Yesterday, Investor’s Business Daily published a new op-ed by Don Watkins and Yaron Brook, in which they argue, contra Thomas Piketty et al., that there’s nothing even remotely unfair with the wealth gap due to inheritances.
One year ago today, Islamic terrorists entered the offices of the French publication Charlie Hebdo and fired sixty shots inside of three minutes. When the smoke cleared, eleven employees of the magazine and one building maintenance worker had been killed and eleven other people in the building had been injured. The “crime” for which these individuals were being punished was blasphemy.
In the latest episode of The Yaron Brook Show, Yaron discusses various aspects of the immigration debate with Onkar Ghate, senior fellow and chief content officer of ARI.
The consensus among pundits about the Democratic presidential debate is that Hillary Clinton “won” in the sense that she came across as trustworthy, likable, and “presidential.” I’ll leave to readers to ponder the use of words like these to describe someone who has been dissembling about her emails for years now and who angrily dismissed a Congressional investigation into the cause of the Benghazi attacks with “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Donald Trump’s “straight talk” has once again created a minor controversy, at least among many commentators on the right. Trump recently told Fox News’s Bret Baier that he thinks the use of eminent domain is “a wonderful thing.” His comments give us more insight (if we needed it) into the kind of politician Trump would be.
That innovative black Americans flourished in late 19th- and early 20th-century America is a little-known part of our heritage. This talk by Andrew Bernstein celebrates a number of great minds — including Madame C.J. Walker, the first self-made female millionaire in America; George Washington Carver, who revolutionized agricultural science; and others — that, under the freedom of the capitalist system, triumphed over bigotry to reach great intellectual achievements.
When Obama announced the Iran nuclear deal, he explained the rationale for taking the diplomatic path. There were, he said, three options: negotiate as good a deal as we can get; pull out of the talks; or else take military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, igniting another Middle East war. Turns out these boil down to only two options, really, since pulling out of talks, according to Obama, would also end up leading to military action. So, if the options are diplomacy versus going to war, you can see why Obama’s case has swayed some people. But that argument hinges on a tendentious framing of the possibilities.
After the slaughter at Charlie Hebdo in Paris and the lethal shootings at a free speech event in Copenhagen, some Western intellectuals are now raising the question whether we, in the West, are guilty of abusing our free speech.
