US family, kids brutally murdered by drug cartels in Mexico, Ann Coulter, Stossel on Bitcoin, Why Free College is a Terrible Idea, Middle Class Truths.
American Conservative University
English - November 08, 2019 12:00 - 45 minutes - 22.2 MB - ★★★★ - 1.7K ratingsPolitics News News Commentary america audio author authors book books conservative conservativeaudio conservativepodcasts conservativetalk Homepage Download Apple Podcasts Google Podcasts Overcast Castro Pocket Casts RSS feed
US family, kids brutally murdered by drug cartels in Mexico, Ann Coulter, Stossel on Bitcoin, Why Free College is a Terrible Idea, Middle Class Truths.
US family, kids brutally murdered by drug cartels in Mexico. Ann Coulter talking with Mark Simone 11/6/19 American 'Mormons' massacred in Mexico cartel attack The Ten Rules of Free Speech and College Students: Free Speech Rules Why the Middle Class is Better Off Than You Think Stossel: Is Bitcoin Better Money? Why 'Free College' Is a Terrible Idea
BORDER SECURITY: BUILD THE WALL NOW...US family, kids brutally murdered by drug cartels in Mexico.
Mexico is a failed state and enough is enough. When will the media and politicians recognize the danger on the border? At least three American mothers and six children -- US CITIZENS -- were just brutally murdered by drug cartels in northern Mexico. More were injured, including young babies. They were living with a Mormon community in the region, and were reportedly traveling to America to celebrate a wedding. One gunman reportedly opened fire on a small boy as he tried to run away. Others were burned alive inside their vehicle. One brother hid his young, wounded siblings in the bushes as he ran to get help from a neighboring village. Mexico is a NARCO STATE, and the drug cartels are in control. American politicians need to do two things: we need to build a wall on our southern border, and we need to change our drug laws. President Trump has recognized the danger there...when will the left?
► Click HERE to subscribe to Glenn Beck https://bit.ly/2UVLqhL ►Click HERE to subscribe to BlazeTV: https://www.blazetv.com/glenn Connect with Glenn on Social Media: http://twitter.com/glennbeck http://instagram.com/glennbeck http://facebook.com/glennbeck
Ann Coulter talking with Mark Simone 11/6/19
American 'Mormons' massacred in Mexico cartel attack.
#Cartel #Mexico #Sinaloa 7-month-old baby miraculously survives Mexico cartel massacre MORMON BLOODBATH Sonora massacre Babies ‘burned alive and kids shot in back’ as Mexican cartel murder nine US Mormons in ‘targeted’ hit Nine of the LeBaron family members were slaughtered in the massacre. Six children were wounded in the attack and five have since been transferred to hospitals in Phoenix, Arizona. The slaughter of U.S. citizens on Mexican soil quickly became an international issue with Trump on Tuesday vowing to help Mexico wage a war on its drug cartels. Mexico's President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said he would discuss security on Tuesday with the U.S. after Trump fired off a series of tweets. 'This is the time for Mexico, with the help of the United States, to wage WAR on the drug cartels and wipe them off the face of the earth,' Trump tweeted. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A 7-month-old baby survived a volley of gunfire unleashed by drug cartels in Mexico — thanks to one final, selfless act from her mother before the woman was killed. Baby Faith was one of several survivors of the senseless violence in Sonora state Monday, when cartel members ambushed three cars packed with children and their mothers in a possible case of mistaken identity. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ten Rules of Free Speech and College Students: Free Speech Rules (Episode 7)
Free Speech Rules: The Ten Rules of Free Speech and College Students Lots of recent free speech debates have come up at colleges. Here are ten rules for how the freedom of speech applies to college students. 1. Students at public colleges may not be disciplined for their speech. (unless it falls into the narrow First Amendment exceptions such as true threats of criminal attack, or face-to-face personal insults that are likely to start a fight). That's true even if the speech is seen as evil or offensive, whether racist, sexist, religiously bigoted, unpatriotic, supportive of crime, or whatever else. For instance, in Iota Xi v. George Mason University, a federal appeals court held that public university students can't be disciplined for putting on an "ugly woman" skit at a fraternity event, in which one of the students was in blackface. 2. A public college can't limit broadly available benefits based on a group's viewpoint. It can't, for instance, deny bulletin board space to groups that spread religious views, anti-homosexuality views, racially offensive parodies, or any other views. 3. This is also true for student-run newspapers, unless the college so controls the newspaper that it's viewed as being partly the university's own speech. 4. Inside the classroom, though, the professor is in charge. Professors may orchestrate class discussions in a way that they think brings out important ideas and facts, and promotes student participation. That means they can cut off students who speak off topic, or who insult their classmates. Professors can also ask students to make the best argument for a particular viewpoint, and tell students that certain views—say, that the Earth is 6000 years old—are wrong. We expect professors to be broad-minded on many issues, and not unduly block student opinions just because they disagree with those opinions. But the First Amendment doesn't give students a right to speak in the classroom when the professor cuts them off. 5. Grading of student exams and papers likewise can't be content-neutral, or even viewpoint-neutral. Professors shouldn't grade down students based on mere ideological disagreement, and colleges may forbid outright political discrimination by professors. But grading student work inevitably requires a judgment about the quality of that work. And in many disciplines that will be a subjective judgment, based on more than just objectively determinable facts. 6. Colleges and college departments can express their own views—or can foster a selected set of views—without giving equal time to others. If a history department puts on a conference, for instance, it can choose the panelists based on their viewpoints, even if that means excluding some viewpoints and preferring others. 7. People have no First Amendment right to shout down speakers, whether the speaker is a guest speaker in a class, or a speaker invited by a student group. Most speeches at colleges let listeners ask questions, including critical ones, during a Q&A at the end; and there's usually ample room to leaflet or protest on sidewalks outside the building. But it's perfectly constitutional to have content-neutral rules banning interruptions when a speaker has the floor, and that give invited speakers the opportunity to speak without sharing that opportunity with students or others. 8. A public college has no First Amendment obligation to protect speakers against shouting down, or even against violence. But it would violate the First Amendment for the college to selectively refuse to protect speakers who express some views, while protecting others. 9. Content-neutral fees and restrictions are likely constitutional, but a public college probably violates student groups' First Amendment rights when it charges high security fees for invited speakers who express controversial views. 10. All this, of course, applies only to public colleges, because the First Amendment only applies to the federal, state, and local governments, not to private organizations (even private nonprofits that get tax exemptions and government subsidies). But many colleges voluntarily promise to uphold student free speech rights, as part of the college's commitment to academic freedom—and as a way of attracting students and donors. And in California, a state statute applies some First Amendment rules to private colleges as well as public ones. Written by Eugene Volokh, who is a First Amendment law professor at UCLA. Produced and edited by Austin Bragg, who is not. This is the seventh episode of Free Speech Rules, a video series on free speech and the law. Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy, a blog hosted at Reason.com. This is not legal advice. If this were legal advice, it would be followed by a bill. Please use responsibly.
Why the Middle Class is Better Off Than You Think.
The consensus view that the American middle class "is dead, dying, hollowed out" is based on an "incomplete reading of the data," says economist Russ Roberts.
______ Subscribe to our YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/reasontv Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magaz... Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason Subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts: https://goo.gl/az3a7a Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines. _____
"A lot of people think the middle class is dead, dying, hollowed out," says Russ Roberts, an economist at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and host of the podcast Econtalk. "And that's a view that's held now increasingly by not just the left…but by conservatives, Republicans, [and] economists across the spectrum." But is it true? Roberts says that many of the leading studies that support this claim offer "a misreading of the data, or at least an incomplete reading of the data, [ignoring] a much fuller story of opportunity and progress." In this video, Roberts offers some examples of the assumptions that economic researchers have made, leading them to offer an incomplete picture of American prosperity. He argues that the middle class has fared much better since the 1970s than most people think. Produced by John Osterhoudt. Camera by Todd Krainin.
Stossel: Is Bitcoin Better Money?
Regulators hate Facebook's proposed "Libra” currency. They may kill it. But they can't kill Bitcoin so easily.
------- Subscribe to our YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/reasontv Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magazine. Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: https://goo.gl/az3a7a Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines. ---------
Facebook proposed a new digital currency called "Libra." It would be backed by several different existing currencies. The Libra might be better than the dollar, tech reporter Naomi Brockwell and investor Peter Schiff tell John Stossel. It's easy to send online. If a government currency has a lot of inflation, Libra holders will be largely protected from that. But politicians oppose Libra. "Why, with all of your problems, should we trust you?" one congressman asked Mark Zuckerberg in a hearing. "They're threatened by it," Brockwell tells Stossel. Politicians may succeed in killing Libra. Paypal, Mastercard, and other companies were going to work with Facebook on the project, but they've bailed because they're scared of regulation. That's why it's good that Bitcoin exists, says Brockwell. Bitcoin, unlike Libra, can't be stopped so easily. "It is the first currency we've ever seen that is decentralized," Brockwell tells Stossel. "They can't shut it down," Stossel responds. "Exactly. That's why it's still around, because they haven't been able to have these hearings. They haven't been able to call on the CEO of Bitcoin and say, 'You'd better cease and desist.'…There is no server to unplug. There is no company to shut down, no CEO to throw in jail, so it persists. That's really exciting." Bitcoin is mostly safe from government because it "lives" on thousands of individuals' computers, so no government can stop it by pressuring any one company. But investor Peter Schiff says Bitcoin is a "bubble." He recommends investing in gold. "Gold has worked for thousands of years. Bitcoin's only been around for ten," Schiff argues. "Gold has actual value. There's a huge industry that needs gold. Jewelry…you have it in consumer electronics and aerospace and medicine." Stossel says: "I don't presume to know which way prices will move. But I do know that it's good to have alternatives to dollars." The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.
Why 'Free College' Is a Terrible Idea
A bachelor's degree isn't a prerequisite to a satisfying career—it's a costly way of signaling the fortitude to withstand suffering.
Michael Gamez, 22, has wanted to work on cars since he was a kid, just like his father and grandfather. He fixed up and sold his first used car when he was 14. "It felt really good to build something up and sell it for a profit," says Gamez. But his teachers conditioned him to equate a college degree with success. So he enrolled at the University of California, Irvine, with a plan to major in mechanical engineering. During his sophomore year, Gamez dropped out because he realized that he was on the wrong path. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.)and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) have promised that, if elected, they'll make public college tuition-free and wipe clear federal student loan debt, which in the U.S. tops $1.5 trillion. Their claim is that making college universal will lead to higher productivity and more economic opportunity for people like Gamez. "If you make college free, then there's going to be so many [degrees] floating around that if you want to get a better job, then you're going to need to go and get some supplemental degree," says Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University and author of The Case Against Education. He's skeptical that professors like him have much to offer most students. "We're spending too much time and money on education because most of what you learn in school you will never use after the final exam," says Caplan. "If you just calmly compare what we're studying to what we really do, the connection is shockingly weak." Caplan says that most people attend college as a way to signal to prospective employers that they're reasonably intelligent, conscientious, and conformist. "The signaling story is mostly that our society says that you're supposed to graduate, and if you're supposed to graduate, the failure to graduate signals non-conformity," says Caplan. "People that are willing to just bite their tongues and suffer through it are the ones who are also going to be good at doing that once they get a job." Caplan's case rests partly on the so-called sheepskin effect, named for the material on which diplomas were once printed. Studies of the earnings of college graduates reveal that the average salary increase for completing the last year of college is on average more than double that of completing the first three, implying that it's the fortitude to obtain the degree—not the knowledge gained—that explains the boost in compensation. "The usual view, called the human capital view, says that basically all of what's going on in schools, is that they are pouring useful skills into you," says Caplan. "What I'm saying is the main payoff you're getting from school is that you're getting certified, you're getting stamped. You are, in other words, getting what you need to convince employers that you are a good bet." Instead of college, Leah Wilczewski, 21, enrolled in Praxis, a one-year job skills program focusing on communication, marketing, and other jobs. It cost $12,000 but included a 6-month paid apprenticeship worth $16,000, meaning she'll finish the program $4,000 in the black. Even though it's possible to acquire the necessary skills to make a good living without attending college, enrollment at 4-year universities has stayed steady for the past 10 years, and an Economics of Education Review study by Nicholas Turner found that every dollar of federal aid spending crowds out about 83 cents of institutional aid. Such trends leave Caplan skeptical that enrollment will fall anytime soon despite the increasing availability of online alternatives. "If you've got that kind of guaranteed customer base where the taxpayers have no choice in whether or not the money's going to be spent and the government hands it over to you, then you're going to be fine," says Caplan. As for Wilczewski, she has two more months left in her apprenticeship and is hopeful that Impossible Foods will keep her on in the sales department. Gamez hopes that working for BMW is a first step towards eventually owning his own shop. Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by John Osterhoudt, Alexis Garcia, Jim Epstein, Todd Krainin, and Weissmueller.
------- Subscribe to our YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/reasontv Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magazine. Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: https://goo.gl/az3a7a Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines. ---------