Latest news with #Goldwater
Yahoo
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Karoline Leavitt Gets Instant Fact-Check After Outrageous New Claim About Trump
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt received a quick history lesson on Monday after she made a wild claim about President Donald Trump. Leavitt said Trump's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities over the weekend shows he has the 'strength' that his predecessors lacked. 'And nobody knows what it means to accomplish peace through strength better than President Trump,' she said during a Fox News interview. 'He is the one who came up with that motto, and that foreign policy doctrine, and he successfully implemented it in his first term.' But Trump isn't the one who 'came up with' the motto. 'Peace through strength' has been used in American politics for decades, including by 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater and, perhaps most famously, by President Ronald Reagan. It's the motto of the USS Ronald Reagan, and has made frequent appearances in Republican campaign platforms since Reagan's time. As a concept, it goes back centuries ― as far back as the Roman Empire. Leavitt's critics sent her back to school: Actually @PressSec — it was Roman Emperor Hadrian who came up with 'peace through strength.'Not Donald Trump. — Jo (@JoJoFromJerz) June 23, 2025 Leavitt is ridiculous - either impossibly dumb or an incredibly blatant liar. "Peace Through Strength" was the motto of the US 8th Air Force. Barry Goldwater used the phrase in campaign ads in 1964. And, most famously, it was a slogan of Reagan's. Trump did not come up with it. — James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) June 23, 2025 I mean she can't really think that, right? It was very famously a Ronald Reagan slogan. — Ben Yelin (@byelin) June 23, 2025 The Emperor Hadrian would like a word. — Joe Perticone (@JoePerticone) June 23, 2025 In case one forgot (or never knew): — Michael McFaul (@McFaul) June 23, 2025 Sweet baby yams, this lady doesn't realize there are millions upon millions of Americans who are alive today that were alive during Reagan's presidency! — Tom Ryan (@tomryanlaw) June 23, 2025 Not only did Goldwater and Reagan say it… 'Peace Through Strength' is the motto of the Eighth Air Force, established in — The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) June 23, 2025 I'm sick and tired of a lot with this admin about many things, but one of the most annoying ones is the constant attempt to rip off others slogans and ideas and gaslight Americans that everything is Trump's creation. His need to constantly feed his ego about everything is his… — Camille MacKenzie (@CamRMacKenzie) June 23, 2025 It would be laughable if it was not so sad. She has a college education and is a digital combination is just amazing! The things you can find! GoogleAIA libraryA history class — Farah Pandith (@Farah_Pandith) June 23, 2025 The phrase "peace through strength" is most commonly attributed to the Roman Emperor Hadrian (reigned 117–138 CE) — Compass Vermont (@VTCommonGround) June 23, 2025 He also coined the phrase 'speak softly and carry a big stick' #TheMoreYouKnow 💫 — Jon Evans (@jonevnz) June 23, 2025 Does ANYONE in this administration read ANY history? What's worse: Lying or ignorance? — craasch (@craasch) June 23, 2025 "Peace through strength" was a key foreign policy doctrine of President Ronald Reagan. Her lies are much worse when she's not wearing her cross. — Alex Cole (@acnewsitics) June 23, 2025
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Texans Gain the Right To Try Individualized Medical Treatments
If you're so sick that you have nothing to lose and you're looking the Grim Reaper in the face, why shouldn't you be able to try experimental and officially unapproved treatments? While libertarians recognize individuals' right to take their own risks, even those of a more nanny-ish disposition have a hard time coming up with answers to that question. That's why the Right to Try movement has taken off across the country, marking its latest victory in Texas. "In a major win for rare disease patients, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed Goldwater's Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act," Brian Norman of the Goldwater Institute, which champions right-to-try legislation, wrote last week. "Championed by Senator Paul Bettencourt and Representative Ken King, SB 984 expands Goldwater's original Right to Try law to potentially lifesaving treatments that are designed specifically for individual patients." Right-to-try laws have been passed in at least 41 states, largely based on model legislation crafted by the Goldwater Institute that allows those with terminal illnesses access to experimental treatments. Colorado was the first to adopt right-to-try, though Texas wasn't far behind, passing such a law in 2015. Counterpart federal legislation passed in 2018. At the time, President Donald Trump, then in his first term, commented, "With the Right to Try law I'm signing today, patients with life-threatening illnesses will finally have access to experimental treatments that could improve or even cure their conditions." In 2023, the Lone Star State expanded right-to-try to patients with chronic ailments. That law specified that "it is the intent of the legislature to allow patients with a severe chronic disease to use potentially life-altering investigational drugs, biological products, and devices." By that time, some states, including Arizona, had already passed laws expanding right-to-try to include individualized treatments that hadn't been contemplated in the original legislation—or even by most physicians, not long in the past. "Rapid medical innovations have made it possible to take an individual's genetic information and create a treatment for that individual person," notes the Goldwater-sponsored Right to Try website. "More patients, especially those with rare and ultra-rare illnesses, will pursue these treatments when they have exhausted other options. Unfortunately, the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration]'s current regulatory scheme is not designed to handle these kinds of individual treatments, and that will keep life-saving medication out of the hands of patients unless reforms are adopted." Just days ago, Cincinnati's WKRC marked National Cancer Survivor's Month by highlighting patients who benefited from radiation and chemotherapy treatments that were tailored to their bodies. "Precision medicine is finding mutations or proteins in an individual's body that suggests that certain drugs can be used to treat that patient not only most effectively but with the least side effects," Michael Gieske, director of the Lung Cancer Screening Program at St. Elizabeth Healthcare, told WKRC. In Texas, legislation to clear the way for patients to try such treatments before they've been formally approved came in the form of SB 984, which "establishes a pathway by which patients with rare or ultra-rare diseases may seek, under their doctor's care, personalized treatments developed in federally approved facilities." The bill's sponsor in the Texas Senate, Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R–Houston), boasted, "Texas is again leading the nation in fighting for the most vulnerable patients, whose only hope lies in cutting-edge, individualized treatments not traditional clinical trials, and for me, the coolest thing you can do as a legislator is pass a bill that saves lives." None of these laws can guarantee that an experimental treatment will actually improve a terminal or chronic patient's condition, of course. But there's no good reason for blocking access to promising or even long-shot treatments when patients have run out of other options. Through the various incarnations of proposed legislation, the Right to Try movement has sought to expand patients' choices and reduce bureaucratic barriers to treatment. But it's not perfect. Right-to-try laws create exceptions to red tape that stands between patients and potentially life-saving treatments, but they don't fully empower people to make their own decisions, nor do they eliminate the bureaucratic hurdles that slow the approval of medicines and medical devices. "Drug lag costs lives because people suffer and die from disease that might be treatable, if only there were more investment in finding a cure," argued Jessica Flanigan, an associate professor at the University of Richmond, in her 2017 book, Pharmaceutical Freedom: Why Patients Have a Right to Self-Medicate. "Requirements that raise the cost of development make it less likely that they will succeed. Premarket testing conditions also cost lives because patients with conditions that could be treated or cured by unapproved drugs suffer and die while they are waiting for approval." Flanigan recommends a fully libertarian approach that would remove the restraints from people's freedom to try medications and medical treatments based on their own judgment and the advice of whatever sources and experts they choose to consult. It's a morally good and consistent take that would eliminate the barriers to medicines and medical devices while also lowering the costs of developing new ones. People would be expected to shoulder the burdens of any risks they take. But liberating though Flanigan's approach would be, it's far more difficult to get through legislatures than are a series of incremental right-to-try laws that erode bureaucratic hurdles a little at a time. Montana took the next step last month when Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte signed a bill allowing for centers where patients can receive experimental treatments that have completed phase 1 clinical trials but not yet been approved. Everybody is eligible, subject to recommendations from physicians and the requirements of informed consent. To escape federal regulation, experimental meds administered in the centers will have to be produced in Montana—but the state has an active pharmaceutical sector. Texas took an important step last week toward expanding the right to try experimental medical treatments to a broader sector of the population. But the Right to Try movement isn't nearly done. The post Texans Gain the Right To Try Individualized Medical Treatments appeared first on
New York Post
05-06-2025
- Business
- New York Post
Meathead feds target California movers over nonexistent age discrimination: ‘Weaponization of government'
Which would you be more likely to hire: a moving company whose ads feature energetic, youthful workers or one that highlights its less sprightly, aged employees? That's a no-brainer — even a meathead could answer such a simple advertising question. Yet the federal government has spent about a decade investigating California-based, family-owned Meathead Movers for age discrimination, citing its marketing materials — demanding $15 million in penalties and suing when the company wouldn't cough up the cash. And the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has done this without pointing to a single discrimination complaint. Advertisement Meathead, California's biggest independent moving company, and its CEO, Aaron Steed, are finally fighting back — after a think tank heard about the crazy case. 'The EEOC is not only targeting a successful American company on what appears to be pretextual grounds, but now it's refusing to tell the public why it did that. And we think the public has a right to know,' Jon Riches, the Goldwater Institute's vice president for litigation, tells The Post. Goldwater sent the agency a Freedom of Information Act Request in March, seeking basic facts such as the number of age-discrimination complaints against Meathead Movers and number of EEOC investigations into alleged age discrimination at any moving company since January 2016. The feds refused to 'fess up. Advertisement So this week Goldwater appealed, Riches tells The Post exclusively — and the EEOC has 30 days to respond before the Arizona think tank will sue. 'We bring legal actions to challenge government overreach and unconstitutional action,' explains Riches, an ex-Navy JAG who joined Goldwater in 2012. 'We've had cases of many, many, many other government agencies, and I've never seen anything this unprecedented in my experience.' Most EEOC lawsuits are the result of discrimination complaints. The agency has filed just eight in the last decade based on what it calls 'directed investigations' — those 'without a charge of discrimination filed by an individual.' Meathead Movers' case is one of them. 'We are hopeful that the EEOC stops this ridiculous prosecution of Aaron and his company, but we also want to know why it started and why the government made the decisions it was making,' Riches says. Advertisement Can the feds really fine a firm simply for its marketing — when it's not fraudulent? 'No, I don't think so. And I think that also raises First Amendment concerns. Obviously Meathead Movers has a right to communicate truthful information about lawful activities, including in its marketing materials' — and 'it markets individuals that are capable of performing the job,' Riches says. But, he adds, 'The EEOC doesn't really seem to be too concerned with the First Amendment.' It 'sent Aaron a very staggering gag-order letter. Aaron has not been shy about talking about the facts of the case and what the government's doing to him on social media, and the agency sent him a letter, basically telling him to stop doing that.' Aaron Steed won't stop. 'I'm aware of my constitutional rights, and I'm fighting for my company's existence and the 300-plus families that depend on us,' he tells The Post — noting EEOC 'sent the gag order after Goldwater sent a FOIA request.' Advertisement EEOC started investigating Meathead around 2015 and finally contacted Steed in 2017. He insists the company doesn't discriminate. 'So we welcomed and embraced the EEOC, answered all their questions,' he says. 'We fully cooperated with the investigation, and then we were just shocked when we got a bill for $15 million shortly after — and with the full weight of the federal government to collect it.' How did it arrive at that figure? 'Even though there was not a single complaint against my company that initiated this, their logic was that there's at least 500 class members' — all hypothetical, as Steed notes. EEOC decided lost wages would total $15,000 per person, 'which is a record for age discrimination. No settlement has ever been reached for that amount. And then they multiplied it times two.' Why times two? 'Fees and penalties. And we quickly explained to them, 'Hey, we can't afford that,'' Steed replies. 'It has felt like this has never been about age discrimination. It's been about them trying to run over my company, trying to put us out of business,' he adds. 'It feels personal, and it doesn't make sense.' The 45-year-old started the company as a high-school junior in 1997. 'I wrestled in high school and in college, and this was a perfect job for me to support myself and my friends and my brother while going to school playing sports,' he recalls. 'Once I turned 21, 22, I saved up enough money to buy a truck. And now we have hundreds of employees and 80 trucks.' Steed says he has employees over 40 — even over 60. Still, he notes, 'The reality of our job is that a lot of younger people tend to gravitate towards it. The job description is to move heavy things all day, up and down stairs, and then at Meathead Movers, you're expected to jog.' That's right: After you've put furniture or boxes in the truck, you hustle back for more. 'That's part of what makes us different than typical moving companies,' Steed explains. 'It kept the momentum going, kept us focused as an athlete. It kept us in our flow state. It always really impressed the customers. It made move day more of an athletic event, and since all moving companies charge one hourly rate, we save our clients time and money, and this is what we've done since the get-go.' Advertisement It's a win-win situation: 'My employees love getting paid to work out, and the customers get a great value.' 'We pay $18 to $20 an hour, and you've got to be able to pass a drug test and a criminal-background check to work for us and have a great attitude,' he says. 'We have a reputation for doing really good quality work with people you can trust in your home, and we give back to the community. We're most known for offering unlimited free services to women fleeing abusive relationships, in partnership with eight different domestic-violence shelters across central and southern California.' Steed reflects, 'This has been my life's work.' He hopes to pass the company onto his and his wife's 3½-year-old son one day — if it survives. 'I've already spent well over a million and a half dollars defending myself for a crime I haven't committed, and it is just absolutely destroying us,' he says. 'I can't afford to keep litigating against the federal government. It's incredibly expensive, it's crazy, very time consuming and very stressful.' Advertisement He doesn't know why the feds targeted him. 'Last week, a friend of mine said, 'Hey, did you run over someone's cat over there at the EEOC?'' he says. 'It feels deeply personal, and I really don't understand it.' Goldwater, which is working pro bono, is flummoxed too. Perhaps a former competitor is involved. What it does know: 'The case raises serious questions about the weaponization of government.' 'This would be a really different sort of case if it was based on actual complaints of people who are actually harmed. But for a government agency to concoct these very thin allegations against a successful American company should trouble all your readers,' Riches says. 'Why would the federal government target a company whose job is moving because it hires people who can perform that job, regardless of their age? If it can do that to Meathead, it could do that to anybody. This is a bigger issue than just the EEOC and just Meathead Movers.' Steed spoke to The Post from LAX, where he was awaiting a flight to Washington, DC — where he'll meet Thursday with EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas. Was that a tough meeting to get? Steed laughs. Advertisement 'Yeah,' he finally responds. 'We've been wanting to meet with them for a while, and I'm grateful that the chair has taken time out of her busy schedule to meet with us.' Lucas did not respond to The Post's request for comment. Spokesman Victor Chen said, 'We cannot comment on ongoing litigation, but we can point you to our public statement at the time the suit was filed.' He also sent the 2023 lawsuit filed in federal court. It complains 'Meathead Movers' founders and executive management . . . describe 'young and energetic-student athletes' as part of their founding vision.'
Fox News
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Reagan and Trump are more alike than you think
Ronald Reagan would have appreciated Donald Trump's moxie. Stylistically, they are different but all men are different in this regard. Ideologically however, there are many similarities. Reagan spoke out often against the political establishment. Reagan was himself anti-status quo. He was of the conservative/populist Goldwater wing of the GOP. Don't forget, he ran against the establishment candidate, incumbent President Gerald Ford in 1976, almost beating him for the presidential nomination. He ran again in 1980 against the establishment candidates Amb. George H.W. Bush and former Texas Gov. John Connolly, defeated them, and in so doing remade the GOP. The president is embracing some Democratic policies in his second term's push for a 'golden age' for America. For men like Reagan and Trump, it's always been the same: Outsiders versus insiders. British versus the Colonists. Jefferson versus Adams. Goldwater versus Rockefeller. The conservative movement versus the GOP establishment. Delta House versus Omega House. The Jedi versus the Evil Empire. Bill Clinton once said, "Democrats want to fall in love; Republicans want to fall in line." Nothing could be further from the truth. Democrats love power and all its abuses and fall in line behind anyone with perceived power; Republicans fall in love with ideas centered on the individual. Republicans cherished Reagan and now Trump, because both these men have acted on their conservative ideas. One stark example, Reagan wanted to destroy the Soviet Union which he called an "Evil Empire." He wanted to consign it to the "ash heap" of history. Meanwhile the political establishment supported "Détente" which was co-existence, even as the Soviets were gobbling up the rest of the world, Reagan was challenging this way of thinking. The Berlin Wall fell as a result of Reagan's conservative actions. He wanted to eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy seeing them as fraudulent and wasteful. Just as Trump is now doing. The entrenched establishment supported them even as they were worthless, counter-productive and costly. Reagan supported gay rights long before it was fashionable or accepted by the political establishment because it was about the individual. Later, as president, Reagan was never comfortable in the trappings of Washington, often leaving for the weekend to go the Camp David or for longer trips to his ranch in Santa Barbara. When he left Washington in January 1989, he only returned once to accept the Medal of Freedom award from President George W. Bush 43. Reagan was wildly popular with blue-collar voters, just as Trump now is. And yes, both men had and have a tremendous sense of humor. Joe Biden? He is the butt of jokes. The Republican Party has changed its positions on many issues over the years, whereas the Democratic Party has remained more or less constant as the pro-government party, since 1932. The GOP used to be the balanced budget, Green eyeshade party before Ronald Reagan introduced tax cuts as a canon of the party, to liberate the individual. The party has switched back and forth on trade and other matters over the years. But in 1980, Reagan brought a cluster of issues to the party which it still embraces and Trump pursues today. Tax cuts, federalism, strong national defense, pro-life, all centered on the importance of the individual. Reagan often said, "Our party must be the party of the individual." All these issues Donald Trump has heartily embraced. The only issue with separates them may be trade, but Reagan also used tariffs to save Harley-Davidson from cheap Japanese imports, thus saving a cherished company. Everything Reagan did must be judged in the shadow of the Cold War. He supported NAFTA and the Caribbean Basin Initiative as they strengthened the trading, cultural and political ties between these Western Hemisphere countries. And, for Reagan, they were a restatement of the Monroe Doctrine. There is a small group of rabble-rouser Republicans who oppose Trump just as Reagan had his cranks and critics. Just as all revolutionaries do.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Sports Betting Is a Plague
When do practical policy effects trump cherished principles? The mess that has come with gambling liberalization should force the thoughtful kind of libertarian to consider that question. Set aside, for the moment, the recent ideological devolution of the Republican Party into national socialism: Traditionally, most of the Americans who called themselves 'libertarians' were in effect conservatives ('Republicans who like weed and porn,' as a Marxist friend of mine used to put it), while American conservatism was thoroughly libertarian, and not only as an economic matter but also in a way deeply rooted in the live-and-let-live sensibility of figures such as Barry Goldwater, with his suspicion of Moral Majority types. ('Mark my word,' Goldwater famously said, 'if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem.') Libertarians and conservatives both prioritize freedom; libertarians and conservatives both admit the unwelcome reality of trade-offs; libertarians tend to lean a little more into freedom, and conservatives tend to dwell more on the unpleasanter facts of life. Here is a sobering write-up of a study published in December by scholars at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management: At the outset, the researchers observed a sharp increase in sports betting in the states where it was legalized. 'The figure goes from zero in most states to sizable amounts, and it continues to increase for several months as people learn about it,' [Kellogg professor Scott] Baker says. 'Only a year or two after it's been introduced do we see a bit of a plateau, and this is at a pretty high level in terms of money spent and people involved.' By the end of their sample period, the researchers saw that nearly 8 percent of households were involved in gambling. These bettors spent, on average, $1,100 per year on online bets. While the amount of money people put into legal sports gambling rose, their net investments fell by nearly 14 percent. For every $1 a household spent on betting, it put $2 fewer into investment accounts. As bad as that sounds, the report in toto is considerably worse. For example, the researchers also found that sports gambling correlated with greater participation in other forms of gambling, especially lotteries, and that this trend is more pronounced 'among households that frequently overdraw their bank accounts,' i.e., poor people and those living on the financial edge. There is an open question of real relevance to policymakers in this: whether sports gambling is a cause of other reckless economic behavior or is a symptom of more general economic recklessness, especially among those already under economic stress. Economic pressure moves some people in the direction of conservation (cutting spending, saving more, etc.) but moves others in the opposite direction as their anxiety and sense of hopelessness work together to make high-risk activities seem more attractive: Gambling is fundamentally a form of entertainment based on wishful thinking about the likelihood of a big payoff—the economic version of George Orwell's man who 'may take to drink because he feels himself a failure but then fail all the more completely because he drinks.' The cause/symptom distinction is relevant, but the answer, whatever it is, is not dispositive: Even if increased gambling is only a secondary effect, it remains the case that, other things being equal, people in financial distress probably would be better off if opportunities to increase their distress were less readily available. A few regular readers will be thinking: 'Wait—this from the guy who supports legalizing heroin?' The thing about the prohibitionist argument is, it isn't always completely wrong. Alcohol consumption really did go down in the early years of Prohibition—it was a bad policy, but it did not fail on every front. And the benefits to be had from libertarian reform often turn out to be more modest in practice than what had been hoped for. For example: The presence of legal prostitution in some parts of Nevada has done little or nothing to alleviate the problems associated with street-level prostitution in Las Vegas and elsewhere and may have made it worse in some ways, with poorly informed visitors to Sin City believing that prostitution is legal there, which it isn't. Experiments with de facto legalization of some 'hard' drugs, and the more general liberalization of marijuana laws, has not eliminated the black market for drugs and thus defunded the cartels, while drug use generally has increased where drugs are legal. And now gambling legalization has led to more gambling and arguably to more destructive and addictive forms of gambling via app. You can make a good libertarian case that some of these intractable problems above point to reforms that were insufficiently libertarian: There is not very much legal prostitution in Nevada, and what there is remains relatively difficult to access and much more expensive than illegal prostitution—a couple of high-priced brothels an hour's drive from the Strip were never going to eliminate prostitution on the street of Las Vegas or in casino bars; black markets in marijuana and other drugs endure because prohibition of marijuana and other drugs endures, and this has effects even on legal production as marijuana cultivated for use in the liberal states is diverted to the black market in the prohibition states. ('What's the matter with Kansas?' indeed.) But if your best argument amounts to, 'The ideal hypothetical version of my policy is preferable to the non-ideal real-world version of your policy,' then you haven't made a very good case for your policy. And clear-eyed libertarian critics might have a few important things to say about legal gambling, too: that lotteries are state monopolies and that the casino industry is a series of regional state-organized cartels, that neither really is an example of free enterprise in action, and that, as with drinking alcohol, only a minority of gamblers develop problem habits. It is difficult to make a cost-benefit analysis here, because the benefits are almost entirely a matter of taste: Walking through an Atlantic City casino, I myself do not see anything that seems worth preserving—but, then, we have free markets, and more general liberty, precisely because different people have different values, interests, and priorities. (Given the advertising footprint of the sports-betting industry, you can bet that bro media would push back hard against any attempt at limitation.) Still, my thoughts linger on that money being diverted from retirement savings to be pissed away on sports gambling. The Kellogg authors offer the possibility that this is only partly a problem with sports gambling per se and that the pathology is made much worse, as so many things are in our time, by its having migrated to the lonely world of the smartphone, where you can make a spur-of-the-moment bet on a sleepless night at 3 a.m., perhaps after a few drinks. They suggest that the situation might be improved by restricting sports gambling to on-premises wagers in gambling parlors. But if you ever have visited any of those ghastly little mini-casinos that have popped up in converted convenience stores and gas stations around the country – or most of the big gambling palaces, for that matter – then you may come to assume that location constraints are unlikely to produce substantial results. Gambling is an ugly business, morally and aesthetically, almost everywhere it exists. Even the world's most famous baccarat enthusiast knows that. But you know what I'm still thinking about: $2 in vanished retirement savings for every $1 gambled. That's not the kind of return a reformer would hope for.
