Ronald Reagan famously observed, “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
George Landrith | All Articles
- Subscribe to RSS
Since 1999, George Landrith has served as the President of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute – a pubic policy think tank devoted to promoting a strong national defense, free markets, individual liberty, and constitutionally limited government. The Institute maintains offices in Washington, D.C., Virginia, and Wyoming and has thousands of grassroots supporters in virtually every state. The Institute is recognized as a national leader on the most important issues facing America today, including: national security, market-based environmental solutions, energy, property rights, taxes and regulation.
Previously, he served as the Vice President and General Counsel to the National Legal Center for the Public Interest.
Mr. Landrith is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was Business Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics. He also graduated, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University studying political science and economics.
Mr. Landrith is admitted to the bar in Virginia and California and is a member of the United States Supreme Court bar.
In 1994 and 1996, Mr. Landrith was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District. He served on the Albemarle County School Board. He was appointed by then Governor George Allen and confirmed by the General Assembly to serve on the Virginia Workforce 2000 Advocacy Council. Mr. Landrith is an adjunct professor at the George Mason School of Law.
Mr. Landrith has appeared frequently on television and radio news programs and his work has been printed in over 100 newspapers across the nation, including: Washington Times, Chicago Tribune, LA Daily News, National Review, Sacramento Bee, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, Providence Journal, and Human Events. He has been quoted in many of the nation’s leading papers, including: New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post.
Mr. Landrith lives in Virginia with his wife, Laura, and their seven children.
National security conservatives and military experts have long warned about steep cuts to the defense budget in recent years. These warnings have been largely waived off even as even as the world continued to grow more dangerous and unstable – from Eastern Europe to the Middle East to the Korean Peninsula and South China Sea.
America has never shied from a fight – and we know the folly of letting down our guard or accepting false “peace dividends” and unilaterally disarming while our enemies gather strength. As Russia continues its regional aggression and steps up exports of its most dangerous weapons, North Korea perfects its nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, and Iran uses the cover of peace talks to step up military activity in the Persian Gulf, we would never think to disarm or stand down.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has authorized, and his military forces have carried out, an armed invasion of a neighboring nation, Ukraine, whose sole transgression was wanting closer diplomatic and economic ties with the West. Despite wide condemnation of the unprovoked attack, Putin is unrepentant and China is now standing with Russia. As if the invasion wasn’t provocative enough, Putin also test-fired an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). These are dangerous times.
Affixed to the National Indian Gaming Association headquarters in Washington, D.C., is a banner proclaiming the ability of tribal casinos to generate the revenue necessary for the American Indians living on reservations to improve their standard of living.
Lurking off the coast of Massachusetts like a shark out of a Steven Spielberg movie is a green energy project that is being rushed through the permitting process to meet statutory deadlines. If it goes under, it could end up costing U.S. taxpayers millions.
The U.S. is hiring the Russians to deliver sensitive equipment and supplies to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why? Because the U.S. military doesn’t have enough of the highly dependable and amazingly versatile C-17 airlifters. To make matters worse, we have no credible plan to resolve this problem.
President Barack Obama should get some credit for Osama bin Laden’s death, since bin Laden was killed on his watch. However, I was struck by two things during Obama’s speech on Sunday night. First, had the policies that Obama championed during his campaign and his time in office actually been followed, bin Laden would still be alive today. Second, it was stunning how frequently Obama used the words “I,” “me” and “my” in his speech. He made it all about himself.
Barack Obama would like to chalk the 2010 elections up to a weak economy and voters not understanding what a great job he did in preventing an even bigger economic collapse. It suits him to see things that way. He can continue to blame the economy on his predecessor and say that he saved us from the abyss. That’s his story and he’s sticking to it. Yet, if the weak economy were responsible for Democrats’ losses, then, historically speaking, Democrats should have lost only 20 to 30 House seats. Yet they lost 2 to 3 times that many. Why? Because voters aren’t just upset about the economy. They’re upset with the recklessly expensive and unwanted command-and-control policies that Obama pushed down their throats.
With the headlines dominated by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a controversial recess appointment, and Cold-war-era spy swaps, it is easy to lose sight of some important national security issues. How the government spends money is often the real policy more than press secretary statements. With Congress considering defense appropriations, an important question is whether Congress and the president will provide our military with the equipment they need to do their job, and whether the administration will attempt to balance the budget on the backs of our troops.
Had the United States and its European allies acted earlier as promised to impose tougher sanctions against Iran, the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East may not have grown to the dangerous level it has reached today. And if we had acted earlier, President Obama might not find himself in the unenviable position of having to convince the UN Security Council to take seriously the threat of a nuclear Middle East.