The Credibility Gap in D.C. is Wide — and Getting Wider

“What we are witnessing in D.C. is a likely bloodbath at the polls in 2020.”

Let’s just step back, all take a deep breath, and for a moment reflect on where the United States really is politically. And we may be in a place that you don’t even realize we are. While we are reflecting, let’s forget about the great obvious and very visually good things that have occurred in the first 2 years of the Trump presidency: unemployment all-time records (on the low side), federal revenue all-time records, more jobs available than people to fill them, corporate expansion and new hiring exploding, tax cuts for corporations and the middle class, etc. Instead of going into the details of those accomplishments, let’s dig deeper and examine those things that have led to the path on which we find ourselves — the “foundation” that has been prepared on which those “good things” could be and have been based. Then we will look ahead to 2020 and look closely at how the current political climate will directly impact the election results in 2020. In doing this analysis, let’s look at these categories that are critical in the lives of all Americans:

  • Healthcare
  • Jobs and employment
  • Taxes
  • Immigration
  • The American Political Atmosphere

Healthcare

In 1992, I started a Medical Reimbursement Management Company in the spare bedroom of my home. It was just me, a card file, and a telephone getting started. Without bragging, let me say it’s been a really good ride. I have transitioned ownership to a son-in-law who came aboard as IT Director about 15 years ago. I’m telling you this to say, we know Healthcare from the bottom up — from the perspective of what drives every successful business in America: the $$$.

The U.S. — in spite of what you hear every day — does NOT have a Healthcare problem. The U.S. has a Healthcare “Finance” problem.

American Healthcare is among the best healthcare systems in the World. The current political climate finds politicians clamoring for “Healthcare Overhaul.” That is a dangerous path for the nation to walk down. Medical Services provided under the current healthcare system are amazing. Costs and Healthcare Services are two vastly different things. And politicians are crying for the wrong things to happen — and in many cases, I think purposely so. We need to LEAVE healthcare itself alone, but fight for “healthcare finance reform.”

This administration has initiated a so-far successful plan to fight for an across-the-board reduction in the costs of prescription drugs. The same drugs we buy in the U.S. are bought in other countries. Yet we pay monumentally more for most of those prescription drugs than do those in other countries. Why is that? Legislative lobbying. Lobbyists give perks to members of Congress who then pass drug price legislation that favor American pharmaceutical companies and their American retail sales prices. Their reasoning: drug companies contend they MUST cover their costs for research, testing, and creation of bringing new drugs to the market by keeping drug prices high in the U.S. While that is happening, they contend they can sell the same products overseas for a “more reasonable price.” That certainly sounds good to folks in Canada! And there are Detroit residents who take advantage of that and drive across the border bridge to Windsor, Canada — just a couple of miles away — to buy American pharmaceuticals at MUCH lower prices! Fixing Healthcare starts there, and we’ve already made a good start.

Secondly, medical procedures and product charges need to be based totally on a fee schedule: the price allowed for every medical procedure and product available and used by healthcare professionals. There’s already such a schedule in place that has been used successfully in the U.S. for decades. It’s a “Medicare Part B” fee schedule. Retail prices are not considered in that schedule. It includes only “allowables:” the prices that providers will be paid by Medicare and secondary insurance companies. That schedule is adjusted based on zip codes for providers.

Obviously, a heart bypass operation costs a surgeon more to perform in Manhattan than in Arcadia, Louisiana. A Manhattan surgeon, therefore, will get paid more for the same bypass than does a surgeon rural in Louisiana. And they’re fair prices.

There are many on the provider side in healthcare who scream “Medicare fee schedule rates are too low. We can’t operate at those prices!” Here’s what I KNOW from managing this for so long: if EVERY provider (physician and/or hospital) knows that for EVERY service they provide they will receive whatever the exact amount allowed on that fee schedule within a certain amount of time — like 45 days — they’ll jump at that opportunity ONCE THE FACTS ARE PUT IN FRONT OF THEM. I am certain of that fact.

Why are medical prices so high now? Because so many medical bills NEVER get paid at all. Medical providers are forced to jack-up all their prices, hoping that insurance companies will pay those too-high prices that will offset their losses for the services they provide that go unpaid!

A fee schedule WILL work IF we try it.

Jobs and Employment

The facts speak for themselves: unemployment in various segments are at all-time lows; there are more jobs available than there are people to fill them; corporate expansions are sky-rocketing; wages have begun to rise steadily; there are more people employed than ever before in U.S. history; domestic companies are repatriating profits being held overseas back to the United States and putting that money into capital markets for corporate growth and expansion. It’s the capital market system of free market ideas. And it works! “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And it ain’t broke.

Taxes

Much of the good economic news in America is a direct result of the tax reductions under the Trump Administration, both for corporations and Americans personally. It is important to note that federal tax revenues have increased dramatically in the past two years, even with these tax cuts. How could that possibly be?

That’s the way a free market system works. Liberals wrongly think that reducing taxes automatically reduces federal income. But the exact opposite is true. Here’s how the process works:

  • In error, liberals think if taxes on corporations are lowered, those corporations will take that extra money and keep it as “profits.” That’s incorrect;
  • Corporations typically take that extra income and expand their operations, buy new equipment, add new buildings, market more aggressively to get new business, give existing employees raises, and add new employees as they attract new clients;
  • The same concept holds true for personal tax cuts. People who keep more of their own money buy new things, renovate their homes, buy NEW homes, buy NEW cars, travel more, etc. They seldom just stick that money in the bank;
  • When corporations and individuals have more money, they put more money into the free market. That in itself impacts the atmosphere of business and stimulates positive feelings derived from positive things happening. Growth happens in part just because consumer confidence levels rise.

Immigration

The U.S. is a nation of immigrants. But the U.S. is also a nation of laws. That fact seems to be lost to America’s lawmakers today. But it has served the immigration process well for 200+ years — until today.

Each year the U.S. Rewards 1 million foreigners legal status — mostly full citizenship — in the United States. In comparison, that 1 million number equals the total number of legal immigrants accepted into every other country on Earth — COMBINED!

No one knows for certain how many illegals there are today in the U.S. nor how many are sneaking into the U.S. every week. What we DO know is that number is in the millions.

What else Americans do not know is why we have ANY illegals here for ANY reasons. There is NO good answer to that question. But there are answers — just no GOOD ones.

  • There have been (and always will be) a number of illegals who find their way into the U.S. That though a criminal act occurs in every other country as well. But nowhere else has there been near the number of illegal entries as there are in the U.S. Many foreigners want to come here. But the current environment of there being so many here illegally is unsustainable. Yet politicians — mostly on the Left — continue to (as they have for decades) resist correcting the legal process to stop illegal immigration.
  • There are immediate financial benefits for having illegals. Illegals primarily find manual labor, which often is handled outside the normal U.S. employment process. Illegals generally do not have social security status and therefore in large get paid without payroll deductions — social security, federal, state, and local taxes — which allows employers to Illegally skip reporting those as employees. Employers therefore can pay lower gross wages to illegals. That — no payroll deductions — in effect means illegals for the same jobs receive higher take-home pay than do their legal counterparts. And employers because of not paying the legal deductions save money with illegal workers.
  • Illegals will often work in menial tasks that many Americans refuse.
  • The primary reason for the continuation of massive illegal entries into the country is for political purposes. Those on the Left identify illegals as certain future Democrat voters. There are many who feel strongly that even right now, illegals in some states find ways to vote illegally in federal elections. Democrats feel certain that when they regain a strong majority in both Houses of Congress and the White House simultaneously, they will be successful at passing legislation to change voting laws to allow ALL illegals to vote in federal elections.
  • Dems are certain the current class of illegals will certainly vote for Democrats, thus assuring the continuation of their party and its liberal policies.

It is important to note that the Democrat Party depends for its very existence on the perpetuation of a “Dependent Class” of Americans. Democrats must have in their control those who maintain government financial assistance to survive. Those peoples’ reliance on Democrats obligates their support of the Democrat Party and their candidates. Otherwise, Democrats have no policy offerings at all to counter the current good economic climate in the U.S. that was initiated under Trump.

The American Political Atmosphere

Here’s where the nation is in real trouble. Not in my lifetime has there existed a political atmosphere so negative, so vitriolic, so full of hate and so divided. Those on the Left blame this president and his followers. Those on the Right blame the Left for their quest to move voters in the nation so far away from conservative ideals.

There is little respect for diversity of thought and opinion anymore. I remember in the early to mid-70s when at my university in the South, there was a modicum of respect for the opinions of those who would stand and speak in the Quadrangle at noon expressing their political opinions. Yes, there were those with differing opinions. And, yes, there was sometimes arguing that escalated between some of those. But I never saw hatred and total disdain.

In American politics, we have devolved from “differing opinions” to outright “hatred” for those with opposing political views. When else in American history has any organized group that purports to protest against those who speak at a Free Speech rally show up at that rally to NOT support Free Speech speakers, but to attack them? That is exactly what ANTIFA has been doing for 2 years. And at those rallies, members of ANTIFA are seen physically attacking conservatives. “ANTIFA” stands for “anti-fascists.” Yet ANTIFA’s goal at these rallies is to demonize Free Speech and those who support it.

Do you know what’s odd about their doing so? Most Americans think ANTIFA really represents their namesake! Most Americans think those conservatives against who ANTIFA demonstrate are the bad guys in this whole thing.

It’s not much better elsewhere in politics. Congress — where conservative and liberal ideals are supposed to be turned into laws to govern every aspect of American life — has simply discovered the comfort in doing very little as part of the legislative process so as to not cause any heartburn regarding legislation — that instead of the process that should result in lawmaking. Instead, they are content to either investigate, hold press conferences in which their only agenda seems to be to demonize all those with differing opinions and to be careful in what and how they do the little they do to make only as few waves as possible.

Meanwhile, the electorate is steaming with partisanship they parrot from their Congressional counterparts. The rule of the day in politics instead of mandating peaceful discourse and discussion of ideas is to attack all ideas and all those who espouse such ideas that differ from your own. Even in the ’60s with the Vietnam War the anger and hatred for those with opposing ideas were not nearly as caustic as those today. Political opponents are not necessarily Democrats and Republicans. Those just represent opposing political parties. The hatred and animus run much deeper: Female against Male, Heterosexual against Homosexual, Black against White, American against non-American, Pro-Life against Pro-Choice, etc. And the vitriol between all of these is the type that can and does often turn into violence.

To complicate matters, the Left hates this president. Because of their hatred, everything they do in legislation or other parts of the federal government is colored by that disdain for him. Their angst for Donald Trump is primarily driven by the election trouncing of their certain 2016 White House victor: Hillary Clinton. None gave any chance to the New York billionaire. But enough Americans with differing opinions gave him a huge electoral college whipping over Ms. Clinton. And the Left have not forgiven Trump and will not do so.

That’s why we find ourselves where we are today: in pure political pandemonium. Don’t get me wrong: governing continues. Good things are happening, and the void between the two versions of political thinking get wider and wider with each passing day. And every Trump victory morphs immediately into another pointed finger in the eyes of the Left.

So what’s going to happen?

  • The Trump victories that are heretofore numerous in as well are unexpected will continue. Americans love the fact that a candidate made promises which when elected keeps those promises.
  • “It’s the economy, Stupid!” as first uttered by James Carville just before the Bill Clinton victory in re-election in 1996 is still the major contributing factor in Americans’ approval of President Trump. Based on what we know today and expect for the next 2 years, that will continue.
  • “Take No Prisoners.” Donald Trump is bombastic. He always keeps his opponents wondering what he’s thinking and what is his next political step. One thing that is certain for all: when he takes action, it’s always decisive, quick, and widely seen. Those on the Left hate it, but there’s no way they can stop it short of impeachment or a 2020 victory in unseating this sitting President.

Summary

Prediction: Trump will NOT be impeached before the 2020 election. He will continue to fight hard against the Left in the same manner in which he has the first 2 years of his presidency. It will get uglier. More outlandish allegations will surface and be thrown against him. But in each, he will be vindicated.

Why is all of this so vile? There must be something to hide. The attackers must have things to hide.

Democrats really wanted President Trump to do something horrific during the Mueller investigation — so horrific that it would prove he is unfit to serve as President. Why else would Representatives Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) continuously claim they had actual evidence proving that Donald Trump actually colluded with Russians who helped him win in 2016 and that he obstructed justice in doing so? That was the pair’s sharp stick. They expected the verbose billionaire from Queens to take their bait and do something — anything — to shut down the Mueller probe. Because they know Washington D.C. and the Swamp so well, they felt for certain that Mr. Trump had broken the law (like many who serve in Congress) and would be exposed for doing so during the probe. It didn’t happen. Why? THERE’S NO THERE THERE!

Play

“We Are the World, We are the People….”

Here we are: two years+ into the Donald Trump Presidency and STILL the United States media do not give this guy any credit. They  everyday still throw allegations of wrongdoing, insults regarding his hairstyle, the way he speaks, his skin color, his Queens accent — pretty much in every way a country’s media could demean someone. And when they do it, they laugh and snarl, kind of like they did shortly before Donald Trump announced he was actually running for president in 2016. They started laughing and making fun of him then. They haven’t stopped.

But things are a bit different now: Donald Trump has a political history. No, his political history is not one of his personal foreign policy accomplishments — at least no accomplishments from BEFORE he became President. His “pre-White House” political history probably exists only with his record of the hundreds of thousands of dollars he has contributed through the years to local, state, and national candidates whom he supported. Several of those contribution recipients have donned the Democrat mantle of “presidential candidate” and are on the campaign trail for their party’s nomination to take their former “contributor” — Donald Trump — head-on in 2020. And none have very nice things to say about him — but they took his money!

There’s a bit of irony there, don’t you think?

Let’s face facts: this President gets very little support in the U.S., Of course, the ardent Trump supporters in the United States support him. And contrary to how the State Media portray this president, most understand facts and numbers and know what he has done for the country in 2 years. But also, those “Trumpsters” still cannot reconcile the fact that the American Media — NY Times, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Huffington Post — give President Trump no credit for the economy, foreign trade, millions of new jobs, low unemployment across the board, more people employed than ever, etc. Almost daily there is a collective “SMH” you can almost hear across the nation. (For those of you in downtown Manhattan and San Francisco, “SMH” means “Shake My Head.)

Here’s what we’re going to do today: we’re going to take a look for yourselves at something as simple as Google, do a search, and see what’s important to the media in the U.S. and across the “Pond” regarding this President. It begins with his popularity overseas, takes a look at the domestic and European media portrayals of Mr. Trump’s just completed visit to the U.K., and then we’ll complete today’s offering with a story — a really GOOD story — about “Bubba” from Texas. And Bubba will help explain what the American State Media are missing about Donald Trump. Let’s start here:

Google

Take just a moment and Google this: “What is President Trump’s world favorability number?” I took that challenge, and here are some of the results I found:

“Trump is even more unpopular in Europe than he is in the U.S …”

“Trump’s Approval Rating Is Even Lower Globally, and He’s …”

“How Popular Is Donald Trump? | FiveThirtyEight”

“Trump Approval Worldwide Remains Low Especially Among Key …”

Notice the stories that Googles’ algorithm popped up with this specific search that had NOTHING to do with Europe. So President Trump’s favorability is low in some countries overseas. And according to media pundits in the U.S., that’s a really big deal. Meghan Markle spurned the President during his recent trip to Britain to celebrate the 75th anniversary of D-Day. Though an American by birth, she is now a married member of the Royal Family. Certainly, she was not a Donald Trump fan when he ran for president. And, certainly, members of the British press made very little about the comments made about the President and his response to hers.’ But not so across the Pond! America’s press went nuts with constant negativity about President Trump and details of his trip. Some even made fun of Melania and her attire!

Isn’t it a strange world in which the U.S. media would lambast the President while he makes a trip to the U.K. to join European government leaders and hundreds of World War II veterans celebrating the 75th anniversary of D-Day? Think about it: if the United States had not led the storming of Omaha Beach that day, most of Europe would probably be speaking German today. And the U.S. may have been also.

President Trump was actually applauded in the U.K. press. Not so in the U.S. Here’s a screenshot of a YouTube search with the search term “U.S. Media attacks of President Trump.” It may be too small for you to read, but basically, I’ll summarize the search findings: every story that comes up with THAT search sentence — rather than a video or story about the U.S. media’s attacks of this president — is about a video and/or story of PRESIDENT TRUMP ATTACKING THE MEDIA!

Are you surprised?

Wanna take a look at the headlines from the other side of the Pond — from European news outlets?

“Trump’s U.K. Visit Unites the British” 

Trump’s UK Visit: Trump, May discuss special alliance between the U.S. and the U.K.”

Nile Gardiner: Pres. Trump’s U.K. Visit Possibly His “Most Successful” State Visit

Here are the headlines about the Trump U.K. trip from U.S. Media outlets:

“Ignorant Donald Trump Remarks in Ireland Force Irish PM’s Clarification” (Rachel Maddow via MSNBC)

“Jeremy Hunt Calls Donald Trump a ‘Controversial President'”(Jeremy Hunt: RT )

“Day 1 Of Donald Trump Gaffs” (RT)

“Trolling Calling: Trump Gets ‘Baby Blimp’ Treatment In London”  (MSNBC)

President Donald Trump Causes Controversy In UK Visit”  (NBC News)

“Trump an ‘enemy of democracy,’ London protestor says | Trump’s U.K. Visit 2019 (CNBC)

Who Cares?

Let’s cut right to the chase: does anyone in America really care what people in Switzerland, Belgium, Turkey, Russia, or Lichenstein think about President Trump or any U.S. president? I know Barack Obama made it clear he wanted all of us to join all of “them” and become “Citizens of the World” instead of U.S. citizens. I would like for everyone to send me a $100 bill tomorrow, too. But just as certain I am that I will receive no $100 bills from anyone if I asked, I am certain none of us are going to become “Citizens of the World.” Donald Trump does not care to be the “President” or “King” of the World, either. I’m pretty sure Barack Obama would have liked that, though.

So why does anyone here care at all how the British or French or German media feel about President Trump?

It’s kinda like this for me: I love my wife. We’ve been married 44 years. Yes, her paint’s faded, her windshield has a few cracks in it, and her tires are constantly going flat. But you know what? I really like her THE WAY SHE IS! And, quite honestly, I don’t give a rip about what anyone else thinks about her, I think I’m going to keep her. Why? BECAUSE I LIKE WHAT SHE’S DONE AS MY WIFE, MOTHER TO OUR CHILDREN, AND NONNIE TO OUR 6 GRANDCHILDREN.

And I don’t care what anyone else thinks — especially not someone who lives in Zimbabwe!

Here’s what they’re all missing:

  • Does anyone think a stupid guy from Queens could turn a stake from his father into several billion dollars if he was stupid?
  • Does anyone think that same guy could build an enterprise from nothing into being the employer of several hundred thousand Americans and maintain it for 30 years?
  • Does anyone think that stupid guy could create and personally produce (while starring in) a multi-year #1 network television show?

Zig Ziglar is probably using that example in his career building seminars as an example of what someone — ANYONE — is capable of achieving if they only try and never give up.

The Leftist Media (and the Leftists in Congress) are just hacked off because — first of all — he beat their Star in her run for the White House in 2016. Secondly, they feel the way they feel because they do not understand how he operates, what his governing intentions are, and they certainly don’t understand this one thing about him: he makes promises and he KEEPS promises! They are not accustomed to seeing that in any national politician.

So they just stand back and throw rocks at him. Their fundamental premise is this: “He’s dumb, he’s stupid, he doesn’t know anything about politics, and we do. He simply needs to sit down, shut up, and let us tell him what to do and how to do it just like we have in the past.”

Donald Trump is NOT going to ever do that!

The Finish: Bubba

His name was Bubba. He was from Texas but he was in New York City and he needed a loan, So he walked into a bank in the Big Apple and asked for the loan officer.

He told the loan officer that he was going to Paris for an international redneck festival for two weeks and needed to borrow $5,000 and that he was not a depositor of the bank.

The bank officer told him that the bank would need some form of security for the loan, so the Redneck handed over the keys to a new Ferrari. The car was parked on the street in front of the bank.
The Redneck produced the title and everything checked out. The loan officer agreed to hold the car as collateral for the loan and apologized for having to charge 12% interest.

Later, the bank’s president and its officers all enjoyed a good laugh at the Redneck from Texas for using a $250,000 Ferrari as collateral for a $5,000 loan. An employee of the bank then drove the Ferrari into the bank’s private underground garage and parked it.

Two weeks later, Bubba returned, repaid the $5,000 and the interest of 23.07. The loan officer said, “Sir, we are very happy to have had your business, and this transaction has worked out very nicely, but we are a little puzzled. While you were away, we checked you out on Dunn & Bradstreet and found that you are a distinguished alumni from the University of Texas, a highly sophisticated investor and multi-millionaire with real estate and financial interests all over the world. Your investments include a large number of wind turbines around Sweetwater, Texas. What puzzles us is, why would you bother to borrow $5,000?”
The good ‘ole boy replied, “Where else in New York City can I park my car for two weeks for only $23.07 and expect it to be there when I return?”

Moral of the story: “just because he does things a little bit different than you do doesn’t mean he’s stupid! Just look at the results.”

Play

Pelosi-Schumer are “In the Box”

For the purpose of total transparency, please know I am NOT a Democrat. I am NOT a Republican. I am registered as “Other.” My state is one in which “Independent” is not a political category that is available for voter registration.

Honestly, in some ways, I am somewhat Libertarian, in some ways Republican, and though not inclined to support any current Democrat Party policies, on certain social issues I am antipathetic: not leaning Left and not leaning Right.

Whew! Now that we got that cleared up, let me make a statement to open today’s offering: The Democrat Party is in DEEP trouble! Its two leaders have gone totally off the reservation on which Reason resides. Nancy and Chuck are oblivious to YouTube’s capability to capture actual conversations in real time that often come up years later to haunt those who said those things. 

Besides that, both Pelosi and Schumer still act and talk like Americans are oblivious to all the things they say and do, and promises they break. (There has to be a reason for Congress’ approval numbers hovering in the teens) They’ve both been really good at showing the world their foolishness. But this time it is REALLY over the top.

“Nancy and Chuck Sitting in a Tree….”

By now everyone is familiar with the notification to Mexico by President Trump that unless Mexico stepped up to help take care of the flood of illegals through the U.S. border he would impose massive tariffs on Mexican goods. In all fairness, members of Congress — and not all are Democrats — balked at the possibility of Mexican tariffs. Concerns were primarily those for the negative impact tariffs would make on the U.S. economy.

They all looked for cameras so they could pontificate about the lunacy of such tariffs and how bad implementing those would be on U.S. foreign policy. Still, Trump restated, again and again, he was serious and would indeed assess tariffs, and that the first level — 5% — would become effective Monday, June 10, 2019.

Here was Nancy about the Trump lunacy regarding tariffs and Trump’s explanation:

Not to be outdone, the Senate Minority Leader stepped to the microphone to give the world his sarcastic analysis. Here’s what he said:

“This is an historic night!” Schumer said sarcastically in a Twitter post Friday night.
The president “has announced that he has cut a deal ‘to greatly reduce, or eliminate, illegal immigration coming from Mexico and into the United States,’ Schumer added, quoting the president. “Now that that problem is solved, I’m sure we won’t be hearing any more about it in the future.”

Even Beto added his thoughts:

“I think the president has completely overblown what he purports to have achieved. These are agreements that Mexico had already made and, in some case, months ago,” the former congressman from Texas said on ABC’s “This Week.” “They might have accelerated the timetable, but by and large the president achieved nothing except to jeopardize the most important trading relationship that the United States of America has.”

A Mexican government contingent rushed to D.C. to negotiate a resolution with the U.S. State Department. The furor from the Left crescendoed as the tariff implementation date got closer. Friday, June 7th, Mexico capitulated and the President announced a resolution had been reached.

Expectations were that everyone in Washington would breath easier knowing that there would be no tariffs and that Mexico would take-on illegal immigration on their side of the border. But Nancy and Chuck brought any glee back to ground level. They are NOT happy.

Seriously?

Here’s where my head explodes. Pelosi and Schumer are the most powerful people in the Democrat Party. They supposedly represent “The People.” If they do, then please answer these:

How do you refuse to respond to the non-stop illegal alien entries into the U.S., the massive drug cartel floods of opioids across our border, and human trafficking that is mind boggling?

Why do you — the Democrats — not take ANY emergency actions to stop the travesty down South? In fact, when the President when responding to Dems inaction has taken executive action to help ICE and Customs Border Patrol stem the tide of illegal crossings, Democrats have run to the most liberal federal court judge they can find to file grievances against the President. Why is that?

Why did you flatly refuse the President’s offer in early 2018 to protect those DACA recipients and to provide a massive number of interim visas so illegals could remain and take steps for permanent legal status?

Here’s what the President offered them in that proposal:

It offered up to 1.8 million DACA recipients and other “in limbo” immigrants legal status in exchange for doing away with “chain migration” and the immigration lottery used in foreign countries to determine those that would come to the U.S. for legal immigration. As part of the deal, Congress would fund the building of the southern wall/barrier.

Pelosi and Schumer didn’t even bother to make the President a counter offer. They just flatly said, “No!” Meanwhile, those DACA recipients that the Democrat Party had claimed as their own are still left out in the cold — still with tentative immigration status, and are here in the U.S. without citizenship or any way to get it, all thanks to Nancy and Chuck.

The results of their “No”

January 2018 through May 2019, 1,354,202 illegals were “apprehended” at the southern border — more than any previous corresponding period in U.S. history.

At least $200 Billion has been spent by the U.S. government to process and take care of those illegals. And that does NOT include the money spent by state and local governments and for healthcare!

Hundreds of thousands of pounds of opioids and other drugs continue to find their way into the U.S. craftily transferred into the U.S. between ports of entries to escape the notice of border agents. Thousands of children have been trafficked by the Mexican cartels.

Most horrible of all is that there is no way to know for certain how many Americans have paid for the Dems callousness in allowing this to continue. But it is certain that many paid with their health, their safety and security, and many paid with their lives. Crimes committed by these illegals have cost border states, counties tens of millions of dollars.

And why? Why do Democrats following the lead of Pelosi and Schumer continue to turn their backs on legal Americans, legal immigrants, and the rule of law? Why do they allow the continuation of lawlessness and senseless deaths of Americans at the hands of illegals or as a direct result of the opioids they bring into the U.S.?

I would never respond by saying that Democrats don’t care about the carnage and dollars poured down the drain of Illegal Immigration. Certainly, if they really do care, they don’t show it.

What is their objective, then? What can possibly be the desired end result that would cost Americans so much and still be worthy to continue this madness? Why would they not just turn their backs on the success by this President’s putting definite tariffs on Mexico if they continue to ignore international immigration laws, but then laugh at his doing so while denigrating his intentions in taking such action and maintaining he did so for “personal reasons.”

And last but certainly not least, why do they think so little of everyday Americans, acting like all Americans are too dumb to understand exactly what Democrats are doing?

The answer is simple: Nancy, Chuck, Hillary, Barack, Uncle Joe, Mayor Pete, Kamala, Beto, Kirsten, and every other Democrat of prominence today doesn’t’ care about the opinions of Americans; don’t care about what is best for at-large Americans and their specific needs; don’t care that Americans in a huge majority have labeled Illegal Immigration as the great problem in America today. 

How desperately do they despise Americans? Think about it: Hillary (when she thought no one was listening) called Trump supporters — which are comprised of Middle Americans — “deplorables.” And most Democrats feel that Trump supporters are uneducated, of low income households, and, more importantly, unsophisticated and are therefore incapable of understanding what’s best for them, their families, and the U.S.

And, of course, Democrats DO know what’s best for Trump supporters and everyone else on Earth.

Meanwhile, Democrats are consumed with two things: Indictments of pretty much everyone in the Trump Administration and the impeachment of the President. Nothing else matters — especially not you or me. Their all-consuming agenda: control every American, every corporation, every social organization, and every dollar. After all, they certainly know best how to handle all of those, don’t they?

I forgot: what box are Nancy and Chuck in together? Their box is not made of cardboard or wood. Their box is made of mirrors. As far as they can see, they’re the only ones in their box. When they look up, who do they see? Chuck and Nancy. When they look to either side, front or back, who do they see? Chuck and Nancy. No one else is viewable from their box, AND THEY DON’T CARE! You are insignificant, anyway.

We haven’t forgotten about you at TNN. You’re on our radar. This week we’re closely watching what goes on in D.C. And we’ll bring the truth of all that happens to you.

Stay close!

Play

How Dysfunctional is Congress?

Short Answer: VERY!

Not in my lifetime has the U.S. Congress been so slow, so inconsistent, and so unwilling to go about the People’s business. There is no doubt part of their job is to oversee the operations of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. But that is NOT their primary responsibility.

The Constitution of the United States outlines the responsibilities and duties of Congress. Article I offers an overview of Congressional power, while Section 8 provides details about each duty. Section 8 includes a total of 14 paragraphs of information about all the duties, including:

  • Borrowing money on behalf of the country
  • Regulating commerce
  • Developing a uniform system of laws
  • Establishing the Post Office
  • Declaring war

Wow! That seems pretty simple, doesn’t it? Though those 5 tasks for the Congress set by The Constitution seem to be simple tasks, we all know there’s a lot to it. But, in all fairness, there are 535 elected people who are tasked to work together to complete those 5 things every year. And those 535 elected folks each have a staff comprised of dozens of workers to make certain everything necessary for the completion of those tasks is taken care of.

So why does Congress get so little done?

Congressional Actions in 2017 (2nd Half of 115th Congress)

In that most Americans doubt Congress does much of anything, Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL) argues that the U.S. House of Representatives is getting things done. The Congressman on his website published a list of the greatest accomplishments of Congress in 2017. Let’s look at them:

(If you want details of any of these bills, click on the hyperlink to be transferred to see the actual bill)

These ten Congressional accomplishments — according to Congressman Shimkus — are the MOST important Congressional accomplishments of 2017! Obviously, his list includes specific bills that originated in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate passed some bills, too. But it takes both Houses to pass bills that find their way to the President’s desk to be signed into law. Of those ten bills listed by Congressman Shimkus as THE significant legislative 2017 accomplishments, only two were actually signed into law! None of the others — including any that the U.S. Senate passed — even made it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for presidential signature.

Laws Passed thru 5/31/2019 in this the 116th Congress

Public Law Number Bill Number and Title Date
PL 116-19 S.1693 – National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2019 05/31/2019
PL 116-18 H.R.2379 – To reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. 05/23/2019
PL 116-17 H.R.1222 – Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act 05/10/2019
PL 116-16 H.R.1839 – Medicaid Services Investment and Accountability Act of 2019 04/18/2019
PL 116-15 S.725 – A bill to change the address of the postal facility designated in honor of Captain Humayun Khan. 04/16/2019
PL 116-14 H.R.2030 – Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act 04/16/2019
PL 116-13 H.R.276 – Recognizing Achievement in Classified School Employees Act 04/12/2019
PL 116-12 S.863 – A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the grade and pay of podiatrists of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 04/08/2019
PL 116-11 S.252 – A bill to authorize the honorary appointment of Robert J. Dole to the grade of colonel in the regular Army. 04/06/2019
PL 116-10 S.49 – A bill to designate the outstation of the Department of Veterans Affairs in North Ogden, Utah, as the Major Brent Taylor Vet Center Outstation. 03/21/2019
PL 116-9 S.47 – John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act 03/12/2019
PL 116-8 S.483 – Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2018 03/08/2019
PL 116-7 H.R.439 – National FFA Organization’s Federal Charter Amendments Act 02/21/2019
PL 116-6 H.J.Res.31 – Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 02/15/2019
PL 116-5 H.J.Res.28 – Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 01/25/2019
PL 116-4 H.R.430 – TANF Extension Act of 2019 01/24/2019
PL 116-3 H.R.259 – Medicaid Extenders Act of 2019 01/24/2019
PL 116-2 H.R.251 – Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program Extension Act 01/18/2019
PL 116-1 S.24 – Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 01/16/2019

Are you counting? 19 laws in 2019.

Estimates are that American taxpayers’ costs for funding Congressional operations were $4.4 Billion in 2009 — a decade ago! Current numbers simply “are not available.” But using realistic assumptions, it is credible to believe that number approaches $10 Billion annually. Look at what taxpayers received in Congressional services in legislative actions for the entirety of 2017 and the first half of 2019: 29 pieces of legislation plus the one big meaningful one: tax cuts. Do you feel like we’re getting our money worth?

So What is Congress Doing?

Great question. The #1 concern among Americans is dramatically and emphatically Illegal Immigration. Last week, more than 1,000 immigrants surged through the U.S. southern border near El Paso, Texas — the largest number ever encountered by U.S. Border Control and Protection, with the previous record being set in the month of April, which was 424. This unprecedented invasion spurred President Donald J. Trump to slap a 5 percent tariff on goods from Mexico in an effort to get the Mexican government to take seriously the problem of undocumented immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.

The mainstream media, predictably, started lamenting on how the price of avocados for American consumers may potentially increase a few cents and completely ignored the $200 billion American taxpayers pay each year in illegal immigration costs. Not to mention the cost of illegal drugs on our youth, and the cost to education and health care on American taxpayers. So, let’s take a look at these dollars and cents.

According to a recent analysis done by Chris Conover, an American Enterprise Institute adjunct scholar, “all told, Americans cross-subsidize health care for unauthorized immigrants to the tune of $18.5 billion a year.”

Although current federal policy prohibits federal tax funding of health care to unauthorized immigrants through Medicaid or Obamacare, “rough estimates suggest that the nation’s 3.9 million uninsured immigrants who are unauthorized likely receive about $4.6 billion in health services paid for by federal taxes, $2.8 billion in health services financed by state and local taxpayers and another $3 billion bankrolled through ‘cost-shifting,’ i.e. higher payments by insured patients to cover hospital uncompensated care losses, and roughly $1.5 billion in physician charity care,” Mr. Conover wrote in Forbes.

Public education of illegal immigrants’ children is also hemorrhaging the American taxpayer, as, under federal law, all students are eligible to receive schooling regardless of their immigration status.

“Public education is where the real big cost comes in,” Randy Capps, the director for research for U.S. programs at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute told NBC News this year. “The amount of taxes that the parents pay on their earnings, that they pay through property taxes — passed through on their rent — it’s not going to be as much as is spent on public education for their kids and food stamps for their kids.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimated it cost public schools $59.8 billion to educate the children of illegal immigrants, and almost the entirety of this cost, 98.9 percent, is borne by taxpayers at the local and state level, through property taxes, according to a 2016 study. At the time, the number of unaccompanied minors crossing the border from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador were driving increased funding programs for students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) — causing a major drain on school budgets. That was when 118,929 unaccompanied minors were crossing the border during the fiscal year. Already this year, 44,779 unaccompanied alien minors have crossed the border and 248,197 family units, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

More people have been apprehended illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border this fiscal year than in any year since 2009, according to the CBP.

Then there’s the human cost of the drug crisis. In fiscal 2018, the U.S. border patrol seized 480,000 pounds of drugs, including fentanyl, marijuana, and meth, on the U.S.-Mexico border. In January, the CBP saw the largest seizure of fentanyl in the agency’s history — seizing nearly $4.6 million, or 650 pounds, of fentanyl and meth from a Mexican national when he attempted to cross the border.

Drug overdoses, fueled by opioids killed more than 70,000 people in the U.S. in 2017, with fentanyl overdose deaths doubling each and every year.

And today we learned that ISIS has been sending English-speaking terrorists to sneak through Mexico to get to the U.S. And we have no idea how long that has been happening and how many have entered the U.S.!

Can Mexico do more? Absolutely. Mexico needs to do a better job securing its own southern border — which runs only 150 miles across. It also can do a better job cracking down on its domestic terror organizations — both the coyotes smuggling young children across the border and the drug kingpins. Lastly, Mexico could grant asylum to migrants within its own homeland. According to international law, if you leave a country seeking asylum, you are to seek asylum in the first safe country you arrive. Mexico is safe, and the Mexican government can address this.

Who has the legal requirement to take care of the flow of immigrants into the U.S.? Are there laws that regulate all types of immigration? Why are they not being enforced? If they are bad laws, shouldn’t they be changed?

The answers to all those questions are singular: the United States Congress.

Why Doesn’t Congress Act on Illegal Immigration?

The simple answer: They don’t want to.

For Democrats, illegal immigration assures them of millions of “potential” voters that are present in the U.S. Democrats feel certain that whenever they take back the power of the House, Senate, and the White House, they can pass legislation to legalize all those illegals. That gives them instant VOTERS! And they are certain they will be able to lump those in the same Democrat basket in which they have already relegated African Americans and Hispanics.

For Republicans, those in the House and Senate simply don’t want to rock the boat. On the most part, their driving purpose is to maintain the balance between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans know it’s just a matter of time for the Democrats to take control of the Senate and probably the White House. Republicans want to “not make waves” now so that when Dems are back in power, the “revenge factor” will not lead Democrat leadership to strip GOP members of the prestigious committee spots they currently now have.

Remember: Congressional membership is no longer about money like it was decades ago — it’s all about “Power.” With power, you not only control money — billions of discretionary dollars — but everything  else. Balance is the key.

Regarding the border crisis: now that Democrats have come around and dropped their talking point “there is no crisis at the border,” why don’t they just pass legislation to take care of the problem, fund the necessary items to underwrite the current issues, stop illegal crossings, and fund the border wall?

They can no longer blame President Trump. Remember his offer last year? All Democrats had to do in the deal Trump offered Congress was fund the $5.7 billion for partial construction of the southern border wall. In exchange, his offer included hundreds of millions of dollars in new humanitarian money for safety and health of illegal immigrants, it would allow Central American children to apply for USA asylum from their home countries, and it would create a three-year legal status for about 700,000 people now here under the Obama-era DACA program, and some 300,000 people here under humanitarian protections, who might otherwise become illegal immigrants soon.

Of course Dems rejected the offer. So Trump has watched as the crisis down South has reached epidemic proportions and is taking Mexico on in an effort to force them to stop the Central America flood of immigrants through Mexico to get to the U.S. His plan is to use tariffs on Mexican products that come to the U.S. It sounds reasonable to most. But not to Pelosi and Company.

Her patent refusal is sad but not unexpected.

But then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky weighed in on HIS thoughts of the tariff proposal:

President Trump cannot win for losing!

Summary

Here’s the rub: President Trump cannot do it alone. Congress can! They could in a 30-minute session in the House and a 30-minute session in the Senate pass the necessary legislation to stop illegal immigration — if not completely then to a crawl — and give DACA recipients the peace of mind that though their parents brought them here illegally, they have stayed and can stay with government protection while they follow a path to citizenship. But they don’t!

The ball is in the court of the U.S. Congress. President Trump’s options are extremely limited. Many don’t like increased tariffs on China and other countries that are already in place. But they’re having positive results. Those on Mexico would hurt a bit, but their results would mean fair trade, which the U.S. has not had with most countries for decades. And if Mexico would simply honor their own immigration walls for their southern border and turn Central Americans away if not emigrating legally, our southern border crisis would subside!

Each American has only one thing to put into this battle: a vote — one vote. It would be a good thing (if you haven’t already) find out how your House member and your U.S. Senator feels, has voted, and will vote on any illegal immigration legislation issue if and when one comes to the floor for a vote. Let them know where YOU stand. And make some noise.

After all, they are allowing and even encouraging illegal immigrants to keep on coming! And they are making Americans who want the flood of illegals to stop feel guilty for wanting the government to simply abide by the law and enforce it.

After all of this, do you think there’s a possibility that many in Congress are just stupid?!?

 

Play

Socialism: Coming Soon to the U.S.A.

What is “Democratic Socialism?” What is/are the differences between “Democratic” Socialism and the everyday Walmart-version of Socialism? What countries on Earth are Socialist nations?

In the age of the hunger for Socialism to replace Capitalism in the U.S., Millenials are crying daily for the latter. But do they really know what they are asking for? It is abundantly clear that a huge majority of those Millenials we see marching in the streets of larger U.S. cities promoting Socialism at the expense of Capitalism have NO idea what the system they are demanding really is, what it does, how it operates, and even if it works at all anywhere. They certainly have no clue as to how the U.S. would look under Socialism.

As is normal in every American generation, these young “Socialist-wannabes” decided to rename their dreamed-for utopia to “Democratic Socialism.” So what is Democratic Socialism as compared to the normal version?

Democratic Socialism

Democratic socialism means that this political reality—the abolition of capitalism—to be achieved will be achieved and administered through democratic, as opposed to authoritarian, means.

DSA’s website (Democratic Socialists of America) explains: “Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.”

“Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control society either … We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them … Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives.”

Every DSA member you talk to would articulate a different vision of the ideal future for America. This is probably true of Americans of almost all political stripes. It might be more useful to look at the work that DSA is doing and the policy positions they hold than to speculate on the specifics of the future world they want to create.

The DSA outlines three tactics it uses to shift the power structure in America. Two of them are “decrease the influence of money in politics” and “empower ordinary people in workplaces and the economy.” If the wealthy—or as Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders likes to say, the 1 percent—control the economy and dictate the terms of people’s livelihoods, economic equality is impossible.

The DSA supports movements like Fight for 15 and Medicare for All, and backs institutions like unions and cooperatives, as vehicles for people to gain more economic power. Some DSA chapters also support public banks, tenant’s unions, and advocate for the homeless with the same aim in mind.

All of these tactics are ways to “seize the means of production,” meaning that working-class people play a larger role in the labor they perform and deciding the way they are compensated for that work, while bosses profit less from the work of their employees.

The third goal that DSA lists is to “restructure gender and cultural relationships to be more equitable.” Just as the rich have more power than those with less money, in the white, patriarchal society of the United States, white men have power and privilege that other groups do not enjoy.

In mainstream liberal politics, racial, gender, and economic liberation are often discussed as separate issues. Democratic socialists believe that all types of oppression have their root in the capitalist and colonial systems that dominate American life. The only politics to combat these forces, then, is “intersectional,” meaning that all types of oppression are taken into account. The only way to end this oppression is by a mutual struggle in which various oppressed groups fight on each other’s behalf.

Democratic socialists also see the struggle for equality as one that transcends national borders. For this reason, the group abhors ICE, stands in solidarity with Palestine, and opposes military imperialism. Among many groups on the left, you will often hear the phrase “No war but class war” used to sum up this position.

It is obvious to see that the “organized” socialists in America who are largely members of the DSA have very specific ideas of what our nation looks like. It is also obvious that they want a very different America! Of course it like many other political “ideals” that are floated as the perfect utopia in which we all should live, Democratic Socialists fundamentally demand the complete destruction of capitalism, which they view as pure evil. I cannot imagine what the United States would look like in that world. I have no doubt the destruction of capitalism would initiate a quick and dramatic death of the U.S. economy.

But there is “more” out there in the world of Socialism.

Plain Old Socialism

Socialism is the Big Lie of the Twenty-first century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

Socialism Ignores Incentives

A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!

“Pure” Socialism

In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China were pointed out.  At the time of that debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the “evil capitalist empire” when they were only 50 miles from the “workers’ paradise” of Cuba?

If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. The Marxist on that panel admitted that many “socialist” countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing “pure” socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, sometimes imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.

If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite wealth, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly.

However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity, it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between sometimes imperfect capitalism (but capitalism no less) and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.

The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.

Prices

The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don’t appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.

Profits and Losses

Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.

Private Property Rights

A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a “tragedy of commons” on a global scale. The “tragedy of the commons” refers to the British experience of the Sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.

When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship.

Incentives Matter

Without the incentives of market prices, profit-and-loss accounting, and well-defined property rights, socialist economies stagnate and wither. The economic withering that occurs under socialism is a direct consequence of its neglect of economic incentives.

No abundance of natural resources can ever compensate a country for its lack of an efficient system of incentives. Russia, for example, is one of the world’s wealthiest countries in terms of natural resources; it has some of the world’s largest reserves of oil, natural gas, diamonds, and gold. Its valuable farmland, lakes, rivers, and streams stretch across a land area that encompasses 11 time zones. Yet Russia remains poor. Natural resources are helpful, but the ultimate resources of any country are the unlimited resources of its people–human resources.

Winners and Losers in Socialism

Socialism leads to the politicization of society. Hardly anything can be worse for the production of wealth.

Socialism, at least its Marxist version, says its goal is complete equality. The Marxists observe that once you allow private property in the means of production, you allow differences. If I own resource A, then you do not own it and our relationship toward resource A becomes different and unequal. By abolishing private property in the means of production with one stroke, say the Marxists, everyone becomes co-owner of everything. This reflects everyone’s equal standing as a human being.

The reality is much different. Declaring everyone a co-owner of everything only nominally solves differences in ownership. It does not solve the real underlying problem:  there remain differences in the power to control what is done with resources.

In capitalism, the person who owns a resource can also control what is done with it. In a socialized economy, this isn’t true because there is no longer any owner. Nonetheless the problem of control remains. Who is going to decide what is to be done with what? Under socialism, there is only one way: people settle their disagreements over the control of property by superimposing one will upon another. As long as there are differences, people will settle them through political means.

If people want to improve their income under socialism they have to move toward a more highly valued position in the hierarchy of caretakers. That takes political talent.

Under such a system, people will have to spend less time and effort developing their productive skills and more time and effort improving their political talents.

As people shift out of their roles as producers and users of resources, we find that their personalities change. They no longer cultivate the ability to anticipate situations of scarcity to take up productive opportunities, to be aware of technological possibilities, to anticipate changes in consumer demand, and to develop strategies of marketing. They no longer have to be able to initiate, to work, and to respond to the needs of others.

Instead, people develop the ability to assemble public support for their own position and opinion through means of persuasion, demagoguery, and intrigue, through promises, bribes, and threats. Different people rise to the top under socialism than under capitalism. The higher on the socialist hierarchy you look, the more you will find people who are too incompetent to do the job they are supposed to do. It is no hindrance in a caretaker politician’s career to be dumb, indolent, inefficient, and uncaring. He only needs superior political skills. This too contributes to the impoverishment of society.

Summary

Plain and simple, “Socialism ain’t gonna work!” It works nowhere on Earth and has always been unsustainable in any versions as it has been tried. It certainly won’t work in the U.S. Why?

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said in 2007, “…and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.”

It’s surprising to me that Democratic Socialists like AOC, Bernie Sanders and others don’t understand that capitalism rewards those who work hard, work smart, and build businesses with which other Americans want to work. That’s the main difference between Socialism and Capitalism.

Under Socialism, entrepreneurship is dead, ingenuity is dead, and working hard to get ahead is dead.

Making it as simple as possible, in case you didn’t get it a few moments ago: “Socialism ain’t gonna work!”

Play

Who is “Below the Law?”

“I don’t know who needs to hear this, but the president is not above the law.”

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 3, 2019

The Law

“Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

  1. concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
  2. concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
  3. concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
  4. obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
That’s the law — 18 U.S. Code § 798 — regarding the handling of classified information: the Law. By any understanding of that law and the penalty for breaking the law, when someone does so, their doing so is a heinous act against the U.S. Government that in doing so allows someone — anyone — to access potentially serious national information that could be damaging to the United States in any number of ways.

“Anyone:” Then there’s former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

(Follow along very carefully these next sentences:)

  • According to documents, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy pressured a senior FBI official into de-classifying emails sent from Hillary Clinton’s illegal private server. The FBI official notes that Kennedy contacted the organization to ask for the change in classification in “exchange for a ‘quid pro quo.’ More specifically, “State would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more agents in countries where they are presently forbidden,” according to a conversation relayed by The Weekly Standard‘s Stephen Hayes. The FBI did not take Kennedy up on his offer.
  • Despite initial denials from the State Department, this exchange is entirely plausible. For one, State had plenty of expertise in the deployment of quid pro quo during Hillary’s years of enriching her family foundation by trading government access. Moreover, a senior FBI official has a lot less reason to fabricate a conversation about favor trading than a Clinton functionary has to pressure a senior FBI official into saving Hillary from criminal prosecution.
  • “Classification is an art, not a science, and individuals with classification authority sometimes have different views,” a State Department spokesperson said. No doubt this is true. So why did Kennedy wait until a criminal investigation was well underway to ask law enforcement to scrutinize that particular document at that particular time? Is it customary for undersecretaries of State to ask the FBI to alter the classifications of documents that just happen to protect political candidates at the center of a politically explosive investigation? Did Kennedy — a man who owes his high position to the Clintons — engage in this conversation on his own? Was he asked to do it? For months, law enforcement had attempted to contact him, and he ignored their inquiries. Why, according to FBI documents, did Kennedy only reach out to make this request?
  • What’s even more curious is that FBI Director James Comey didn’t consider this event — or, for that matter, the litany of other actions Clinton’s lackeys took to protect her — as a sign that there was, at the very least, an intent to influence the investigation. This is, of course, was just one revelation in the Hillary email scandal. It’s worth remembering that the illegal email setup was only inadvertently discovered through a congressional investigation into Benghazi. The server itself existed to evade transparency.
  • When caught, Hillary alleged that she “never sent any classified material nor received any marked classified.” This turned out to be a lie. Hillary claimed before becoming secretary she had merely wanted only one device “for convenience.” This turned out to be a lie. The FBI found that Clinton “used numerous mobile devices,” not to mention servers. Clinton — the most competent person to ever run for president, according to Barack Obama — claimed she didn’t understand how classified markings work. This was also a lie.
  • According to the FBI, Hillary sent 110 emails containing clearly marked classified information. Thirty-six of these emails contained secret information. Eight of those email chains contained “top secret” information. “We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account,” Comey said at his press conference in July of 2016. He acknowledged this could have happened because Hillary and her staff were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” He also admitted that no competent foreign power would have left behind evidence of this hack.

Yet, for some reason, Comey would not admit that this is why U.S. Code makes mishandling information — not the intent of those mishandling it — illegal.

Those who ran Clinton’s server attempted to destroy evidence — government documents — after The New York Times reported on her wrongdoing. Probably another coincidence. Not that intent mattered to Comey, either. Before the FBI even cracked open their laptops, the Justice Department proactively gave immunity to the five people who could have testified that Hillary was lying. (One of these people, Cheryl Mills, later acted as Hillary’s lawyer.) The two Clinton aides with the most intimate knowledge about her email conniving were also given side deals.

Does anyone besides me see any conflict in the happenings detailed above and what Ms. Clinton said in her speech on Monday of this week and in her tweet: “…the president is not above the law?”

Then There’s Congress

Everyone knows that it takes an impeachment proceeding initiated from the House Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives, then with that committee’s referral to the floor of the House followed by a successful House vote to impeach to start that process. If and when that occurs, the matter is turned over to the Senate for an actual trial on the merits. Obviously, much debate ensues during an actual trial. At the conclusion, the Senate votes on the charges. If two-thirds of the Senators vote to confirm the House resolution for impeachment, the President is convicted and removed from office.

We want to note here: there’s a process — a Constitutional process. That process requires charges, evidence of violation by the President of U.S. Constitutional mandate that states in Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

There’s a Constitutional process for impeaching the President, Vice President, and other “civil officers of the United States.” Certainly, Americans support everything within the Constitution, right? But let’s see what longtime Democrat and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has to say about what is being threatened by House Democrats right now:

“The mantra invoked by those Democrats who are seeking to impeach President Trump is that ‘no one is above the law.’ That, of course, is true, but it is as applicable to Congress as it is to the president. Those members of Congress who are seeking to impeach the president, even though he has not committed any of the specified impeachable offenses set out in the Constitution, are themselves seeking to go above the law.

All branches of government are bound by the law. Members of Congress, presidents, justices and judges must all operate within the law. All take an oath to support the Constitution, not to rewrite it for partisan advantage.

It is the law that exempts presidents from being prosecuted or impeached for carrying out their constitutional authority under Article 2. The same Constitution precludes members of Congress from being prosecuted for most actions taken while on the floor of the House and Senate or on the way to performing their functions. The Constitution, which is the governing law, precludes Congress from impeaching a president for mere “dereliction” of duty or even alleged ‘corruption.’ Under the text of the Constitution, a president’s actions to be impeachable must consist of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Consider Rep. Maxine Waters, (D-CA), who has said the following:

Congressman Waters said this the other day: “Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates impeachment.”

It is she, and other like-minded members of Congress, who are claiming the right to be above the law. That is a dangerous claim whether made by a president or by a member of Congress.

So Hillary, members of Congress, and most in the Mainstream Media are claiming they are above the Law, who then would be considered to be below the law?

The answer to that is simple: anyone who disagrees with anything any member of the Democrat ruling “Elitist-ocracy” is certainly below the Law and obviously unworthy of the consideration of “Equal justice under the Law.” Who throughout history are some of those “folks?”

  • All those who fled the repression of European elitist members of the Ruling Class who considered anyone not deemed to be eligible for membership in their groups to be less than worthy of “Equal justice under the Law;”
  • African-American men, women, and children who were taken by slave traders in Northern Africa and sold in America had no rights and were certainly less than worthy of “Equal justice under the Law;”
  • Today’s working-class Americans who don’t live and work in Coastal American states or those several interior states comprised of like-minded elites who have garnered favor from the political elite “Overclass” are less than worthy of “Equal justice under the Law;”
  • According to Hillary and other Dems, everyone who did NOT vote for Hillary in 2016 but chose Mr. Trump instead is not only ineligible for “Equal Justice under the Law,” but are reprehensible human beings and deserve no consideration of the benefits of simply being Americans.

Summary

I know this may seem harsh today. But it is time for Americans to wake up and realize liberty and justice for all is about to be “liberty and justice for only an elite few.” And regardless of what the pundits on the Left want all to believe, those elites are NOT the current inhabitants of the White House. They are led by the defeated 2016 presidential candidate and all those who had surreptitiously created, implemented, and maintained her path to the White House so as to cover-up all the wrongdoing committed by her team and others comprised by a large number of very important government officials.

Even in the aftermath of two years of an exhaustive investigation into ridiculous allegations against this president, his staff, family, and many friends, those Elitists still shout in anger threats against all of those who are “below the Law” that support the duly elected president and the Rule of Law.

I never in my wildest dream we would ever see a day like this today. But it’s true: for at least the eight years of the Obama Administration, evil and deviousness ran rampant through the Capital and the Department of Justice in D.C. And the U.S. government was nothing more than a piggy bank for Elitists to tap for their evildoing. Taxpayers paid every dime for what they did. And our children will continue to pay that bill.

Play

Slippery Slope Target: The Constitution

Why the rush to remove monuments, change names of Universities and sports teams all the while denigrating their historical meanings?

Actually, what we are seeing is the fulfillment of Barack Obama’s major campaign promise when running in 2008: “To fundamentally change America.” Think about it: how could one change a nation fundamentally without altering its history? He did not say he wanted to alter the course of America or to change the processes in the U.S. Government. No, he wanted to fundamentally change America.

“Fundamentally” America was structured to operate as the most unique country on Earth. Our forefathers took the best of the political frameworks of European countries and added to it “liberty and justice for all.” They then memorialized that new type of government in the roadmap of roadmaps — the U.S. Constitution. That document and its contents are the fundamental backbones of the United States of America. Sure, people fight over whether or not the framers intended for it to be used in perpetuity as literally written or that it be a “living, breathing,” the process of laws that morph in interpretation to fit the inevitable changes in American life as they happen. But the argument today by some is to alter not the interpretations of the intent of the framers but to actually add, delete, and/or change phrasing and wording of the document.

That seems to be the justification used for the efforts to destroy offending monuments and statues and the removal of slogans and stone markers from places highly visible to the public. Which specific offensive historical reminders should be removed and which should stay? That remains to be seen. Of course, there are many that vigorously object to ANY removal, strictly for historical purposes.

To me, removing, hiding, or changing locations of these pieces of history is not the danger I am writing about. What petrifies me is the slippery slope America is now at the brink of sliding down into an abyss of societal culture never before experienced in America. So far the only thing that has prevented that slide is the strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution and the greatest judicial system on Earth. However, that too is under attack.

The “Intent”

What did the Framers envision the Constitution to be? I think the best way to answer that question is to list the items in Article 1 Section 8 (powers of Congress) and Article 2 Section 2 (powers of the President) of the Constitution. Here is the link:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Upon reading these sections of the Constitution, most people will be shocked to see just how little power the Constitution gave to the new federal government. The federal government is mainly responsible for dealings with foreign countries such as treaties, commerce, wars., and little else (immigration, coining money, etc.). Yet today, Constitutional “detractors” on the Left want to tear up the Constitution and start from scratch!

We’ve all heard about the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Those are the first ten Amendments that are simply called the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson and others involved in creating the U.S. Constitution had just after living under a European national government with top-down repressive and totalitarian operations for generations chose to move to a New World and establish a country that worked instead of top-down as a bottom-up governed nation.

The First Ten Amendments were the MOST important parts of the Constitution for those who had memories of awakening every day under that governmental oppression. Those ten amendments were written to make as easy as possible the understanding by all that the American people were creating a federal government that would operate using ONLY THOSE SPECIFIC RIGHTS AS GIVEN TO THAT GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE. No other federal government rights were ever to be used unless and until they were expressly given to the government by the People!

An all-powerful central government had destroyed Western Europe. Those American settlers wanted nothing to do with that lifestyle then and certainly not moving forward in the new nation.

What Did the Framers Actually Think?

Let’s look at their OWN words:

On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.  —Thomas Jefferson

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.  —James Wilson, in Of the Study of Law in the United States

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. — George Washington

Can it be of less consequence that the meaning of a Constitution should be fixed and known, than a meaning of a law should be so? — James Madison

The important distinction so well understood in America, between a Constitution established by the people and unalterable by the government, and a law established by the government and alterable by the government, seems to have been little understood and less observed in any other country. — James Madison

Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. … If it is, then we have no Constitution. — Thomas Jefferson

To take a single step beyond the text would be to take possession of a boundless field of power. — Thomas Jefferson

How does all this compare to what some contemporaries in politics had to say about the Constitution?

Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop.  All that progressives ask or desire is permission—in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution,’ is the scientific word—to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine. — Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom, A Call For The Emancipation Of The Generous Energies Of A People

The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written.” — Franklin Roosevelt, President

It is the genius of our Constitution that under its shelter of enduring institutions and rooted principles there is ample room for the rich fertility of American political invention. —Lyndon B. Johnson, President

The words of the Constitution … are so unrestricted by their intrinsic meaning or by their history or by tradition or by prior decisions that they leave the individual Justice free, if indeed they do not compel him, to gather meaning not from reading the Constitution but from reading life. —Felix Frankfurter, Supreme Court Justice

This understanding, underlying constitutional interpretation since the New Deal, reflects the Constitution’s demands for structural flexibility sufficient to adapt substantive laws and institutions to rapidly changing social, economic, and technological conditions. — Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court Justice, Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority

I cannot accept this invitation [to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution], for I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention … To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start. —Thurgood Marshall, Supreme Court Justice

It can be lost, and it will be, if the time ever comes when these documents are regarded not as the supreme expression of our profound belief, but merely as curiosities in glass cases. —Harry Truman, President

If we’re picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a ‘new’ Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us. When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless. —Antonin Gregory Scalia, Supreme Court Justice

Just talk to me as a father—not what the Constitution says. What do you feel? — Joe Biden, Vice President

The Thread of Commonality

Wow! All of those quoted above — those from the 1700s, the 1800s and the 1900s as well as this century — represent different perspectives and different understandings of the intent of the framers and the actual meaning of the Constitution. But, thankfully, they acknowledge the significance of our nation actually having a roadmap to American governing that is recognized as the greatest in the World.

But there’s on more commonality that runs very obviously through each: Opinion. Yep. Each of those who weighed in with thoughts did so based on opinion — THEIR opinion.

And who among us is any different?

Several things about the framer’s offerings are very obvious:

  • they recognized that they could not foretell the future and therefore could not imagine what legalities their great, great, great, great grandchildren would face but would still need the Constitution for guidance;
  • they acknowledged that events in the future would dictate the necessity of flexibility in interpretations demanded by contemporary and unimagined occurrences in American life at the time of its creation;
  • they knew there would, therefore, be demands for actual editing of their original constitution.

To anticipate exactly how to adjudicate these future certainties they knew was a possibility in the 18th century. They therefore brilliantly included the ability and the process to alter the Constitution. That process is called “Amending.” But because of the importance of the strictest adherence to the blueprint of governing they created, they purposely made the amendment process extremely difficult. Why?

They hated the political process and knew that if allowed, that process would destroy true freedom created by the Constitution. They knew that political partisanship would initiate continuous amending of the Constitution not to better serve the basis of the Laws of the People, but to only satisfy the hunger for political power for the elite. They had lived through that and knew it could NOT be allowed to devour this new nation.

Democracy or Republic?

The cries from partisan political parties for either a Democracy or a Republic for a description of the form of government established by the Constitution have gone back and forth for the life of the United States. The winds of the political party in power have determined which form is desired at the time.

Jefferson and Company knew this would happen. They made clear how the U.S. government would work. And they guaranteed Americans would live in a Representative Republic with the establishment of the Electoral College that governs the process of electing the U.S. “Executive in Chief,” the President and Vice President. Also, states are to determine U.S. Senators: 2 from each state originally appointed by each state’s governor but changed via Amendment to be elected by each state’s electorate, Members that serve in the “People’s House,” Congress, are still elected by voters from each House district in each state.

Today, the political Left doesn’t accept the structure of the Republic, rejecting it for instead a Democratic government. Why? In a pure Democracy, there ARE no federal representatives of the People. Each person gets one vote. That sounds reasonable, right? Consider this:

”IF” the U.S. was a true Democracy, every federal election outcome would simply be what those from the states of California, New York, Illinois, Florida, and Texas voted to be. Election results would be determined solely by the most heavily populated states and their voters’ desires. “Fly-over” Americans would have no say so at all in their government.

Without the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton would be President instead of Donald Trump. That was the choice of the U.S. popular vote when the Electoral College elected Trump in something of a landslide. The same happened in the Bush 43 presidential elections.

Summary

So what’s fair?

That answer is simple: NOT A DEMOCRACY.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99 percent vote.

True democracy is the tyranny of the majority. True democracy is mob rule. Thankfully we do not live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican form of government….”

And living in this republic means that every voice matters, majorities do not rule, and those with the loudest voices do not automatically win.

The will of the People means ALL the People.

Play

Criminal Justice Inequities

The United States has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. At the end of 2015, around 6.7 million individuals were under the supervision of U.S. adult correctional systems. While this number is lower than past years, prisoners in the United States still make up around 22 percent of the world’s prisoners, despite the country making up only 5 percent of the world’s population.

Why the big difference? One reason is that private prisons are big business in the United States. Although the Department of Justice has recently been in favor of reducing or eliminating dependence on prison contractors, private prisons continue to win new contracts due to the increased emphasis on incarceration that comes from initiatives like the war on drugs or the recent crackdown on undocumented immigration.

This increased emphasis on incarceration in the criminal justice system targets poor and non-white populations, creating a kind of social class structure where certain population groups are much more likely to be incarcerated. Let’s call this process “Social Stratification.”

What Is Social Stratification?

Social stratification exists in every society to some degree or another. Simply put, social stratification is the arrangement of different population groups into social tiers that create dominant and sub-dominant groups within a society. “Its basis consists of an unequal distribution of rights and privileges, duties and responsibilities, social values, social power and influences among the members of society,” according to Sociology Guide.

Within a stratified society, dominant social groups share increased advantages and privileges that sub-dominant social groups do not. This often means that sub-dominant groups experience hardship and inequality that more dominant groups do not because of their higher status on the social ladder.

Income Insecurity and Social Mobility

According to the Stanford Center on Poverty & Inequality, income inequality both contributes to and results from social inequality in many different ways.

  • CEOs were paid 185 times more money than the average production worker in 2009, a disparity that has grown more pronounced over time.
  • More than 750,000 Americans are homeless. African-Americans, people with disabilities and veterans make up a disproportionately high percentage of this number.
  • Women earn about 80 percent of what men earn for the same job, and many of the highest-paying jobs in the United States go primarily to men.
  • As of 2007, 73.1 percent of the wealth in the United States was concentrated among the top 10 percent of the population, and the bottom 60 percent held only 4.2 percent of the nation’s wealth.

These stark contrasts have increased over time, making it much more difficult for disadvantaged groups to gain ground. In 1980, the top-earning 1 percent of the U.S. population earned, on average, $428,000 per year; in 2016, that number was closer to $1.3 million. The poorest 50 percent of the population earned, on average, $16,000 per year in 1980; this hasn’t changed since then.

When combined with the cost of living, the growing economic inequality reinforces social stratification and makes increasing social and economic status extremely difficult for disadvantaged people. According to a study by the Economic Policy Institute, the average working family needs an annual income of $48,778 to meet its budget, which primarily consists of basic living expenses like housing, food, child care, transportation, healthcare and so on. Around 30 percent of families do not earn enough money to be above the average budget line. Of these families, the majority are made up of “young families, larger families, urban families, families headed by a non-college-educated person, and minority families,” the study found. More than 50 percent of African-American and Hispanic families fall below the budget line.

The Criminal Justice System and Social Stratification

This is where the American Criminal Justice System gets dicey. Because certain populations are forced into positions of social inequality, crime becomes more common within those populations. “Most inmates are minority men under age 40 ‘whose economic opportunities have suffered the most over the last 30 or 40 years. Incarceration in the United States is socially concentrated among very disadvantaged people,’” says U.S. News & World Report. In the United States, the people most likely to commit crimes are “people without education, jobs, housing, or hope,” U.S. News explains. This is further complicated by the fact that people from disadvantaged populations are frequently given harsher sentences than those from dominant populations for the same crimes.

Think about this: Retainers for felony crime cases start around $5,000-$10,000 but can be $25,000 or more for serious cases. Private criminal legal representation is literally out of reach and unattainable for most who fall into an average working family category or below. Because of the high cost of securing “better” or “best” legal representation in such cases, public defense is most often the only option.

Public defense is not in itself necessarily bad or of poor quality. But many who serve in this capacity are just beginning a criminal defense career or are assigned a certain percentage of indigent cases they are required to work. The volume of cases and low public defense budgets obviously water down capabilities of providing “better” or “best” defense for those charged who lack sufficient financial resources to obtain private representation.

Current examples are what occurred in Washington in the Mueller investigation of Russian collusion during the 2016 election. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was literally forced to plead guilty to one federal charge against him because he could not afford continually mounting legal bills to continue his defense. His legal costs? Estimated $500,000.

Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe although not charged in the case used a GoFundMe campaign to raise funds for his almost-certain criminal defense if/when he is charged. By no means is McCabe poor are indigent. But estimates for his defense are from $500,000 to $750,000.

These are unusual examples of political and very public criminal cases either underway or pending and are not typical of what everyday Americans face in the criminal justice system. But it is not uncommon for a criminal case in which a defendant who has a criminal record and who is subsequently charged with one or more felonies to face a $100,000 defense bill if able to retain a private criminal attorney. There is very little hope for a person of average or below income to find defense other than through public defender representation.

Multiple offenders — no matter the seriousness of previous crimes — suffer disproportionately in the criminal justice system, simply because of their past brushes with the Law. Inmates and ex-convicts are themselves, a disadvantaged population. Once a person has a criminal record, it’s easy for potential employers to access that information on the internet and deny jobs because of it. This makes it difficult for those who have criminal records to find jobs that pay enough.

What Can We Do?

Correcting this social stratification effect in the criminal justice system is no easy task. Those without enough money to meet their basic needs are often likely to have inadequate healthcare, little access to quality education and limited access to jobs that pay well. Simply put, disadvantaged populations frequently don’t have access to the tools necessary to reduce or eliminate that disadvantage, and many of them become involved in the criminal justice system as a result.

Prior to President Lyndon Johnson’s term in the White House, “many federal programs had emphasized crime prevention,” according to U.S. News. Urban recreational centers, social workers and probation officers were all emphasized as ways to reduce crime. As these programs were gradually defunded, policy turned more toward incarceration, and profit-driven private prisons capitalized on that decision.

Many solutions have been proposed, and it’s possible that, with a concerted effort to correct the societal problems that contribute to social stratification, the United States can reduce its reliance on incarceration in the criminal justice system.

The “New” Crime Bill: A Good Start

Donald Trump in December of 2018 signed into law the First Step Act prison and sentencing reform bill with strong bipartisan support.

“The First Step Act will make communities SAFER and SAVE tremendous taxpayers dollars,” the president said in a statement. “It brings much-needed hope to many families during the holiday season.”

The result of coalition-building in a partisan political climate, First Step earned support from politicians as diverse as senators Kamala Harris and Ted Cruz, and from advocacy groups including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Fraternal Order of Police.

Trump’s strong support was largely seen as a result of the involvement of his son-in-law and top adviser Jared Kushner. At the signing ceremony, he thanked Kushner personally.

Of prisoners who could not advocate for themselves from behind bars, Kushner said: “We were their lobbyists.”

The act expands rehab opportunities, increases “good time”-served credits for most federal prisoners, reduces mandatory minimum sentences for a number of drug-related crimes and formally bans some correctional practices including the shackling of pregnant women.

“This bill could have died a dozen different deaths,” said Van Jones, co-founder of advocacy group #cut50, which was integral in the bill’s design. “But the broad coalition that came together to pass it refused to give up.”

Jones, a frequent outspoken critic of Trump on his CNN show, added: “Many have seen their loved ones sent to prison or were incarcerated themselves. For all of us, this fight was deeply personal.”

Early critics of the bill, such as New Jersey senator Corey Booker and the ACLU, who felt that the legislation did not go far enough, came around in large part due to major additions to the House version of the bill by the Senate, which added language on sentencing reform. The first House version only contained reforms on the way inmates are treated in prison.

In exchange, progressive reformers had to accept a number of changes to which prisoners will be eligible for benefits under the act, based on the crime for which they were convicted. The sentencing reforms were also mostly not made retroactive, meaning they do not apply to inmates already sentenced.

“The First Step Act is by no means perfect,” said Jesselyn McCurdy, deputy director of the Washington legislative office at the ACLU. “But we are in the midst of a mass incarceration crisis, and the time to act is now. We applaud the bipartisan group of senators who were willing to listen to advocates.”

Summary

On a personal note: My son was incarcerated twice in his late teens — not as one would suspect for drug offenses, but for making some crazy financial decisions. His second time, we refrained from retaining private representation for him, forcing him to use a public defender. The experience was horrifying. It almost goes without saying that his public defender had a case log that was far too large to allow effective and thorough representation for most of his clients. And most of those clients were charged with far more serious things than simple forgery as was our son.

I will never forget the day in court when my wife and I walked in for his sentencing. The judge was an old family friend and knew us and our son. We anxiously sat as several other convicted individuals stood for their sentencing. The case immediately before our son’s was that of a 3-time drug offender who had been caught with 2 pounds of heroin in his car. In Louisiana, there is a “3 strikes and your out” law that meant this convicted offender would receive a life sentence. To our surprise, the judge sentenced him to a $3000 fine and time served. (he had been in jail for 90 days) Our son who had to plead guilty to two counts of forgery (he had stolen my mother’s personal checks and cashed them with forged information on them) was sentenced to 3 years in prison! Why did the drug trafficker receive such a light sentence and our son the most severe? The drug offender was offered a deal: he would NOT serve time, this his 3rd felony would be expunged from his record if he would give investigators the names of all those who he worked for, who were REAL drug traffickers!

We feel that — certainly in Louisiana — the criminal justice system is broken.

The First Step Act is a good start on repairing a long-broken system: criminal justice. For far too long, social stratification explained above has devastated American families who are most prone to be targeted in the criminal justice system. This bill signed into law must be just the beginning. Those caught up in the “System” have for decades watched as they become victims of a process that is supposed to guarantee “equal justice under the law.” But it has been anything but that.

Where do we go next? Is there enough support to take on the fight to see The First Step Act as just the “first step” towards righting the ship of Equal Justice in America? Only time will answer those questions. But one thing is already clear: Donald Trump really is able to find consensus among opposing party members and achieve realistic objectives that really do make sense and are bi-partisan. Being able to do that in this highly charged partisan atmosphere in Washington is a miracle. But it needs to be nothing more than the “first step.” We’ll declare victory in the war on crime in the U.S. when we find ourselves researching The Tenth or Fifteenth Step Act.

Play

Mueller: “Forget Presumption of Innocence”

Everybody was shocked when Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced he was going to speak to the press on Wednesday. Many more were shocked at the things he said:

Think about this: he stated his team — IF they could declare the President not guilty of allegations made — would have included that in the Mueller Report. What does that actually mean?

Never in U.S. history has any prosecutor ever felt obligated under the law to prove the innocence of someone charged. Mueller is the very first to do so! Based on what you heard and saw above, Mueller has changed the very premise of U.S. law: a charged individual is considered innocent “until” and “unless” he/she is PROVEN GUILTY. According to Mueller, his investigative team, besides not finding Trump guilty of collusion and obstruction of justice, could NOT prove he is innocent either.

I’m not an attorney, but Mueller doing so is either trying to forever change “innocence until proven guilty,” or he takes that position for another purpose. Wanna bet which of those is his reason?

Changing History

Folks, this position was taken by Mueller Wednesday is a first in not just U.S. history, but a first in World History. Throughout every contemporary World government on Earth, the judicial system in each of those countries adopted a presumption of innocence as a foundation. Here is a link for you to use to see the countries who do so:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Countries like France, Italy, Philippines, China, Poland, Romania, Spain, Brazil, not to mention countries of the European Union and even Russia and every Islamic country in their criminal and civil law as a default presume the innocence of the accused with the burden of proof lying directly on the accuser.

Apparently, Robert Mueller — that bastion of impartiality and upholder of the Law — decided on his own the U.S. no longer believes the presumption of innocence.

Why do you suppose the sudden proposed change in the foundation of Law has been assumed by Mueller?

Assumption Bullet Points

  • Mueller is really after Trump. He couldn’t find hard evidence of guilt so he left the doubt in the air to prompt the Democrat House to begin impeachment proceedings. Honestly, I think this is NOT his reason. Even though he said in his press conference they could not find sufficient evidence to indict the President, he could have simply said, “We are today turning over the evidence that we DID uncover to the House for use in their investigation into presidential wrongdoing.” Congress in impeachment is NOT required to prove criminality on the part of the charged — in this case, President Trump. They merely are required to prove guilt in the commitment of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” (Isn’t that crazy: those two words are nowhere in the Constitution defined — they are totally subjective.)
  • Mueller has been tasked by someone to lay the groundwork for non-stop Trump investigations through the 2020 elections. That’s a plausible possibility in that Democrats running for President — all 23 of them and the DNC — have put forth NO legislative platform, no new ideas on any front, and have given Americans no good reasons for voters to (based on Trump policies and legislative and executive actions Dems claim are all wrong and evil) vote for their nominee in 2020. Once again they find themselves with one thing and one thing only to use against Mr. Trump: impeachment. The timing for making impeachment last through the 2020 elections is perfect. Even though Mueller’s team has exhaustive data, documents, written and recorded testimony of hundreds of witnesses, the Democrat House will slow-play impeachment proceedings so they are justified in “thorough investigations” of their own to assure Americans they have all the facts. It’s comical that Dems were so demanding for all to give Mueller room and latitude to complete his investigation with no interruptions, but then refuse to accept his findings: politics at its worst.
  • Mueller has something to hide and he is kicking this can down the road to distract “this” from everyone until after 2020 — whatever “this” is. As strange as this may seem, this is probably the most plausible of explanations for Mueller’s actions — especially for calling that press conference, making his statement, and, more importantly, taking NO questions! That seems like an effort on his part to send a message to his minions — the Democrats — so they will take action with this cue.

The last listed above is the explanation I feel for Mueller to do what he did. He’s messaged members of the Democrat Party to “circle the wagons” around him because something really serious is about to happen. What can that be? Who will it involve and who or what will initiate it and under what circumstances?

The answers to those will blow your mind! And we’ll get to them in detail after we take this short break at TruthNewsNet.org.

The “Decoy”

Fired FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan, DNI head James Clapper, and others that many say are part of the “Deep State,” have become very vocal in recent days. Comey and Brennan have always had easy access to the media, but of late in social media and Mainstream media television outlets, they are again regular fixtures. And they have become amazingly bombastic and nasty towards Mr. Trump — which is no surprise to anyone. But they’ve turned their vitriol up a notch or two.

Conventional wisdom is that because DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is reportedly releasing one of his investigations’ reports in the next few weeks, that details in that report will certainly implicate at least Brennan, Clapper, and Comey for wrongdoing in both the Clinton email debacle and in the alleged fraudulent FBI investigation of the Trump Campaign. All three have each been caught in lies in sworn testimony before House and Senate committees. It is probable Horowitz will address those issues and many more. And, of course, there are many others like Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, and many more from the Obama Justice Department who probably are in his crosshairs. His first report will tell that tale. But, there’s a second report coming as well.

There are plenty of Americans who feel more and more that additional Obama Administration career politicians were involved in the propped-up FBI Trump Campaign investigation from its inception. Several from the Obama White House staff have already been drawn into the investigation while other big name folks are yet to be mentioned. But certainly, some if not many will be exposed in the second Horowitz report. Many believe those implicated could include Susan Rice (NSA Advisor to Obama), Samantha Power (United Nations U.S. Ambassador), former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and also Bill and Hillary Clinton. The name Barack Obama has been continually floated by those closest to Horowitz, but it is probable that even if the former president was involved, lower level members of his administration would probably take the fall for any of his wrongdoing. Time will tell.

What role would Bill and Hillary Clinton play in this? And where does Mueller fit into this picture? Hold on to your hats!

Hillary And Bill

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton facilitated the transfer of highly enriched uranium (HEU) previously confiscated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) during a 2006 “nuclear smuggling sting operation involving one Russian national and several Georgian accomplices,” a newly leaked classified cable shows.

The classified cable released by WikiLeaks was authored by Hillary Clinton’s State Department on August 17th, 2009.  In the cable it states –

In 2008, Russia requested a ten-gram sample of highly enriched uranium (HEU) seized in early 2006 in Georgia during a nuclear smuggling sting operation involving one Russian national and several Georgian accomplices. The seized HEU was transferred to U.S. custody and is being held at a secure Department of Energy facility. In response to the Russian request, the Georgian Government authorized the United States to share a sample of the material with the Russians for forensic analysis.

The cable also states that “Given Russia’s reluctance to act so far, FBI Director Robert Mueller’s delivery of this sample will underscore to Russia our commitment to follow through on this case.”  It continues in stating, “Embassy Moscow is requested to alert at the highest appropriate level the Russian Federation that FBI Director Mueller plans to deliver the HEU sample once he arrives in Moscow on September 21.”

Robert Mueller — FBI Director — was “sent” by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Moscow to personally deliver a sample of highly enriched uranium (HEU)!

The cable summarizes that, “We regret that the April visit by Director Mueller could not take place due to a scheduling conflict.” and makes a final request that, “We require that the transfer of this material be conducted at the airport, on the tarmac nearby the plane, upon arrival of the Director’s aircraft.”

Now knowing that the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton hid the FBI investigation into the Uranium One deal, this cable brings on new meaning and leads to numerous questions:

  • Why did Obama and Clinton agree to provide this uranium delivered by Mueller to Russia in the first place?
  • Another question is why did Clinton’s Secretary of State request that FBI Director Mueller deliver the sample of HEU to Russia and why was the transfer in April canceled and postponed to September?

The fact that Mueller needed to perform the transfer should raise numerous red flags.  It’s been widely reported about Mueller’s conflicts of interest with his recent appointment as special counsel in the Russia investigation.

This past week information was reported that prior to the Obama administration approving the very controversial deal in 2010 giving Russia 20% of America’s Uranium through the approved sale of Uranium One, the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering in order to benefit Vladimir Putin, says a report by The Hill.

Mueller was handpicked by Hillary Clinton’s State Department to deal uranium to Russia.

Summary

What is Mueller attempting to hide? Robert Mueller is really a brilliant individual. We wrote extensively about his personal and business history when he was first appointed as Special Counsel by President Trump. It is important to note that in his past business life, he initiated and was personally involved in multiple “speckled” circumstances in which he took dramatic and questionable actions that were never questioned by anyone! Well, almost no one questioned him. But Texas Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert certainly did. Take a look back at our 4-part series on Mr. Mueller that started on July 28, 2018: “ROBERT MUELLER: UNMASKED Part One.“ 

It’s a simple fact: members of the proverbial “Deep State” — and Mueller certainly is actually a “Charter Member” of that group — are masterful and hiding, covering, and making excuses for the wrongdoings of each other. The Obama Administration was full of them! We’ve mentioned just a few names in today’s story, but know for certain there are dozens more that have a Deep State ID card in their wallet or purse.

Why oh why would the Director of the FBI be tasked by Hillary Clinton — then Secretary of State that had NO authority to dispatch anyone in the FBI to Moscow, especially not the Director — to take that HEU sample to Putin personally? The only answer can be this: Hillary had/has something on Mueller that she threatened to expose if he did NOT take care of that tidbit of necessity to ramp-up the closing of that Uranium One deal! “If” Mueller is as smart as most think he is, and “If” Mueller has the legal mind that most think he does, the ONLY explanation for his doing so was that he owed the Clintons something and they had something on him. Think about it: by taking that trip, he exposed himself as a Clinton sycophant!

In closing, know this: Washington D.C. and those who live and work in that swamp are known as the “quid pro quo” capital of the world. Nothing is done in that city unless somebody initiates it with a threat or blackmail, and in doing so, someone else then owes a favor to the initiator. Mueller in his charade press conference was out there not because he thought it was the right thing to do or that he wanted to do it, he was told by someone who has something on him to do it!

So what happens now? Let’s hope it all ends this way:

  1. Attorney General Barr releases the now unclassified documents that will show U.S. voters exactly what and who initiated the bogus Russia Collusion investigation;
  2. With the release, AG Barr starts letting indictments fly for all those implicated in those documents;
  3. Many of those indicted will “turn” on those above them — their “handlers” — by cutting a deal with the DOJ for immunity or negotiated sentences for their crimes;
  4. Inspector General Horowitz will fill the missing spots with details he’ll be shortly releasing of his investigation into the Clinton Campaign, the DNC server hack, the Clinton email server debacle, and Uranium One and the involvement (if any) by the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation.

I doubt Attorney General Barr is going to let this all drag out. I feel strongly that he’ll push hard for indictments, prosecution, and sentence adjudications. He is a no-play federal attorney who knows his way around an investigation and corrupt political operations. And one other thing: he’s planning on retiring from prosecuting and I don’t think he will let this push his retirement back!

The last thing in this conversation, I hope President Trump will NOT get so angry, tired, and disgusted with the dysfunctional American political system that he decides to simply throw in the towel. Just how many Americans would stay in the line of fire as he has when every day he and every member of his family are denigrated in the vilest ways very publicly, often by people who are supposed to be honest and hard-working government servants? Not very many.

You can say much about Donald Trump. Yes, he is loud. Yes, he bloviates quite often. Yes, he is caustic. Yes, he brags a lot.

But as Deion Sanders once said to Howard Cosell in an interview when Cosell asked Sanders why he bragged so much about his capabilities on the football field. Deion famously responded, “Howard, it ain’t bragging if you can do it!”

Say what you will, but Donald Trump has accomplished a lot for Americans and our nation. Just imagine how much more he would have achieved if the Deep State and Never Trumpers had stayed out of the way?

 

Play

The Federal Reserve: A Necessary Evil

Before the Federal Reserve was founded, the nation was plagued with financial crises. At times, these crises led to “panics” in which people raced to their banks to withdraw their deposits. The failure of one bank often had a domino effect, in which customers of other banks rushed to withdraw funds from their own banks even if those banks were not in danger of failing. Banks needed a source of emergency reserves to prevent the panics and resulting runs from driving them out of business.

A particularly severe panic in 1907 resulted in bank runs that wreaked havoc on the fragile banking system and ultimately led Congress in 1913 to write the Federal Reserve Act. The Federal Reserve System, initially created to address these banking panics, is now charged with several broader responsibilities, including fostering a sound banking system and a healthy economy.

Although the need for banking reform was undisputed, for decades early supporters debated the delicate balance between national and regional interests. Nationally, the central bank had to make it easier to conduct financial transactions between businesses and individuals across regions of the country.

A stable central bank would also strengthen the United States’ standing in the world economy because foreign individuals, businesses, and governments have confidence in doing business within a country that has a responsible central bank and economic system. Regionally, the central bank would have to respond to the local needs for currency, which could vary across regions. A lack of available currency had caused the earlier banking panics.

Another important issue was creating a balance between the private interests of banks and the centralized responsibility of government. What emerged—the Federal Reserve System—was a central bank under public control, with many checks and balances.

Congress oversees the entire Federal Reserve System. And the Fed must work within the objectives established by Congress. Yet Congress gave the Federal Reserve the autonomy to carry out its responsibilities without political pressure. Each of the Fed’s three parts—the Board of Governors, the regional Reserve Banks, and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)—operates independently of the federal government to carry out the Fed’s core responsibilities.

The Federal Reserve System was developed and continues to develop as an interesting blend of public and private interests and centralized and decentralized decision-making. As you continue reading, you will learn about the Fed’s structure and responsibilities—what the Fed is and what it does.

Who Runs the Federal Reserve?

At the core of the Federal Reserve System is the Board of Governors, or Federal Reserve Board. The Board of Governors, located in Washington, D.C., is a federal government agency that is the Fed’s centralized component. The Board consists of seven members who are appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. These Governors guide the Federal Reserve’s policy actions.

A Governor’s term is 14 years. It is possible, however, for a Federal Reserve Governor to serve a longer term. For example, William McChesney Martin Jr. served as a member and Chairman of the Board of Governors for nearly 19 years because he was appointed as Chairman to complete another person’s term and was then appointed to his own term.

Appointments to the Board of Governors are staggered—one Governor’s term expires every two years. Terms are staggered to provide the Fed political independence as a central bank, ensuring that one president cannot take advantage of his power to appoint Governors by “stacking the deck” with those who favor his policies. The Board of Governors must be nonpartisan and act independently. In addition to independence, the staggered terms enable stability and continuity on the Board of Governors. The seven Governors, according to the original Federal Reserve Act, should represent the nation’s financial, agricultural, industrial, and commercial interests. Geography is a factor, too, as every Governor must be selected from a different Federal Reserve District. Recently Congress directed that at least one of the Governors have experience in community banking. (In general, community banks can be defined as those owned by organizations with less than $10 billion in assets.) The seven Governors, along with a host of economists and support staff, write the policies that ensure financially sound banks and a stable and strong national economy.

Governors actively lead committees that study prevailing economic issues—from affordable housing and consumer banking laws to interstate banking and electronic commerce. The Board of Governors also exercises broad supervisory control over certain state-chartered financial institutions, called member banks, as well as the companies that own banks (bank holding companies). This control ensures that commercial banks operate responsibly and comply with federal regulations and that the nation’s payments system functions smoothly. In addition, the Board of Governors oversees the activities of Reserve Banks, approving the appointments of each Reserve Bank’s president and three members of its board of directors. The Governors’ most important responsibility is participating on the FOMC, the committee that directs the nation’s monetary policy.

Who’s The Boss?

Jerome H. Powell Heading the Board of Governors are a Chairman and Vice Chairman, who are Governors whom the president of the United States appoints to serve four-year terms. The current Chairman of the Board of Governors is Jerome H. Powell. This is a highly visible position.

The Chairman reports twice a year to Congress on the Fed’s monetary policy objectives, testifies before Congress on numerous other issues, and meets periodically with the secretary of the Treasury. Other Board of Governors officials are also called to testify before Congress, and they maintain regular contact with other government organizations as well.

As the Federal Reserve’s centralized component, the seven members of the Board of Governors guide the Federal Reserve’s policy actions, study trends in the economy, and help forecast the country’s future economic direction. The Governors also participate in monetary policymaking on the FOMC. In addition, the Board of Governors is responsible for regulations to keep the banking system sound and for overseeing the operations of the 12 Reserve Banks.

The U.S. Currency

Did you know that Federal Reserve Banks place the currency you use to make purchases into circulation? Each bill has a number and a letter that denote the Federal Reserve Bank that accounts for that particular bill. For example, a bill with the number 8 will have the letter H (the eighth letter in the alphabet), which means it appears on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

For the recently redesigned $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100 bills, the letter and number that identify the Federal Reserve Bank are beneath the left serial number on the face of the bill.

Who Owns the Fed

The Federal Reserve Banks are not a part of the federal government, but they exist because of an act of Congress. Their purpose is to serve the public. So is the Fed private or public?

The answer is both. While the Board of Governors is an independent government agency, the Federal Reserve Banks are set up like private corporations. Member banks hold stock in the Federal Reserve Banks and earn dividends. Holding this stock does not carry with it the control and financial interest given to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations. The stock may not be sold or pledged as collateral for loans. Member banks also appoint six of the nine members of each Bank’s board of directors.

Should the Federal Reserve be Abolished

The answers here are provided under the condition that US monetary policy is reformed, and that means that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 would be repealed, and other new legislature would then specifically outline the steps to be taken with ending the Federal Reserve, or 3rd Central Bank of the U.S.

The Monetary Act, or Monetary Reform Act, could be enacted by Congress, could reform the monetary system in two basic steps:

  1. Abolish the Federal Reserve by repealing the act authorizing it (Fed Act of 1913), which also has illegally contradicted the Constitutional power given to Congress to coin money and control the supply of money.
  2. Authorize the Treasury to print US NOTES, equal to the value of currency also known as “Federal Reserve Notes,” and also as “dollars,” currently in circulation. US Notes would then become “dollars” as the currency.

Pros:

  • Since the amount of money in circulation is roughly equal to the amount of the national debt, the creation of U.S. Notes as a replacement to “Federal Reserve Notes,” would simultaneously eliminate the national debt (approaching $19 trillion).
  • The elimination of the debt would occur without inflation or deflation since the amount of Constitutionally mandated U.S. Notes printed to replace federal reserve notes would be equal, therefore, the money supply as a currency value would not change (hence, no inflation or deflation).
  • The almost $450 billion dollar interest payments on debt also be gone and so tax revenues that are currently wasted to pay interest could actually be used for say, infrastructure, and other expenses which many believe that taxes “pay for” now, except with the existing system, not all the interest can be paid annually. Therefore, all tax revenues go to just paying interest, and more money must be borrowed as deficit spending (borrowing from banks) to pay off just the remaining interest due, and also cover the federal budgets.
  • The US could cut all ties with the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, The Bank of International Settlements, ending association with some of the institutions that propagate on-going famine and impoverishment throughout the world, and the unethical domination of already-poor countries that accepted “aid” or “relief” during times of crisis, but then found out that it was money lent to them as debt. This leaves the already worst-off in many countries in an even more desperate state because of intentional destabilization and subrogation results when countries do not or can not pay their national debts.
  • The government would be controlled by the will of the people again, and not a group of independent bankers more powerful than the President, and the Congress. The lender is always more powerful than the borrower.
  • People seem to constantly scratch their heads about why, even though we all know that “change” would be good. And why is it that nothing ever does change, or why is it that government doesn’t seem to serve the interests of the people, the voters, but the bureaucratic machine, and what has to be nameless, faceless others? Why is the US in a state of constant warfare? The actual dissolution of the Federal Reserve would make it abundantly more clear, why it would be beneficial to do so.
  • Abolishing the Fed would put the money, provided for the needs of the people, would be back in the hands of the Congress, which is Constitutionally granted, and an illegal system that contradicts the mandates of the Constitution and the spirit of our national laws would finally be ended.

Consider:

-The Bank of England called in their loans on King George III who then took away colonial money (Colonial script) and forced English coinage onto the colonists with increased taxation. This was the major catalyst for the war for independence.

-Thomas Jefferson ended the First Central Bank of the U.S. as they tried to recharter

-The War of 1812, an almost forgotten war, was the result of the U.S. government’s refusal to recharter another central bank.

-Andrew Jackson ended then Second Central Bank of the US. He was shot at by a “lone nutjob” house painter who missed with both pistols.

-Abraham Lincoln printed Greenbacks to fund the Civil War to maintain the union, and that money was highly successful, with some greenbacks in circulation till the 1970s. He was shot and killed by a “lone nutjob,” John Wilkes Boothe.

-James Garfield staunchly claims that he would not allow for the recharter of another central bank in the U.S. He was shot and died of his injuries a week later by “lone nutjob,” Charles Giteau, basically forgotten (See: The Unforgiven, film, Clint Eastwood, won Oscar for Best Picture).

-In 1913, the Third Central Bank of the U.S. is authorized by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which promises full employment, and was signed by Woodrow Wilson (duped), while banking proponents and their shills feign opposition to their own Act as if it was a threat to banking interests.

-John F. Kennedy signs an order to authorize Silver Certificates to replace Fed Reserve Notes. Only weeks later, he was shot and killed by a “lone nutjob,” Lee Harvey Oswald.

-Ronald Reagan appears on national television and claims in his address that the Federal Reserve poses the greatest threat to the future of the United States. A couple of weeks later, he was shot by a “lone nutjob,” John Hinkley Jr.

Summary

The secretive Federal Reserve has remained a mystery for more than 100 years. Reading its history above shows at its creation there was a definite need for it to stabilize the U.S. economy. But it has been questioned for a long time as being essential. In fact, its purposes have been continually questioned by many. It seems to simply be an entity to which the United States Government owes huge amounts of interest dollars to simply for printing currency.

That being said, most financial experts will agree that whether or not the Fed remains useful, it is time for the U.S. to get away from fiat currency and back to a currency that is just a representation of the actual hard, tangible assets owned by the U.S. and its citizens — like gold. For many, a dollar bill is just that: a dollar bill that means nothing.

I was in Zurich, Switzerland the day the Swiss shocked the world and held a press conference to announce their termination of a long-standing practice of pegging the value of the Swiss franc to the value of the Euro. Why? Switzerland owned more gold than necessary to back its issued currency notes — francs — with tangible value instead of setting an artifical value pegged to another currency’s value. Though it rocked the world, it stabilized Switzerland’s currency. In today’s economically up-and-down currency markets, having a currency that itself represents a real asset like gold would give that nation’s citizens confidence in their government and its economic policies.

It’s time we do the same thing here in the U.S.

Play