideological in her economic approaches as are Sanders and Warren (and even Barack Obama with his “you didn’t build that” mentality to entrepreneurship), she is just as destructive. An examination of her economic proposals on the campaign website demonstrates that hard fact. While she does not claim to be an outright socialist like Bernie Sanders (who apparently believes he can turn the entire country into Sweden, or at least Minnesota), nonetheless it is clear that Sanders — and Elizabeth Warren — have greatly influenced her campaign.

Campaigning for a New New Deal

Like Sanders, who wants our future to look a lot like the era of eighty years ago, Clinton’s “Economy of Tomorrow” looks a whole lot like FDR’s economy of 1937, as she channels Bernie Sanders (and maybe Eleanor Roosevelt again) for the newest edition of the New Deal:

  • Build “Infrastructure”: Once again, a Democrat trots out the “infrastructure” line complete with the promise of the massive public works programs that are reminiscent of the old Public Works Administration (PWA) and, of course, the Works Progress Administration (WPA);
  • “Invest” in Research and Education: One is reminded of Bill Clinton’s old stump line, “We’re gonna invest in education and the environment.” That means Hillary looks to increase federal appropriation for government-directed research and federal education programs that are dominated by standardized testing;
  • Raise the Minimum Wage: While not endorsing $15 an hour, Clinton still repeats the old saw that raising the minimum wage magically raises all worker’s pay, suddenly making everyone wealthier;
  • Bring Back the Unions: No Democratic presidential campaign is complete without a call to return to the 1950s, when a vast swath of the US economy was dominated by labor unions. It also was a time when massive strikes and deadly labor-oriented violence ruled the day. Clinton has vowed to do whatever is possible to shore up the generous-but-usually-underfunded union pensions;
  • Further Subsidize Higher Education: A Hillary administration promises to vastly increase student subsidies for college and “forever make college affordable and available.” How she will pay for this vast new entitlement is not on the website;
  • Expand Day Care: This has been standard Democratic presidential fare since Michael Dukakis based his 1988 campaign on day care for working mothers. Enough said;
  • Promote Universal Healthcare: What people were calling HillaryCare in 1994 is now ObamaCare, and Clinton promises to protect and expand it, all while both trying to “slow the growth of overall health care costs and deliver better care to patients”;
  • Expand Social Security Benefits: Increase Social Security payouts and bring more people under the SS umbrella. Again, Clinton does not state how her government will fund this huge new entitlement.

So far, the proposals look to be something akin to New Deal Lite. However, unlike Sanders and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, who has declared in no uncertain terms that regulations place no hardships whatsoever on small or even large businesses, Clinton at least gives lip service to some of the difficulties small businesses face. Unfortunately, she also continues her party’s attack language on businesses in general, especially larger corporations.

  • “Cut Red Tape for Small Business”: Clinton says she will offer regulatory relief for small business enterprises and entrepreneurs. However, this is puzzling, given her open disdain for private enterprise, including her infamous remarks given earlier this year at a rally in Massachusetts: “Don’t let anybody, don’t let anybody tell you that, ah, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”
  • Provide Tax Relief for Small Businesses: She is not specific, but claims her administration will lessen tax burdens for small businesses, but not for “big corporations that can afford lawyers and lobbyists.”
  • Tap New Markets: Clinton promises to aid businesses in expanding domestic and overseas markets. She claims to support innovation, yet has brutally attacked the “sharing economy,” which has been a large creator of new wealth;
  • Improve Access to Capital: Clinton promises to bring together the “the best ideas from the private sector and government” to bring about more capital directed toward small business. The problem, of course, is not a lack of “ideas,” but rather the fact that so much capital has been misdirected, thanks to both Federal Reserve System policies and direct governmental interference;
  • Force Investors to Hold onto Stocks and Bonds: Clinton has resurrected the bogus criticism from the 1980s that market participants are myopic and only short-term in investment outlook, while politicians and bureaucrats care more about the long-term future. Commentator George Will even called for a law requiring anyone who purchases stock to hold onto those shares for a minimum of two years. (Economist Robert Higgs has noted that when governments are overtly hostile to private enterprise, business owners become uncertain about the future and are forced into making short-term decisions in order to survive the ordeal.);
  • Expand Employee Benefits and Force Up Minimum Wage: Clinton claims on her website, “When workers feel secure, they are more productive, efficient, and successful,” and proposes to require employers to add family leave and other benefits as well as increasing the minimum wage;
  • Rein in Wall Street: There is rich irony here, as few people have benefited more from Wall Street largess than Clinton and her husband. She defends the Dodd-Frank Act and vows to defend all its particulars, despite the fact that Dodd-Frank actually has favored larger and more politically-connected banks over the smaller community banks that Hillary claims to favor. In other words, she supports the supposed intentions of regulatory measures but quietly favors the results which turn the intentions upside down, all the while feigning outrage at the inevitable outcomes;
  • Promote “Green Energy” at the Expense of Conventional Energy Sources: This is standard fare for many in the political classes who claim that the “clean energy” sector is “creating jobs.” In reality, the new “green jobs” gobble up far more resources per unit of output than do conventional sources of energy and kill employment opportunities elsewhere.

Despite Clinton’s newfound populist rhetoric, her economic agenda reflects her own lifestyle of practicing crony capitalism. Other than her promise to remove “red tape” for small business startups, Clinton’s economic propositions follow the same depressing line that we have seen from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren: private enterprise extracts wealth from the economy, while the expansion of government power builds wealth and employment opportunities.

If one briefly can summarize Clinton’s policy-making viewpoints, it is this: Hillary Clinton believes that an economy should be a tool of the state and reflect the political interests of Washington. Anything else is called “greed,” or “profits before people.” Private employers and business owners should not seek to be profitable, but rather to be virtuous, with the necessary virtue being decided by Clinton herself.

Hillary Clinton, a beneficiary of the very worst aspects of crony capitalism, has decided after all that she is an economic populist who wants to “share the wealth.” No one is mistaking her for Bernie Sanders or even Huey Long; but, nonetheless, she is a thoroughgoing statist telling voters that the way to improve the economy is to make it more difficult to produce things and force up business costs.

She clearly is not claiming to be a free-enterpriser and stands by her view that state control of economic exchanges will result in more exchanges and improved employment prospects and increased income. What she does not say is that the very economic burdens she promises to lay upon businesses will further erode the prospects of the American middle class she claims to support.

The economics of Hillary Clinton are first and foremost about expanding the power and scope of the US government, and as government gains more control, the more employers and business owners need to be in the good graces of American politicians. To be blunt, Clinton believes that people like herself can continually loot US businesses, with business owners paying their protection money without complain. After all, Hillary knows best; just ask her.

This commentary originally appeared at and is reprinted under a Creative Commons license


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

How Capitalism Enriches The Working Class

In the early days of capitalism, there was a mass exodus from farm to factory. No one forced the masses to work in factories; they did so because factory work was better and more profitable than the alternative – sixteen hours a day of backbreaking farm labor for less money. Or begging, prostitution, crime, and starvation. As Ludwig von Mises explained in Human Action (p. 615):

The factory owners did not have the power to compel anybody to take a factory job. They could only hire people who were ready to work for the wages offered to them. Low as these wages were, they were nonetheless much more than these paupers could earn in any other field open to them. It is a distortion of facts to say that the factories carried off the housewives from the nurseries and the kitchens and the children from their play. These women had nothing to cook with and to feed their children. These children were destitute and starving. Their only refuge was the factory. It saved them in the strict sense of the term, from death by starvation.

The same can be said of the conditions in some of the poorer countries today. Labor unions that complain about “sweatshops” and “child labor” are not concerned about the well-being of Third-World children. Quite the contrary – they see them as competition for unionized labor and want them all thrown out of work and into the streets. Academics and clergy who assist labor unions in these crusades are viewed by the union bosses as useful idiots.

As capitalism developed, there was an inexorable increase in wages, thanks mostly to capital investment by entrepreneurs. Increased skill, education and experience on the part of the workers themselves (i.e., human capital development) makes them more valuable to employers by making them more productive and hence increases wages; but this is a slow and very incremental process. Capital investment, on the other hand, is capable of producing much larger leaps of productivity. Think of the productivity of a farm worker who plows a field behind a team of horses, compared to performing the same task on a tractor. He is no more skilled or hard working, yet he is infinitely more productive in terms of acres plowed per day.

When capital investment increases worker productivity, it means more profits for the capitalists who must them compete for the more skilled labor. They must pay them more or risk losing them to other employers – and losing the revenue that they can help generate as well. Under capitalism, there is a strong correlation between the growth in labor productivity and the growth in wages.

In addition to being responsible for higher wages, capitalism produces cheaper products, more products, and better quality products, thanks to the never-ending process of competition. The lowering of prices gives workers an even bigger pay boost with which they can purchase the increased array of products and services produced by capitalism, thereby enhancing their standard of living.

Nothing benefits “the masses” economically more than the growth of capitalism, for capitalists have always understood that the way to become really wealthy is to provide more value at lower prices to the largest possible customer base. Thus, products like cars and refrigerators that were at first the exclusive province of the wealthy soon became available to everyone.

Productivity growth spurred by capital investment is also responsible for shortening the work week. The only way workers can work less but get paid more is by being more productive, i.e., producing more revenue per hour or week for their employers. Human capital investment plays a role here, but so does capital investment and risk taking by entrepreneurs. Thanks largely to capital investment, the work week in America is about half of what it was at the advent of what economic historians call “the second industrial revolution” that began at the end of the American Civil War (1865). The shorter work week is the result of capitalism, not lobbying by labor unions or federal legislation that only codified what already existed.

Capitalism is also responsible for the demise of child labor. Young people originally worked in factories (and still do in many parts of the world) out of economic necessity, for the alternatives were crime, prostitution, begging, or starvation. As workers became more productive and better paid, thanks to capitalism, they were able to take their children out of the factories and send them to school. Legislation banning child labor only codified what capitalism had already been hard at work abolishing. Moreover, such legislation was usually inspired by labor unions who wanted to throw young people, who competed with union labor, out of work. This kind of “child labor” legislation was designed to harm children by depriving them and their families of economic opportunities that they so desperately needed (and need).

Capitalism has also made the workplace safer. In relatively “dangerous,” strenuous, or dirty jobs, employers must pay a wage premium because relatively few people want such jobs. Economists call this a “compensating difference.” The man who rides on the outside of the garbage truck at daybreak, in the winter, in the northern states, does so because he makes a very good salary – better than any of his alternatives. Profit-seeking capitalists have always understood that they need to pay more to get people to perform risky or dangerous work. Therefore, they have also always understood that there is profit in making the work place safer. A safer workplace requires a lesser compensating difference. Lower wages paid to the workers can mean higher profits for the capitalist. Thus, the American workplace had become safer and safer for generations before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was established in the 1970s.   Indeed, OSHA has often reduced workplace safety with its clumsy and stupid workplace rules enforced by government bureaucrats with no knowledge of the specific work that they are regulating.

Labor unions, on the other hand, have never benefited anyone but the highly-paid union bosses and some of their members, who have never accounted for more than about one-third of the American labor force (less than ten percent today in the private sector). If unions are successful at raising wages above market rates with strikes, strike threats, shut downs, sabotage, or negative smear campaigns against corporate executives (“corporate campaigning”), the laws of economics dictate that some of their members will lose their jobs – usually those with the least skill, experience, and seniority. Employers will not pay workers more than they can produce in revenue for them and still stay in business. Thus, a new hire who can produce, say, $500/week in additional revenue, is not employable if the union “succeeds” in negotiating a $700/week wage. This is the “disemployment effect” of unionism.

In addition, labor unions in America have long been the main source of anti-capitalist propaganda, and of lobbying for anti-capitalist legislation (corporation income taxes, minimum wage laws, labor regulation, etc.). By weakening capitalism in this way, they weaken the main source of productivity growth and hence the main source of wage increases. The union bosses keep their high-paying jobs by benefiting at best a slim majority of their members, while harming the economic prospects of other union members and especially non-unionized workers, whom they demonize and slander by calling them “rats,” “scabs,” and much worse. Indeed, there is a very long history of violence perpetrated against competing, non-union labor by American labor unions, who are celebrated with their own holiday at the end of every summer.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe, How Capitalism Saved America, Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today. His latest book is Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government.

This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission under a Creative Commons License. 


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth