Why Ryan’s American Health Care Act is not that American

Ryan’s American Health Care Act isn’t too American. From the legislative process itself, to the subsidies, regulations, and entitlements, Ryan’s plan isn’t American. The bill is no city on the hill.

The American Health Care Act bill is simply not market driven, and that’s not American either. Subsidies and more federal spending only increase health care dollars, dollars that in turn, will only further inflate the price of health insurance.  The bill is doomed to a fiery, centralized-government, un-American failure. That’s not making America great again.

Worse, so far, Ryan’s legislative process matches the soulless Marxism of the Pelosi-Reid all out assault on American health care eight years ago. Recently Pelosi, with no sense of the ironic whatsoever, boldly declared that “The American people and Members have a right to know the full impact of this legislation before any vote in Committee or by the whole House.” Despite her shameless hypocrisy, the irony highlights Ryan’s methodology. Rand Paul was outraged by the leader’s secrecy and Ryan managed to get the American Health Care Act through two committees without a single amendment being offered. Furthermore, Ryan and the GOP managed to get the AHCA through committee before the CBO numbers came out. As with the Obamacare assault on legitimate government, Ryan has also tried to give his fellow congressman no choice except to vote for the bill he’s rushing through the legislative process.  All of this seems somewhat un-American for a bill that so proudly proclaims its patriotism.

While not quite as Orwellian as Obamacare’s official name: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the GOP’s American Health Care Act has its own elements of doublespeak. Out of one side of their mouths, supporters of the Ryan plan say tax credit subsidies are only fair since the workers who receive these are not eligible for the implicit tax benefits that other workers receive from their employer based health care. From the other side of their mouths, though, supporters of the tax credits also plan to tax these very Americans for having “Cadillac” health care plans through their employers.

Based on the AHCA’s proposal to push the Cadillac Health Care Tax to 2025, I suspect that no one intends to ever implement this menace. Instead, the Cadillac tax is simply part of the current plan to reduce the staggering budget breaking costs of maintaining the Medicaid expansion, Obamacare-like regulations, and tax credit subsidies into the next decade. Indeed, the minimal savings over ten years shown by the CBO numbers only comes into play after the Cadillac tax is applied. Nevertheless, the following chart illustrates the folly of this heinous intrusion of the federal government into the work place.

Notice that, as health care costs follow an inflationary path merely equal to annual rates of all products, more and more employer based health care plans will become “Cadillac” plans.

Nevertheless, even more Orwellian than the double speak over the “fairness” of the proposed tax credits, is the claim that because employers receive a tax deduction for providing Cadillac health care plans to employees, tax credits for the self-employed does not represent a new entitlement program. Of course they do! The federal government is taking the place a big business employer for all self-employed workers. That’s as permanent a transformation of government’s role as assuring that everyone has a right to food stamps and housing.

This, of course, the transformation of the government’s role in American health care, is the fundamental reason the Ryan’s current plan will be an abysmal failure. Conservatives must reject the Marxist-like promises of health care for all and insurance that will cover those with pre-existing conditions. As Obamacare was built on lies, so too must any health care plan that does not reject a centralized government’s role in providing health care.

Yes, the left will scream and the media will camp out at every skid row in America. That’s just what it means to be a Conservative in the United States of America in the 21st century. But, if we want the best for Americans, Conservatives must trust the free market.

The Enemy Within

Since Pete Wilson and California Proposition 187, the California Democratic Party has been aggressively organizing illegal immigrants into a voting block. The goal of Proposition 187 was to make illegal aliens ineligible for public benefits. It was passed but never enforced. Instead, something was born of fury of fear and of desperation… something ugly, an enemy within.

There are now so many illegal immigrant voters in California that the left sought to legalize jury duty for non-citizens. This was for a very practical reason. There were so many non-citizens on the voting rolls that parts of California could not find sufficient jurists by the traditional method of calling on those registered to vote. An estimated 10 million Californians were summoned for jury duty in 2012 and only 4 million were eligible and available to serve.

Here’s a hint: Check your state’s jury roles for non-citizens who’ve already committed voter fraud.

Gov. Moonbeam signs California’s new Motor Voter Act (A.B.1461)

So powerful is this illegal voting block, that, for the last eight years the executive branch has been its ally, offering five MILLION illegal immigrants amnesty as “Dreamers.”

So influential is this voting block that California was the first and only state to request Obamacare for illegal immigrants.

So dominant is this La Raza funded, Democrat mob vote that illegal immigrants now hold legal drivers’ licenses in the state of California. Eight hundred thousand illegals are now licensed to drive in the State of California, but there is no voter fraud in California. Remember that.

In fact, so privileged has this entitled group of federal felons become that California State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Léon loudly proclaimed that half his family are illegal immigrants. He boasted that they have committed document fraud on both the federal and state level. So ran Senator De Léon’s rant:

… I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [President Donald Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible for massive deportation.

But there’s no voter fraud. Remember that. We know there is no voter fraud worth investigating in California because the California Democrats now have super majorities in both houses. The enemy is within. A lawless conspiracy of treasonous citizens and non-citizens are committed to defrauding law abiding citizens of their constitutional rights, the fruits of their labor, and their liberties.

Most of all we can be certain that there is no voter fraud because the leader of the United States Senate. Mitch McConnell has told us so. He swears:

There’s no evidence that it (voter fraud) occurred in such a significant number that would have changed the presidential election, and I don’t think we ought to spend any federal money investigating that…

Yes America, the enemy is within.

 

The Muslim Ban was Never about Banning Islam

The “Muslim Ban” was never about banning Islam. Instead, it is based on this:

Not all Muslim’s are radical Islamic terrorists,

 but all radical Islamic terrorists are Muslim.

The idea was to temporarily ban all Muslim immigration until a plan for extreme vetting could be developed. Once it was developed, Trump believed he could keep America secure for the free and peaceful practice of all religions.

Trump, of course, has, at the behest of GOP advisors such as Rudi Giuliani, softened his position on the Muslim Ban. Trump has opted for a ban on specific terrorist hotbeds. This he has done despite the reality that radicalization takes place even where cells are not active. As Trump’s critics have noted, Saudi Arabia radicalized three quarters  of the original 9/11 terrorists and yet Saudi Arabia is not among the banned nations.

Perhaps the most damning criticism of Trump’s immigration ban is that we have, so far, no proof, logically deductive proof or experiential proof, that the ban is effective in any way.

Experience is certainly not the teacher anyone wants in this matter. If there aren’t attacks, we won’t know if it’s because of the ban, and no one wants proof that the ban did not work.

This leaves logical proof. This proof will come down to Trump’s definition of “extreme vetting.” If it is up to the Obama sect of the American left, the vetting will be utterly useless and ineffective. This is because the media have dwarfed the American intellect. Americans seemingly can’t have an adult discussion about liberty and religious practice because they are slaves to glittering generalities about the mythical rights of sacred cows.

The real questions are will the vetting go far enough to be effective? Beyond whether or not the vetting could be easily evaded by would-be terrorists, is the goal of the vetting itself sound?

Logically, if Trump can effectively vet the desire to practice the more radical elements of Sharia, such as punishing Muslims who convert to Christianity with death, he can stave off the horrible radicalism of terrorist attacks.

Americans have not had a national conversation about where Islam oversteps the bounds of Liberty to which all Americans are bound.

Each religion deserves its own discussion. Although Islam, Conservative Christianity and Orthodox Judaism agree that homosexuality is not God’s will, it’s rare that a single discussion will apply to many religions at once. Usually, each religion needs a unique discussion. Is animal sacrifice acceptable as part of the voodoo religions of the West Indies? Is refusing medical treatment for terminally ill children acceptable because it is part of the religion of the Jehovah witnesses? Is the use of illegal hallucinogens permissible as part of the Sioux mystical rites?

In the same way we need to squarely face the religious practices of certain schools of Islam, especially as these impact the rights of others. Should we ban burqas? Do we refuse immigration to those who believe it is a religious virtue to beat their wives? What about honor killings or female genital mutilation? Should our foreign policy discourage the murder of those who want to practice religious freedom and escape Islam? All of these are important questions that adults need to discuss. We cannot achieve peaceful religious freedom for all if we don’t ask these questions.

Some believe that all Islam is an ideological poison. That’s not clear from recent history. During much of the post World War II period Islam and the West co-exited reasonably well.

Even recent history shows that the United States has the potential for significant and strong bonds of friendship with majority Muslim states. King Abdullah II of Jordan is one such example. The remarkable events surrounding Egypt’s rejection of the radical Muslim Brotherhood are further examples of the capacity of Islam to co-exist with the West.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls it “reforming” Islam. We in the West need only call it “extreme vetting.” Together we need to talk about the elements of Sharia law that are elements of religious choice and the others that are part of a radical ideology inconsistent with the liberties, the natural liberties of choice and religious freedom the United States of America represents. If we can take the radical out of radical Islam we have defeated radical Islamic terrorism before it has begun.

But where are we today? We can’t honestly discuss the term “Muslim Ban.” Perhaps part of the reason is the actual meaning of the phrase requires asking other questions too subtle for intellectual children.

American Fascists are calling American Voters Fascists!

The radical left is now regularly accusing American citizens of succumbing to fascism for supporting Donald Trump. Nothing could be more polarizing. Nothing could be more incorrect. Hitler’s fascism was especially dangerous because of a “cult” of personality. Trump supporters are all about the issues.

Trump supporters, should not allow themselves to remain in the basket of deplorables based only on Trump’s name. It’s far more American to be thrown into the basket of fascist, nationalistic deplorables for clearly stating one’s positions on global trade, national boundaries, and an American first foreign policy.

Of course, calling one’s opponent “Hitler” is the utterly trite example of a propaganda ploy called demonizing the enemy. That’s why every organ of fascist American media and every brilliant American “academic” spews this about Trump followers with such moronic piety (no offense to morons).  Honestly, despite the records of Joseph Stalin, Mau Mao Tse Tung, or Pol Pot, there is no twentieth century figure more vilified in the Western world than Adolf Hitler. To the Western mind Hitler is the devil.

The majority of millennial snowflakes probably don’t participate knowingly in the fallacy of discussing political personalities instead of political principles. Part of being caught up in fashionable political personalities is the belief that all political discourse is about the personalities, racial identities or gender roles of those on the national scene.

It is, ironically, the American Marxist left, which, damning others, bears the closest resemblance to fascism. From pathetic sit-ins over losing a Senate vote, to ruining cities with their self-righteous riots, the American left circles this cult or that cult of personality like lunatic moths circle to their deaths in the halo of a candle’s false light.

The textbook rise of a leader’s cult of personality includes the use of mass media propaganda. After a summer of wildly incorrect polls and corruptly biased journalism, the left had the audacity to accuse American citizens of voting for Donald Trump because they had succumbed to “fake news.” Yet it is the very leaders of those who decry “fake news” who instigated, paid for, and released a bizarrely salacious example of preposterously fake news to embarrass the duly elected American President nationally and internationally. It’s now plain that the propaganda from the left is primarily for the left. The propaganda isn’t to fool the deplorable Americans who vote national issues. Sadly, it’s a rallying cry for radicals. All the left has left are those who can be led by the glitter of propaganda and lies.

So how does one get one’s neighbor out of the cult? Yes, it’s dangerous, but one has to try to speak patiently to the cultist and, in so doing, opens oneself to every kind of vicious attack by this or that seething mob of fake news conformists. One idea is to let a fake news cultist know that you don’t support Trump’s plan for the country because you like Trump, but you like Trump because he supports your plan for the country.

Nevertheless, it is one’s patriotic duty. Our nation and our national our liberties, when exercised boldly and wisely, increase in strength.

Comparing a Trump Turbo-Charged Economy with the Reagan Recovery

Trump’s economists are far too conservative in estimating the effect of Trump’s Reaganesque policies economic policies. Why shouldn’t Reagan-like policies yield Reagan-like results of 5%, 6% or even 9% growth?

From Donald Trump’s own website comes: “The Trump campaign’s economist estimates that the plan would conservareagantively boost growth to 3.5 percent per year on average, well above the 2 percent currently projected by government forecasters, with the potential to reach a 4% growth rate.” This may well be a far too conservative an estimate. While Donald Trump is an eternal optimist, he is also a conservative businessman. Trump’s motto is, “under budget—ahead of schedule.”

 

But consider the Reagan Recovery. Much of Trump’s plan is what Reagan accomplished. Reagan lowered tax rates across the board. Reagan reduced regulations and employed a sound money Federal Reserve policy. As a result, two years into his administration the amazing 92 month Reagan Recovery began. To quoting Peter Ferrara:trump

 During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy.  In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.  Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%.

Three percent was the lowest quarterly growth rate under Reagan. Growth rates hit 9% in Reagan’s second quarter and typically ranged real-gdp-growth-recoveryabove 5%.

A Trump turbo-charged economy has advantages that Reagan did not. First of all, Reagan began with double digit interest rates. Today, the United States interest rates are at historic lows. Because of these low interest rates, a business friendly administration may see real investment soar within his first 100 days. The Reagan recovery, on the other hand, took two years to get started.

Secondly, America is in the process of a fundamental energy transformation. New clean technologies in coal and in fossil fuel extraction has the potential to make the United States no only energy independent but an net exporter of energy. This combined with an America first trade policy could easily foster even more investment in U.S. manufacturing.

Third, assuming there is some relationship between the unemployment numbers and reality, American workers are in more demand than they were during the Reagan’s years. When Reagan first took office obama-vs-reagan-jobs1unemployment was at 7.5%, and before his policies took hold the unemployment rate rose to 10.8%. All of these factors speak to a quick increase in net household income for every American. This net increase in household income will, in turn, increase economic demand and spur further domestic growth.

Finally, thanks to the Reagan Revolution, the cold war is over. Yes, Trump is committed to increasing the strength of the U.S. military, but America does not face a challenge similar to that of Reagan’s. The war on terrorism will take common sense and vigilance, but it will demand international cooperation rather than demanding the projection of a world-wide American military presence.

If the Reagan Recovery hit 9% and ranged well above 4%, why shouldn’t a turbo charged Trump economy accomplish similar results.cvuyjw5umaal6yf

There is one more reason to be optimistic about a Trump economic explosion— the repeal of Obamacare. By some estimates the economic growth in 2014 would have been ten times greater without the burden of Obamacare. While it is true that Trump has not specified cuts in domestic spending similar to Reagan’s, simply repealing the Affordable Care Act in itself will achieve a very similar result.

A projected growth of 3% to 4% over ten years is far too conservative. Instead, we can expect an economy at least as robust as the Reagan years and that will be reason enough to celebrate a Trump victory for generations

With Hillary it’s Lies, More Lies, and Fracking Lies

Hillary seems to feel an appearance with Al Gore is what she needs to assure Sanders’ supporters and fellow leftists that she is pro-fracking after all.

Mr. Global-Warmed-Over-Fossil himself has finally appeared after years of some sort of self-imposed hibernation. With a sort of ungainly, paunchy pep the Doom-Sayer-Extraordinaire was seen campaigning with Hillary Clinton in Florida.

MIAMI, FL - OCTOBER 11: Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore campaign together at the Miami Dade College - Kendall Campus, Theodore Gibson Center on October 11, 2016 in Miami, Florida.Clinton continues to campaign against her Republican opponent Donald Trump with less than one month to go before Election Day. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

MIAMI, FL – OCTOBER 11: (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Coincidentally, it had only been a week since her public-private position, two-faced hustle was made known by WikiLeaks. And Gore’s appearance was only hours after the disclosure of Hillary’s pro-fracking speech before a Deutsche Bank audience.

Hillary Clinton is still trying to tell everyone that she opposes fracking and fossil fuels! Now she’s telling this lie with a straight face and with the dubious backing of the father of all global alarmists, Al Gore. Even when Hillary is caught eyes wide open and flat-footed before the headlights of truth, she smiles and then lies some more, as if nothing ever happened. It’s simply remarkable, and it’s only poetic justice that these are now fracking lies.

It is worth noting that Hillary’s Deutsche Bank speech was in 2013. There are lies within lies here.

When a GOP candidate speaks on pro-fracking policies, he makes no news, but when a radical leftist Secretary of State and potential presidential candidate for 2016 takes a secret pro-fracing position, it’s like selling insider information. Deutsche Bank can now take investment positions around the world based on information no one else has. This may be why Hillary Clinton commanded $485,000 for her Deutsche Bank speech. That was $200,000 more than Hillary’s standard fee, but, when you’re Deutsche Bank, that’s cheap for reliable inside information.

Just look at the financial crisis Deutsche Bank is now facing! Apparently, Deutsche Bank took Hillary’s claims at face value. Like a nation guided by séances, necromancy, and astrology, Deutsche Bank is falling into the financial abyss.

bank-crash

Perhaps the pending monumental fine imposed by this administration on Deutsche Bank was part of the threatening background to Hillary’s exceptional financial remuneration for public speaking, but did Hillary lie to Deutsche Bank for financial considerations, or is she telling fracking lies to Americans today?

It’s both. Hillary has no positions, no principles, no conscience. She will say anything at anytime if she sees personal profit. With Hillary the only thing America can count on is lies, more lies and fracking lies. America will go the way of Deutsche Bank if they listen to Hillary Clinton. Being with Hillary is to walk the way of Deutsche Bank.

GOP Trump Haters That Wear Ties and Talk Like “tHiss”

In “A Letter From G.O.P. National Security Officials Opposing Donald Trump,” the fifty high, mighty, and wise all concur that: “None of ‘uHiss” will vote for Donald Trump.”

Beneath that self-righteous hiss hides fifty “official” G.O.P. votes against these families:

coal-war-obama-admin-epa-21sept2012

Now what is their excuse? Is it Donald Trump’s desire to revamp an impotent and broken NATO alliance, an alliance impossibly tangled in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy that would have made the Russian politburo proud? No, NATO is never mentioned.  However, one suspects that these fifty have many contacts within NATO, but not necessarily American contacts.

A vote for Hillary is a vote against coal and American energy independence. Who thinks that’s a good idea?

Beneath that noble, high, and elite hiss hides fifty votes against these patriots and their families:

texas-open-carry-demonstrators-front-view-parking-lot

Under a Hillary Supreme Court there will no longer be a second amendment. Conveniently, we’ll become Europe.

And what is the fifty’s excuse? Do these high and noble former bureaucrats disagree with Trump on international trade? They don’t say so, but, lo, several of the signers are not CIA professionals at all. They are trade representatives.

Trump said that these fifty esoterically correct, prominently anonymous officials were “the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess, and we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place.”

I know, Cruz cultists, it’s difficult to believe and harder to say, but please, for the sake of our grandchildren, please say it with me “Trump might be right about this.” Did that really hurt that much? Yea? Sorry, but it’s really worth it because beneath their elitist hiss are fifty votes against these heroes:

va

Under another Clinton administration there will be another decade of lies about helping our veterans while the Department of Homeland Security imports hundreds of thousands of refugees and illegal aliens. Conveniently, we’ll become Europe.

What reason do these wise men offer for their betrayal? Did these honorable men claim that Trump’s position on entering the Iraq War showed a lack of understanding concerning foreign affairs? No, they wouldn’t dare because in supporting a no vote for Trump they are supporting the likes of Hillary and Obama who not only disagreed with George W. Bush but actively and purposely undermined the Bush legacy by withdrawing troops from Iraq and by supporting the rise of ISIS.

Newt Gingrich says these honorable men are globalists who, while they can tolerate the weakness of Obama and the corruption of Hillary Clinton, cannot tolerate the America first policies of Donald Trump.

Like the media that seeks to undermine real democracy by distracting America from a real debate over its future, these fifty honorable men offer no evidence, no issues, no substance to their name calling. America is supposed to simply accept the expertise of these honorable men that talk like “tHiss” because they are supposed experts.

Their judgment in choosing lies, corruption, and a future Supreme Court that would destroy the U.S. Constitution over making American great again tells anyone who cares all they need to know about their expertise and their background.

Genuine Free Trade and Multinational Hypocrisies

The United States of America is the best modern example of a free trade zone. The example of the power of free trade among the thirteen colonies exemplified, perfectly, the contrasts between mercantilism and economic liberty. This robust power of economic liberty would eventually be popularized by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.

41cTu15sl5L._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_Adam Smith contrasted mercantilism, the practice of economic domination of other nations through the power of trade, with the prosperity that arises when nations trade honestly with one another. Nations practicing mercantilism sought to make other nations subservient by selling merchandise but refusing, by tariffs and taxes, to purchase an equal monetary amount from the nations they sought to impoverish. More importantly, nations practicing mercantilism sought to manufacture finished goods while receiving raw resources from their debtor nations.

As long as the United States traded freely within its own expanding borders, its prosperity and manufacturing became ascendant, despite the pressures of mercantilist trading partners such as Great Britain. By the end of World War II the British Empire ceased to exist as a mercantilist power, and the United States was the premier manufacturing and economic power in the world. Since the age of NAFTA under President Bill Clinton and historic GOP majorities in congress, the manufacturing base of the United States has been gutted. Why? What went wrong? Why was “free trade” so destructive to the American economy?

First of all, it was free trade in name only. It wasn’t free trade at all. Anyone who ever called our international ‘free trade’ agreements free trade were liars.

There is no such thing as unilateral free trade. If one trading partner is protectionist or practices CdO7ZpDUsAIAWPbmercantilism while the other partner does not, this isn’t free trade. It’s a give away. It’s highway robbery. It’s high treason, but it’s NOT free trade. To the extent that free trade, or just trade, is good for all partners; idiotic trade, treasonous trade, or corrupt trade eventually damages every partner. China, for example, has run up trade surpluses with the West to such an extent that the economic power of its trading partners has been slowed or diminished. As a result, China is killing the golden goose. Who will China trade with if its Western markets are diminished? The recent slowdowns in the Asian economy are a partial witness of the corrupt trade practice the East has followed with the West.

Do America’s trading partners practice mercantilism today? While some nations such as China have sought gold reserves, today’s economic gold standard is the American dollar or American treasuries. Are American trading partners hording American treasuries and dollars? Yes, everyone from Saudi Arabia to China have the good sense to maintain trade surpluses and to invest that wealth or horde that wealth. Thinking that having material things for one’s citizens is more important to foreign governments than hording American currency is utterly naïve. Having material things for one’s subjects (as in Saudi Arabia) or citizens (as in China) is of some value, but having the world’s mightiest military held hostage by its nation’s debt is priceless.

CdO7ZsZVAAEdLxoSecondly, our free trade agreements were free trade agreements in name only. The larger lesson of desolated Detroit, a lesson that was always self-evident from Adam Smith’s work anyhow, is that only free peoples can engage in free trade. While China is not a member of NAFTA, it is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). So also are Japan and South Korea, other nations with which the United States has unthinkable trade deficits. This monstrous world-wide trading organization seeks to provide the standards by way of which trade is “regulated.” Since all regulation is anathema to the idea of free trade, such an organization is as much a farce as Marxism. Since Marxism is a logical impossibility, it can never exist in practice. Likewise, the logical impossibility of the WTO means that, in practice, whatever it is, it is not an organization that sets standards for free exchange. Only a political union can provide an atmosphere of free trade, and then, only if the political union promotes and defends the liberties of its citizens. A free citizenry is what allows the invisible hand of the free market to work.

Finally, it follows from the premise that “only free peoples can engage in free trade” that free trade can only be pursued, not achieved, among different nations. A political union among free people is the only basis for the wto-litigation-ft-august-2012adjustments that take place as part of genuine free trade. Among various nations, various degrees of economic freedom and political freedom result in unequal trading relationships. These inequalities are the responsibility of each nation to monitor and evaluate. The tokens of unfair, or unequal, “free trade” can be found in trade surpluses or deficits and in the aggregate increases or decreases in the manufacturing sectors of various national economies.

None of this takes rocket science to describe and to apply. That’s why the free market works. Workers, manufacturers, merchants and producers of every kind measure their own microeconomic trade deficits and adjust. This is what allows for efficiency in every economy. Recognizing that “free trade” philosophies have been applied so poorly implies corruption. Almost everyone recognizes that transnational corporations and large banking interests are profiting from the seemingly idiotic application of free trade philosophies. While greed means wanting more than one needs, and while no one can be a judge as to what another feels he needs, greed is certainly manifest in the corruption that has become international in scope and rotten to the core.

Liberty Comes from the Rule of Law

It’s a paradox, so it is deeply true: liberty, in every incarnation from monetary freedom to personal liberty, comes from the rule of law. For a person to prosper, he or she must live by a code; the higher the code the greater the prosperity. So it is, also, for nations. Ours has become lawless, preferring human whims to the natural law of its founders.

In a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 3, 2012, President Obama called a budget obamaproposal of Paul Ryan and the Congressional Republicans “thinly veiled social Darwinism.” Obama and others fail to recognize that there can be a rule of law higher than any one person, so they cannot distinguish the differences between liberty and the doctrines of tyrants, doctrines that excuse utter despotism and abject slavery by refusing to accept laws higher than self.

Social Darwinism was the psychotic delusion of a drunk’s puppet (no disrespect to drunks). For the leader of the free world to associate free market principles with this theology of degenerate racism is proof of the dementia at the core of modern American “intellectualism.” Our academics have become a self-lauding church that parades itself in our national discourse as our national conscience. If we had a national conscience, we’d grind these institutions into powder and scatter them across the brook Kidron.

Generally, Social Darwinism was a Victorian Age rationalization for upper class elites to take from others the fruits of their labors by any means possible. Laws that allowed for economic prosperity could be discarded at will on the basis of racial dominance. Social Darwinism became the intellectual window dressing for thuggish premises like: “We’re strong; you’re not, so we can take what’s yours.” Saying that Social Darwinism is the ethical basis for a free market is comparable to saying free trade is a robber, who, holding a gun to your head, offers you the choice: “Your money or your life!”

Free markets, historically, 71FDiOr4jzLdon’t work this way. They don’t function at all under lawless conditions. Free markets in which wealth “evolves” work on King Arthur’s round table principles. Free markets produce when “Might is for Right” and not when “Might is Right.” Ironically, it is Communism and Socialism that must get rid of the rule of law in order to function (see The Road to Serfdom). In 2012 it is the socialists who are trying to get rid of the rule of law by attacking free markets as lawless.

Human virtue, though, is demonstrably not genetic. Animals excel in their relationship to the physics of earth, air, and water. Human virtue, however, is determined by mankind’s relationship to truth. A fit nation is an ethical nation, and such nations can only exist with ethical citizens.

In this context, a change does occur in free markets. The ethics of a free people are continually expressed in the realm of material prosperity.  The best banks, railroads, airlines and businesses survive and are rewarded for their service to others. But “fittest” does not mean “strongest.” Instead, the entire nation moves from shadows towards light. The greatest societies are laudable for the ethics and strength of the laws by which they govern all their members equally. In return and they are rewarded by an economic strength that flows from teamwork and specialization.

Herbert Spencer cannot take the blame for those who applied the ideas of Social Darwinism to eugenics. However, the implicit link to racism from the days of British Imperialism to the eugenics movement in the United States, gives the ideology of Social Darwinism a hellish connotation.

Obama can get away with labeling every free market proponent a racist because this nation will not hold itself responsible to any law higher than it’s personal convenience.

Cone-headed academicians can get away with cursing the principles of a great nation endowed with liberty from beneath white masks of “intellectual purity” because the septic system of American thought has been so thoroughly corrupt for so long.

We think nothing of this utter rot pouring out from beneath the bathroom door. We’ve lived in this filth so long that we hardly notice it anymore. But we are all utterly contaminated. We reek of sickness and stink of decay. The truth of America has no real friends, and the jackals, smelling our decay, are circling.

Liberty comes fking-arthur-and-the-knights-of-the-round-table-round-table-1-ideas-round-table-1rom the rule of law. This is true for individuals, economies, societies and nations. The darkness of ignorance in every person and in every nation comes from ignoring each person and each law’s relationship to the truth. We are not a nation founded on natural law because we are nature worshippers. We were a nation dedicated to natural law because we read in nature the face of it’s Designer and His higher purposes for every person. We read in nature His eternal call to liberty. Now it seems we prefer tyranny and slavery. Liberty is not a statue. It is the purpose of the Creator for every person. Let’s be part of the change. Let’s stand up and stay valiant for the truth.

Sacking RINO Strongholds: How to Recapture the Republican Party

Rino-River-1

See http://alltherightsnark.org/cry-me-a-rino-river/

The first step in taking America back is for Conservatives to retake the Republican Party. Many in top GOP leadership positions have basically left the Republican Party. This is so widely understood that an acronym for the phenomenon, RINO, (Republican in Name Only) is used without blinking by conservatives. Now, don’t expect to hear “RINO” mentioned by any televised political pundits, not even those of Fox News, and no debate moderator, Liberal, Progressive, Democrat or “Republican” would even dare utter the term, but it is, nevertheless, linguistic and cultural evidence that the leadership of the Republican Party has, in practice, left the building. Franklin Graham’s solution is to leave the party to the RINOs and start anew. Reverend Graham’s deeply held principles leave him little choice, but if there is another way, it is in a strategy for Conservatives to retake the GOP.

Conservatives may be closer to success than some believe. For instance, how close is Jeb Bush to refusing to back Donald Trump? And, if Jeb did leave the party, taking his iconic family name with him, would it really matter? Trump, if he is sincere in his religious beliefs, may be praying even now that Bush does leave the GOP in a huff. A huge number of Americans of every political persuasion would finally realize that Trump trumpwas his own man. They might actually start listening to some of his Conservative ideas.

So what is it about the Trump campaign that has brought conservatives so far through the barred gates of the establishment? What is it about his assault on the status quo that has left the main stream media trembling at their stations on the wall, bereft of power and out of ammunition? Why has the media’s burning oil and Greek fire hurt only themselves? What can conservatives learn from Trump?

Trump’s success isn’t because of the novelty of his ideas. Indeed, Trump’s ideas are decidedly unremarkable. That is, he holds the same ideas and values the vast majority of Americans hold. What makes Trump a success is his willingness to be a rebel, an outcast for the sake of the American idea. There are the paid, cash only, professional protesters who riot for Marxism. That’s different. Trump, like our founding fathers, like Newt Gingrich, like Rand and Ron Paul, like the insurgents of the Tea Party, like Joe the Plumber and Sheriff Joe, is a rebel in the arena of ideas.

This is not to say that Trump’s tactics in expressing American ideas and values are not new. Consider his decision to announce a plan to ban all Muslim immigration into the United States. Bush III immediately went ballistic. He called the Donald’s plan “insane” and contrary to American values. Jeb and those who seconded him were exposed. There is very little un-American about a pause in Muslim immigration and the theory that it is unconstitutional is very much open to debate. Trump, with this plank, shattered the wrought iron door of the GOP establishment, and they exposed their backers… I mean backs. The GOP establishment are globalists. With the E.U. they want “borderless nations.” It’s a failed European socialist ideal, but that is the establishment’s deeply held and once secret position.

Likewise, consider Trump’s (and others’) announced willingness to work with Russia’s Vladimir Putin on Syria. Again, the RINOs went crazy, calling Putin names and threatening to shoot down Russian planes as they mindlessly putinwalked into the debater’s trap of arguing a hypothetical no-fly zone. The GOP establishment’s representatives became volatile as they indirectly supported Turkey’s attack on Russia’s jet. America’s interests and Russia’s are now far closer than they’ve been in a century, but who is still afraid of Russia? Who sees Russia as an economic enemy? That’s right, the European Union. It is important to recognize that both of these European ideas are also supported by the Liberals and the American mass media bosses. This is central in Trump’s attacks on the RINO Republican strongholds: he identifies the positions they share with the Liberals and he exposes those positions. Even more, Trump expects the vitriol he’ll experience when he exposes those positions and uses it to further expose his RINO opponents.

The secret of Trump’s strateil_fullxfull.352538162_hlligic success is bold honesty. If conservatives are honest but afraid, they’ll lose. Trump never apologizes. He only counterattacks. He meets ad hominem attacks with more intense ad hominem attacks. A close inspection of Trump’s responses shows that he enters the fray with eyes wide open. He knows he’ll be attacked mercilessly from every front. Nevertheless, he goes in, and he goes in prepared. Franklin Graham is thinking of getting pastors and ministers to run for office because America needs honest men and women. We need boldly honest people in office, not just honest ones.

There are still significant holes in Trump’s positions. What are his plans for Planned Parenthood? What is his position on religious freedom? Does he envision other reforms? But for now, Trump proudly bears the marks of an honest man, and these are the marks conservatives must look for in their candidates. The marks of Trump’s honesty are his willingness to take abuse and hatred, his willingness to be cast out of “polite” society, to have his reputation excoriated, his family ridiculed, and his businesses attacked. Conservatives may not agree on every detail, but conservatives need boldly honest men and women, people who will choose to bear the marks of those who are profoundly rebellious in the arena of ideas.