PODCAST: Tulsi’s Last Stand? Dem Candidates Call For More Than $200 Trillion in Spending!

GUESTS

W. James Antle III, editor of The American Conservative. A former Senior Writer at TAC, Antle also previously served as managing editor of the Daily Caller, editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation, and associate editor of the American Spectator. He is the author of Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped? Antle has appeared on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and NPR, among other outlets, and has written for a wide variety of publications, including the Wall Street Journal, Politico, the Week, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the Daily Beast, the Guardian, Reason, the Spectator of London, The National Interest, and National Review Online. He is also senior advisor to Defense Priorities.

TOPIC…Tulsi’s Last Stand?

Charles Lehman is a staff writer for the Washington Free Beacon. He writes about policy, covering crime, law, drugs, immigration, and social issues.

TOPIC…Dem Candidates Call For More Than $200 Trillion in Spending.

The Biggest Threat to Black Folks

The biggest threat to the Black community is by far and away drugs.  No, not the drugs you might think; but the drug of liberalism!

The biggest drug dealers in America are radical liberal quasi journalists like Roland Martin, Joy Reid, Don Lemon, and Richard Princess.  And the biggest institutional drug dealers are radical liberal groups like the NAACP, The National Urban League, and the Congressional Black Caucus.

Martin, Reid, and Lemon have their own TV shows that rabidly promote the radical liberal talking points of the Democrat Party.  Princess is like the crazy old uncle that writes and says crazy things that no one pays attention to; but many Black journalists seem to revere him and his radical thoughts on racism that seem to have no end.

They all claim to be journalists; but are in daily violation of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) code of ethics.  SPJ’s code of ethics are supposed to be the Bible for all journalists; they lay out the dos and don’ts of journalistic conduct.

The SPJ’s preamble states,

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough [emphasis added]. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.”

They go on to state that the foundation of ethical journalism is: seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, be accountable and transparent.  You can read the details on SPJ’s website.

Can anyone with any shred of integrity prove these quasi journalists live up to their own industry’s code of conduct?

They all claim to be registered “independents,” but they all are liberal Democrats, notwithstanding their clams to the contrary.

On a daily basis they serve as unpaid surrogates for the Democratic National Committee (DNC).  They constantly assert their opinions into their quasi coverage of news and are afraid to engage with “real” Blacks who are “real” Republicans.

They either go out and find millennial Republicans who don’t know their butt from a hole in the ground or find a Black who will criticize the Republican Party and the Trump administration.

They want weak, Black Republicans that they can embarrass on national TV in order to create the perception that all Black Republicans are ill-informed, have no connection to the Black community, and are buffoons.

On the institutional side, the NAACP, The National Urban League, and the Congressional Black Caucus are just as bad as these quasi radical liberal journalists, if not worse.

They represent their membership, not the Black community.  There is a big difference.

Each of these groups, without evidence, claim to be non-partisan.  They all are dependent on the expansion of government programs and the continued intrusion of government into the lives of Blacks.

They all aggressively advocate for radical liberal policies that are indistinguishable from the Democrat Party.  I was once told that the sign of a great teacher is one who makes himself increasingly unnecessary.

These group’s very existence is contingent upon the constant dependency of Blacks on government programs; i.e., the governmental drug of liberalism.

It is estimated that the federal government has spent over $ 22 trillion on the War on Poverty since the sixties.  Yet, the problem has not been solved and one can argue that it has gotten worse.

These radical liberal quasi journalists and institutions have continued to get yet another generation of Blacks hooked on the drug of liberalism.

They cause more damage to and in the Black community than anyone with a white sheet over their face.

Herein lies my frustration with my Republican Party and my current president.  We have a great story to tell to the Black community; but the story is not being told.

These radical liberal quasi journalists and institutions would lead you to believe that they speak for and represent the mainstream of the Black community.  THEY DO NOT!  But a lie that is repeated enough times becomes the truth.

The Black community is sold a bunch of lies daily from these sellouts to our community and because Republicans are totally disengaged in the debate, the narrative is deemed to be true.

The Republican Party and the Trump administration would be wise to engage with respected Black Republicans like former Florida Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll, businessman and civil rights legend Richard Finley of Birmingham, businessman and economic genius, John Burnett of New York City, to name a few.

Blacks are totally fed up with liberalism and do not consider Maxine Waters or Al Sharpton their leaders.  They are “media” appointed leaders.

I am a graduate of Oral Roberts University and Oral would always tell me, “Go into every man’s world and meet them at the point of their need.”

When will the Republican Party and the Trump administration take our message of “traditional values” to the marketplace of ideas within the Black community?

We don’t need to be persuaded, because we already believe; we don’t need to be convinced because we have no doubt that liberalism has failed us; we need only be invited to be “part of the team”.

SHAKEDOWN SOCIALISM: Ten Current Democratic Policies that will turn America into a Communist State

“Che was radically opposed to using and developing capitalist economic laws and categories in building socialism. He advocated something that I have often insisted on: Building socialism and communism is not just a matter of producing and distributing wealth but is also a matter of education and consciousness” Fidel Castro in ‘Che Guevara, Economics and politics in the transition to socialism’, Pathfinder, New York, 2003, p. 39.

” Growing up in the USSR, where the only permitted sources of information were textbooks and the official media, I believed that the Soviet Union was the most advanced society, while all other countries lived in poverty and oppression, devoid of the sun of Marxism-Leninism. I wanted them to become more like the USSR for their own good, and couldn’t wait to grow up and live in the communist future, not worrying about money.” – Oleg Atbasian, former citizen of the USSR and author of Shakedown Socialism: Unions, Pitchforks, Collective Greed, The Fallacy of Economic Equality, and other Optical Illusions of “Redistributive Justice.”


The Democratic Party is getting ready for the second round of debates for it’s candidates for President of the United States. During night 2 of the first debate NBC moderator Savannah Guthrie asked the candidates,

“This is a show of hands question – and hold them up for a moment so people can see – raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.”

All six candidates, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke and businessman Andrew Yang, raised their hands. This became a seminal moment for the Democratic Party.

Democratic Policies that lead to Communism

Since this first debate there are ten policies that one or more of the Democratic Party candidates have fully embraced:

  1. Reparations for blacks and homosexuals.
  2. Medicare for all.
  3. Free education for all and forgiving all student loan debt.
  4. Green New Deal.
  5. A $1,000 monthly check sent to every American over 18, so they can “pay their bills as robots take over jobs.”
  6. Reverse the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
  7. More illegal immigration and providing government benefits for all illegal aliens (see below).
  8. Pro-abortion and infanticide.
  9. Gun control, gun confiscation, banning “assault weapons.”
  10. Eliminate the Electoral College and choose the President by popular vote. Expand the Supreme Court beyond the 9 justices and pack it with liberal judges.

Immigration policies implemented by states controlled by Democratic Party majorities include:

  1. Giving illegal aliens drivers licences.
  2. Giving illegal aliens the right to vote.
  3. Giving illegal aliens government subsidized college tuition.
  4. Allowing illegal aliens to hold public office.
  5. Giving illegal aliens legal support and council to fight deportation.
  6. Filing lawsuits to stop enforcement of current immigration law.

The Democratic Party has a never before taken such a dramatic shift in its history.

The Defining Issue in the 2020 Election

The next Democratic primary debates will take place on July 30 and 31 moderated by and broadcast on CNN. The debate will be held in the city of Detroit, Michigan, at the Fox Theatre.

It will be very interesting to see how far the candidates will go to garner votes from their base. Will the candidates promise more “free services and handout to all” in the name of “equal distribution of wealth?”

Will the candidates be asked about issues such as: the growing anti-Semitism within their party, the desire to eliminate right to work laws, the demand to unionize every job in America, eliminate the Electoral College, gun control, abortion after birth or the national security policy to abandon the state of Israel?

The Democratic Party is on the road to implementing policies that will ultimately lead to the Utopian world of Marxism-Leninism.

As President Trump stated in his 2019 State of the Union address to Congress,

“Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.”

This is the defining issue on November 3rd, 2020 for American voters.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Left’s Attacks on the Electoral College Are All About Political Power

Ayanna Pressley Doesn’t Want Certain ‘Black Faces.’ Why Her View Is Dehumanizing.

Liberals Campaigning Hard To Re-Elect President Trump

‘I Was in Fear of My Life’: Journalist Describes Antifa Attack, Group’s Goals

Trump Administration Officials: Refugee Admissions for FY 2020 Could be Zero

“Refugee backers….worry that the doomsday scenario — taking numbers down to zero — could debilitate the resettlement program for years to come.” – (Politico)

I had planned to immediately this morning jump on the Rep. Ilhan Omar (Somali refugee) marriage scam story, but need to tell you about this breaking news first.

A little background….

Every year at this time various administration agencies and the federal resettlement contractors (also called incorrectly ‘charities’) get together to plan for the coming fiscal year and how many refugees should be admitted and from where.

The State Department then in conjunction with the White House prepares the Presidential Determination that is sent to Congress in September for consultation with various committees.  However, it is the President who has the power under the Refugee Act of 1980 to set the CEILING for the coming year.

One step in the process that has now been missing for years is the “scoping meeting” which for many many years was held in May or June and it was an opportunity for the public to weigh in with views on the scope of the program.  Longtime readers of Refugee Resettlement Watch may recall that for a number of years during the Obama Administration those of us with concerns about the program swamped them with comments.

That opportunity for public comment was dropped and the Trump Administration has never revived it.  

So here we are again the annual squabble over numbers of refugees for the coming fiscal year has begun (FY20 begins on October 1, 2019).  Previously I saw that the nine federal contractors (Church World Service is one of the nine) who are paid to place the refugees are again pushing for 75,000.

Not happy with what they learned last week from the Trump team, they have leaked to Politico and surely other news outlets to vent and to stir up their minions to put pressure on Congress and the White House so they can continue to be paid to change America by changing the people.

And, get this! Heritage Foundation is on the side of more refugees rather than less!

If only it is so…..

Politico (hat tip: Jeannine):

Trump officials pressing to slash refugee admissions to zero next year

The Trump administration is considering a virtual shutdown of refugee admissions next year — cutting the number to nearly zero — according to three people familiar with the plan.

During a key meeting of security officials on refugee admissions last week, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services representative who is closely aligned with White House immigration adviser Stephen Miller suggested setting a cap at zero, the people said. Homeland Security Department officials at the meeting later floated making the level anywhere from 3,000 to 10,000, according to one of the people.

The proposal for a near-shutdown of the refugee program is alarming officials at the Department of Defense, who don’t want to see a halt in admissions of Iraqis who risked their lives assisting U.S. forces in that country. The possible move comes after the Trump administration cut refugee admissions by a third this year, to 30,000.

If the administration shuts down refugee admissions, it would give President Donald Trump a powerful talking point as he makes immigration restrictions a centerpiece of his reelection campaign.

At the same time, it would strand thousands of people already far along in the process and damage the ability of resettlement agencies to process refugees in future years, according to advocates tracking the issue.
“In the long-term, it would mean that the capacity and the ability of the United States to resettle refugees would be completely decimated,” said Jen Smyers, a director with Church World Service, one of the nine U.S. resettlement agencies.

What she is saying above is that their budgets would be decimated with the loss of the millions they get from us—US taxpayers! And, of course Politico makes no mention of that fact!

The meeting of roughly 20 officials last week, which took place in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, represents a preliminary step in the annual process of setting the admissions cap, according to those with knowledge of it.

USCIS official John Zadrozny and the State Department’s Andrew Veprek — both known as Miller allies — argued in the meeting that the refugee cap should be low because of ongoing security concerns and the ability of the U.S. to offer humanitarian protections through the asylum process, according to an attendee.

While the two programs similarly protect people facing persecution, refugees apply for protection from overseas, while asylum seekers apply once they’ve arrived at the border or entered the U.S. on a legal visa. Proponents of the refugee program contend it offers the U.S. diplomatic and military leverage internationally beyond its humanitarian aims.

The above paragraph is very important for a couple of reasons.  All of those ‘asylum seekers’ breaking into America right now could end up being declared refugees and receive all of the benefits legitimate refugees receive thus completely swamping our welfare system, schools, health care systems etc.

And, it is pretty outrageous that refugees should be foisted on unsuspecting communities in order for Washington to gain international “diplomatic and military leverage.”

The Miller allies asserted at the meeting that the refugee determination didn’t matter because it was a ceiling, not a floor, and the administration still retained the discretion to admit fewer people, according to one of the people with knowledge of it.

The various agencies will submit their recommendations by Aug. 1, the person told POLITICO.

The presence of Zadrozny and Veprek in the refugee cap negotiations speaks to the influence of Miller over the Trump administration’s immigration agenda. Both are viewed as proxies for the president’s hard-line adviser.

Just what we need (not!): Heritage Foundation says surely we can find “more folks” to bring into the US who are in countries that don’t want to do us harm.

“Even if you’re really hesitant about certain types of conflict-torn areas, I still think there are other areas that are not of concern,” said David Inserra, a policy analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation. “There are enough refugees out there in the world that I think you could find more folks that you’re not particularly worried about.”

LOL! Below Politico sends out the word that Open Borders agitators need to get out and lobby the administration!  And, therein lies the primary reason there is a scare tactic headline to this story!

The Trump administration doesn’t need to make the refugee determination until next month and there remains time for outside groups to lobby the administration. The administration also must consult with members of related congressional committees regarding the determination, although that requirement has been mostly brushed aside under Trump.

The article is long and there is a lot more information, so go here to read it all.

There is a big discussion in the story about the military wanting to admit more Iraqis, but interesting to me was the lack of any mention of the  thousands of Afghans we have brought in during the Trump Administration.

If there was ever a time to contact the White House, this is it! 

Tell the President—zero refugees for 2020!  After all, hundreds of thousands are arriving illegally and asking for asylum so those should be dealt with first.  (See White House contact in my right hand side bar.)

RELATED ARTICLE: 4 Big Border Issues in Homeland Security Chief’s House Testimony

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Michelle Malkin Calls Out Lutheran Refugee Contractor as Anti-Trump Political Agitator

“Will a single American elected official please stand up and challenge the continued public funding of this subversive religious racket?” – Michelle Malkin


Refugee Resettlement Watch may be down temporarily, but thankfully patriots with bigger megaphones have taken up the call to educate Americans about the supposedly ‘religious’ charities that live off of us—taxpayers—in order to promote an Open Borders agenda.

Thanks to reader Richard for tipping me off to Michelle Malkin’s recent column about Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service‘s leading role as an anti-Trump community agitation group (while they collect millions in federal grants and contracts from the Trump Administration)!

Krishanti Vignarajah leads the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service following the controversy that saw its previous CEO ousted in 2017.

From VDARE,

Michelle Malkin: Defund Lutherans For Open Borders Now!

If you were shocked by the images of the Mexican flag flying over an Aurora, Colorado, immigration detention center this weekend, you’ll be appalled at an even more disgusting spectacle:

One of the top promoters of the so-called Lights for Liberty nationwide protests by Trump-hating, ICE-bashing radicals was a nonprofit religious organization known as the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.

As a designated “host,” LIRS played a key role in publicizing, organizing and participating in demonstrations against President Donald Trump’s deportation enforcement actions targeting some 2,000 illegal immigrants and their families who have ignored removal orders or skipped out on court hearings.

Brazen hatred of cops, Border Patrol and ICE agents were on full display at the open borders protests fronted by LIRS and other left-wing groups, including Code Pink, CASA and CAIR.

[….]

The president and CEO of LIRS, Krishanti Vignarajah, is a Sri Lankan refugee and former Michelle Obama policy director who led the Lights for Liberty event in Washington, D.C. She argues that Americans are obligated to open the floodgates at the southern border (since she turned out so great) and vehemently opposes what she calls “militant border enforcement.” To these border-sabotaging radicals, of course, any border enforcement is “militant.”

LIRS sounds like just the kind of extremist group you’d expect to be kept afloat by billionaire George Soros’ big bucks. But hold on to your wallets and your American flags, folks: In 2016, LIRS relied on $64.7 million in government subsidies from taxpayers—that’s you and me—to fund a whopping 96.2% of its budget.

[….]

Disguised as compassion and Christian morality, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service’s activism is a profit-seeking machine—even as the agency has been plagued by allegations of mismanagement that prompted an external probe two years ago.

These ‘Christian’ groups aren’t passing the plate in their churches, but have latched on to the money stream coming out of your wallets via Washington’s redistributors of your wealth.

Please visit VDARE for more of Malkin’s excellent summary of why this is so outrageous.

Photo is from Birchbox, here.

Endnote:  At least one of the nine federal refugee contractors isn’t doing so well and has announced this week that it will close its Florida offices, see World Relief running out of your money.

Big fat lie in that story!

World Relief, which opened its Jacksonville office in 1990, is one of nine agencies nationally that collaborates with the U.S. State Department to resettle refugees.

The nonprofits typically help refugees set up their apartments, get their children into school, and go to doctors’ appointments. But the refugees are expected to pay back all the costs. 

That is not true!

This post is filed in my ‘Charity fraud’ category.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: 1958 Speech by Robert Welch Predicting How ‘Insiders’ Plan to Destroy America

Robert Henry Winborne Welch Jr. was an American businessman, political activist, and author. He was independently wealthy following his retirement and used that wealth to sponsor anti-Communist causes.

He co-founded the conservative group the John Birch Society in 1958 and tightly controlled it until his death.

John Birch Society Mission

To bring about less government, more responsibility, and — with God’s help — a better world by providing leadership, education, and organized volunteer action in accordance with moral and Constitutional principles.

Preserving Individual Rights & National Independence

“These United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States … We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” — Declaration of Independence, 1776

The Declaration of Independence established the independence of both the original 13 American colonies and the United States of America that they together formed a decade later.

The Declaration proclaimed that our personal rights come from God, not from government.

The John Birch Society endorses the timeless principles of the Declaration of Independence. The Society also labors to warn against and expose the forces that seek to abolish U.S. independence, build a world government, or otherwise undermine our personal liberties and national independence.

Restoring the Constitution

“That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” — Declaration of Independence, 1776

The Constitution of the United States of America instituted the government that secures our God-given rights.

The John Birch Society endorses the U.S. Constitution as the foundation of our national government, and works toward educating and activating Americans to abide by the original intent of the Founding Fathers. We seek to awaken a sleeping and apathetic people concerning the designs of those who are working to destroy our constitutional Republic.

41 Inconvenient Truths on the “New Energy Economy”

Bill Gates has said that when it comes to understanding energy realities “we need to bring math to the problem.” He’s right.

A week doesn’t pass without a mayor, governor, policymaker or pundit joining the rush to demand, or predict, an energy future that is entirely based on wind/solar and batteries, freed from the “burden” of the hydrocarbons that have fueled societies for centuries. Regardless of one’s opinion about whether, or why, an energy “transformation” is called for, the physics and economics of energy combined with scale realities make it clear that there is no possibility of anything resembling a radically “new energy economy” in the foreseeable future. Bill Gates has said that when it comes to understanding energy realities “we need to bring math to the problem.”

He’s right. So, in my recent Manhattan Institute report, “The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking,” I did just that.

Herein, then, is a summary of some of the bottom-line realities from the underlying math. (See the full report for explanations, documentation, and citations.)

1. Hydrocarbons supply over 80 percent of world energy: If all that were in the form of oil, the barrels would line up from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles, and that entire line would grow by the height of the Washington Monument every week.

2. The small two-percentage-point decline in the hydrocarbon share of world energy use entailed over $2 trillion in cumulative global spending on alternatives over that period; solar and wind today supply less than two percent of the global energy.

3. When the world’s four billion poor people increase energy use to just one-third of Europe’s per capita level, global demand rises by an amount equal to twice America’s total consumption.

4. A 100x growth in the number of electric vehicles to 400 million on the roads by 2040 would displace five percent of global oil demand.

5. Renewable energy would have to expand 90-fold to replace global hydrocarbons in two decades. It took a half-century for global petroleum production to expand “only” ten-fold.

6. Replacing U.S. hydrocarbon-based electric generation over the next 30 years would require a construction program building out the grid at a rate 14-fold greater than any time in history.

7. Eliminating hydrocarbons to make U.S. electricity (impossible soon, infeasible for decades) would leave untouched 70 percent of U.S. hydrocarbons use—America uses 16 percent of world energy.

8. Efficiency increases energy demand by making products & services cheaper: since 1990, global energy efficiency improved 33 percent, the economy grew 80 percent and global energy use is up 40 percent.

9. Efficiency increases energy demand: Since 1995, aviation fuel use/passenger-mile is down 70 percent, air traffic rose more than 10-fold, and global aviation fuel use rose over 50 percent.

10. Efficiency increases energy demand: since 1995, energy used per byte is down about 10,000-fold, but global data traffic rose about a million-fold; global electricity used for computing soared.

11. Since 1995, total world energy use rose by 50 percent, an amount equal to adding two entire United States’ worth of demand.

12. For security and reliability, an average of two months of national demand for hydrocarbons are in storage at any time. Today, barely two hours of national electricity demand can be stored in all utility-scale batteries plus all batteries in one million electric cars in America.

13. Batteries produced annually by the Tesla Gigafactory (world’s biggest battery factory) can store three minutes worth of annual U.S. electric demand.

14. To make enough batteries to store two day’s worth of U.S. electricity demand would require 1,000 years of production by the Gigafactory (world’s biggest battery factory).

15. Every $1 billion in aircraft produced leads to some $5 billion in aviation fuel consumed over two decades to operate them. Global spending on new jets is more than $50 billion a year—and rising.

16. Every $1 billion spent on data centers leads to $7 billion in electricity consumed over two decades. Global spending on data centers is more than $100 billion a year—and rising.

17. Over a 30-year period, $1 million worth of utility-scale solar or wind produces 40 million and 55 million kWh respectively: $1 million worth of shale well produces enough natural gas to generate 300 million kWh over 30 years.

18. It costs about the same to build one shale well or two wind turbines: the latter, combined, produces 0.7 barrels of oil (equivalent energy) per hourthe shale rig averages 10 barrels of oil per hour.

19. It costs less than $0.50 to store a barrel of oil, or its equivalent in natural gas, but it costs $200 to store the equivalent energy of a barrel of oil in batteries.

20. Cost models for wind and solar assume, respectively, 41 percent and 29 percent capacity factors (i.e., how often they produce electricity). Real-world data reveal as much as ten percentage points less for both. That translates into $3 million less energy produced than assumed over a 20-year life of a 2-MW $3 million wind turbine.

21. In order to compensate for episodic wind/solar output, U.S. utilities are using oil- and gas-burning reciprocating engines (big cruise-ship-like diesels); three times as many have been added to the grid since 2000 as in the 50 years prior to that.

22. Wind-farm capacity factors have improved at about 0.7 percent per year; this small gain comes mainly from reducing the number of turbines per acre leading to a 50 percent increase in average land used to produce a wind-kilowatt-hour.

23. Over 90 percent of America’s electricity, and 99 percent of the power used in transportation, comes from sources that can easily supply energy to the economy any time the market demands it.

24. Wind and solar machines produce energy an average of 25 percent–30 percent of the time, and only when nature permits. Conventional power plants can operate nearly continuously and are available when needed.

25. The shale revolution collapsed the prices of natural gas & coal, the two fuels that produce 70 percent of U.S. electricity. But electric rates haven’t gone down, rising instead 20 percent since 2008. Direct and indirect subsidies for solar and wind consumed those savings.

26. Politicians and pundits like to invoke “moonshot” language. But transforming the energy economy is not like putting a few people on the moon a few times. It is like putting all of humanity on the moon—permanently.

27. The common cliché: an energy tech disruption will echo the digital tech disruption. But information-producing machines and energy-producing machines involve profoundly different physics; the cliché is sillier than comparing apples to bowling balls.

28. If solar power scaled like computer-tech, a single postage-stamp-size solar array would power the Empire State Building. That only happens in comic books.

29. If batteries scaled like digital tech, a battery the size of a book, costing three cents, could power a jetliner to Asia. That only happens in comic books.

30. If combustion engines scaled like computers, a car engine would shrink to the size of an ant and produce a thousand-fold more horsepower; actual ant-sized engines produce 100,000 times less power.

31. No digital-like 10x gains exist for solar tech. Physics limit for solar cells (the Shockley-Queisser limit) is a max conversion of about 33 percent of photons into electrons; commercial cells today are at 26 percent.

32. No digital-like 10x gains exist for wind tech. Physics limit for wind turbines (the Betz limit) is a max capture of 60 percent of energy in moving air; commercial turbines achieve 45 percent.

33. No digital-like 10x gains exist for batteries: maximum theoretical energy in a pound of oil is 1,500 percent greater than max theoretical energy in the best pound of battery chemicals.

34. About 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent of one pound of hydrocarbons.

35. At least 100 pounds of materials are mined, moved and processed for every pound of battery fabricated.

36. Storing the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil, which weighs 300 pounds, requires 20,000 pounds of Tesla batteries ($200,000 worth).

37. Carrying the energy equivalent of the aviation fuel used by an aircraft flying to Asia would require $60 million worth of Tesla-type batteries weighing five times more than that aircraft.

38. It takes the energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil to fabricate a quantity of batteries that can store the energy equivalent of a single barrel of oil.

39. A battery-centric grid and car world means mining gigatons more of the earth to access lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, rare earths, cobalt, etc.—and using millions of tons of oil and coal both in mining and to fabricate metals and concrete.

40. China dominates global battery production with its grid 70 percent coal-fueled: EVs using Chinese batteries will create more carbon-dioxide than saved by replacing oil-burning engines.

41. One would no more use helicopters for regular trans-Atlantic travel—doable with elaborately expensive logistics—than employ a nuclear reactor to power a train or photovoltaic systems to power a nation.

This article is republished with permission from Economics 21. 

COLUMN BY

Life Before the Income Tax: What learnings can we derive from the British and American experience with the income tax?

If someone from the 17th century came back to life, he or she would be surprised, most of all, by the means of transport and communication tools we use now.

Probably, the most familiar things would be hospitals and schools.

Personally, I think that there is something that would very surprise a person from those times even more: the fact that Governments take away individuals’ earnings compulsively.

In fact, contrary to what many people think, income tax is a rather recent “invention,” created—in most cases—as an emergency tax to deal with extraordinary expenses, which later survived as a way to finance the growing fiscal deficits of Governments increasingly mismanaged, corrupt, and in debt.

We will review two significant examples.

After centuries imposing specific, eccentric taxes (e.g. chimney tax, window tax, malt tax, among others), Income Tax was first introduced by William Pitt in the United Kingdom in 1798, and it started to be charged in 1799. The aim was not to finance original expenses of the State but the Napoleonic Wars.

At the time, no other country levied a tax over the earnings produced by its citizens. The United States, for example, would only start charging it, intermittently, some 60 years later, and definitively in 1913.

The non-taxable minimum in the United Kingdom of the late 1700s would be equivalent to £6,000, and the maximum rate was ten percent. Only local income was susceptible to taxing, which was quite logical.

At the time, the malt tax covered approximately ten percent of the Government’s budget.

This first version of the Income Tax was in force only for three years, as it was annulled (logically) upon the signing of the Treaty of Amiens.

Henry Addington, who had succeeded Pitt in 1801 and had eliminated the tax when the peace with France was signed, reestablished it in 1803 when new difficulties appeared with that country. It was kept in force until the Battle of Waterloo. When the tax was annulled again, every document that referred to it was burnt, due to the sense of shame associated with having established and charged this tax.

From 1817 to 1842 there was no Income Tax in the United Kingdom or any other country.

Although he criticized the tax during the 1841 campaign, Prime Minister Robert Peel reestablished it in 1841, not to finance a war but to cover the Government’s deficit.

This time, the non-taxable minimum was over twice the previous one and the rate was around three percent.

The First World War was the perfect excuse to increase the rates. So, they were increased to 17.5 percent in 1915, 25 percent in 1916 and 30 percent in 1918.

For context, the only other country with an income tax at the time was the United States, which, as said above, had reestablished it in 1913, with a rate of 1 percent for incomes above $20,000.

The system was modernized as years went by, but the rising trend did not slow down, with a notorious record of 99.25 percent (yes, that is correct) during the Second World War.

Contrary to what one might believe, in the following two decades there was a minor reduction, but the tax remained over 95 percent.

During the 1970s and 1980s there were further decreases, but not very significant.

Only upon the election of Margaret Thatcher and the growth and increased sophistication of the offshore jurisdictions did the rates start to decrease substantially.

In 1988, for example, after three consecutive reductions, the basic rate was 25 percent.

Nowadays, that rate (the basic rate) is even lower: 20 percent and the maximum rate is 40 percent.

Let’s have a look at what happened on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

Although the United States became independent from the United Kingdom in 1776, after a conflict arising precisely from a taxing issue, it was not until 1861 that the country imposed the first income tax. And, just like in the United Kingdom, this was not done to finance the ordinary expenses of the State but the Civil War.

In other words, for over a century and 15 presidential terms, the State was financed without needing to take away from taxpayers a part of their income. Moreover, when it was finally done, those funds were not used to finance original expenses, but a civil war.

And even in that emergency situation (1862), the rate was between three percent and five percent, depending on the income level. That is to say, there were just two tax brackets, as is the case today, for example, in Paraguay.

In 1872, the income tax was annulled, basically due to the pressure of taxpayers, who deemed it expropriatory, like the majority of Congress.

In 1894, the income tax was incorporated again, but the next year, when ruling in the case 158 U.S. 601 (Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Company), the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. The exact date of the ruling was May 20, 1895, and the main argument put forward by the majority of the justices was that a direct tax was not constitutional if there was not a proportional way to distribute it among the states forming the Union, based on a census carried out to this end. The decision was made with five votes in favor and four against.

In 1909, the creation of this tax was proposed again, and in the presidential election of 1912, the three principal candidates—the president at the time, William H. Taft; the former president, Theodore Roosevelt; and the candidate who eventually won, Woodrow Wilson—supported the legalization of the income tax.

The 16th Amendment was introduced precisely to achieve this goal. Paradoxically, Wyoming—now one of the states where non-residents frequently establish their foreign trusts—was the 36th state to pass the Amendment, which led to the tax being in force.

In particular, this Amendment established that Congress shall have the right to create and collect taxes over income, whichever source they may be from, without apportionment between the different states and without the need for a census.

As said above, the tax bracket for most of the population was 1 percent.

So, when did everything become more complicated for taxpayers? With the establishment of the Revenue Act of 1918 (WWI), which raised this tax to 77 percent, a rate over twice as much as that of the United Kingdom.

From looking at the way in which the public sector has been financed in the United States, the following can be seen:

  • between 1890 and 1920, all internal revenue came from foreign trade, in the form of custom duties;
  • between 1920 and 1940, the greatest part of the revenue came from corporate income tax, followed by personal income tax and custom duties; and
  • between 1940 and the year 2000, custom duties tended to disappear, and the personal income tax overtook the corporate income tax.

As mentioned above, in time, more and more countries started adopting this new type of tax, especially countries with growing deficits.

As an example, Switzerland imposed it in 1840, France in 1872, Spain in 1900, Norway in 1911, Russia in 1916, Canada in 1918, Brazil in 1924 and Argentina in 1932.

As a result, inhabitants of these countries began to look for ways to legally elude these unfair taxes, often using structures in jurisdictions that continued to consider these taxes as expropriatory.

In that context, countries that expected (and expect) to charge this tax (which they deemed unethical not so long ago) turned against the rest and accused them of being “unfair fiscal competition.”

In other words, they unilaterally changed the rules and then attacked those who simply maintained the status quo.

Later, they gathered in small cartels (e.g. OECD, G20, and others) to lend more legitimacy to these claims. That is how the first “black lists” of “tax havens” appeared, and how the pressure against them increased.

When they realized that these organizations were not achieving their goals, they started to use other arguments, more amenable to the general public (money laundering, terrorism financing).

Offshore jurisdictions were not created to capture the investments of fiscal residents of other countries, but it was these other countries which drove away their own fiscal residents by creating taxes on their income (first) and their assets (later), taking the tax burden to untenable limits.

Reality indicates that the very concept of “tax haven” was created by high-tax countries which, not being able to compete, tried (unfairly) to get the most efficient countries out of the competition.

As usual, he who does not want to compete is the least competitive one. No wonder.

What learnings can we derive from the British and American experience?

Several:

  • Firstly, there is a possibility that States finance themselves without receiving funds from the income or revenue of their inhabitants (or taxing these).
  • Secondly, until not long ago, all governments agreed that imposing taxes over income or revenue was expropriatory, and therefore could only be done under extraordinary circumstances. To impose this kind of tax was frowned upon, and those who were forced to do so were embarrassed.
  • Finally, were it not for the “fiscal wilderness” there would be no “tax havens”. If high-tax countries really wanted to “vanquish” tax havens, they should strive to provide legal security and reduce taxes, instead of lobbying through discredited, decadent multilateral organizations, which they have been doing for decades without any results.

This article is reprinted with permission from the Panam Post.

COLUMN BY

College Debt Forgiveness Is Immoral

The college debt “crisis” is a moral question, but it is the opposite of what Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, AOC, and most of the Democratic presidential field are claiming.

An individual forgiving a debt they voluntarily entered into with a friend or family is noble and Christian and laudable. This sort of debt forgiveness happens routinely. I’ve done it. I’ve had it done.

Government eliminating debt is immoral. Here’s why.

If I loan someone money, and for whatever reason I choose to forgive that debt, that is my right and it is supported in the Bible. It is certainly part of American tradition, and actually may be far broader than that. It is a good and noble act, if I judge it is not enabling bad behavior. It is my choice because it is both my money and I voluntarily made the loan to the person.

But that is not at all what is being contemplated in this debate over forgiveness of student debt by Democratic politicians. First, of course, there is the need to label it a “crisis.” That is always step one for the next terrible government intervention idea.

What causes the confusion, however, is that the language is misleading when politicians say “we” should forgive this huge student debt issue. If they meant themselves as individuals, then terrific. But they most certainly do not. In truth, they intend to benefit and perhaps profit off this, not sacrifice.

Of course the concept is alluring if you are a college student with a lot of debt and know very little of the real world. Most all of us have debt and at times struggle with it. Who would not like their debt wiped out?

But when the “we” is the government, it means that the government will forcibly take one person’s money, to pay off the debt of another person. This is egregious behavior. The person whose money is being taken did not make the loan, consent to the loan, or necessarily even think the loan was a good idea.

The students and their parents voluntarily entered into those debts in return for the college degrees they obtained. They signed on the bottom line to take money to pay for something of value to them, and promised to pay it back. They knew at each step the cost they were incurring.

They were then loaned the money — with the promise they would pay it back — obtained the thing of value with that money, and now they and some politicians want Americans unrelated to the decision to take out the loan and getting value from the product to pay off the debt…while the students keep the thing of value.

This is egregious. But all the media will ever do is interview students with high debt loads and low-paying jobs. That paints a distorted picture, which of course is what it is intended to do.

I have sons who are plumbers. These young men chose not to go to college and take on debt. They work very hard, often in the Florida heat, and they actually make pretty decent money. They have no debt. I have another son working up the management ranks at Publix grocery stores, and he works long and odd hours. And another son who went to college and has nearly paid off his debt, again with a lot of hard work and now runs his own company — as one of my plumber sons does.

They have friends who are working to get nursing degrees and law enforcement training without taking on debt.

Now the politicians looking to make political hay on college debt forgiveness need to explain how it is moral that these people, and the millions like them, should be forced to pay off the debts of those who voluntarily went to college, and voluntarily took on the debt and now have a degree.

They need to explain the morality that nurses, police, firefighters, plumbers, electricians, A/C repairers, roadworkers, carpenters, roofers, block-layers, secretaries, etc. should be forced to pay off strangers’ college debts that they have no association with.

They need to explain how it is moral to force all who went to college ahead of this current crop, who all either paid off their loans or are getting close, to be forced to also pay off the loans of someone else. My wife and I paid off our loans. Sure the debts were smaller, as were the incomes. But it took a few years — while both my wife and I worked nearly full-time during college to keep them low.

If individuals want to forgive loans, that is their right and it is laudable. If banks and creditors want to, that is their right and their choice. But for the government to step in and do it — meaning all working Americans have to chip in — then we have a very different but clear-cut moral issue.

It’s wrong.

RELATED ARTICLE: Bernie Sanders’ Student Debt Forgiveness Plan Ignores Reality, Much Like Elizabeth Warren’s Similar Plan

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Fact-Checkers Of Trump’s Orlando Speech Show AOC-Level Ineptitude

A PolitiFact fact-check of President Trump’s campaign launch last week in Orlando that was run in newspapers nationwide went horribly, embarrassingly, laughably wrong on the one count in which they ruled Trump was “wrong.”

PolitiFact did their usual number after Trump’s speech, supposedly fact-checking the President. In it, there are assumptions made that highlight the normal bias.

But the only fact-checked statement these intrepid journalists ruled as “wrong” — they got totally wrong.

Here’s what PolitiFact wrote that Trump got wrong:

(We passed) “the biggest tax cut in history.”
Wrong.
Trump often repeats this point, but three tax cuts were larger. In inflation-corrected dollars, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 cut $321 billion per year. The Tax Relief Act of 2010 cut them by $210 billion per year. And the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 reduced taxes by $208 billion a year.

The 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act cut taxes by $150 billion a year.

You, like me, might be shocked to find out that Obama signed much larger tax cuts during his administration. Twice! Seems like that would have been pretty big news — and pretty out of character. But a quick google of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 finds the details at Investopedia.

The truth? Neither was a tax cut.

They were both a continuation of the Bush tax cuts that were set to expire. So if they had expired and the tax rates reverted to their higher levels, it would have been a tax increase. But they did not. This supposed “tax cut” actually did nothing more than keep taxes at the exact same level as they were.

Maintaining tax rates at the same rate is definitionally not a tax cut. Unless, that is, you are simply trying to make the President look like he was wrong.

Further, this supposed “tax cut” that is the American Taxpayer Relief Act actually raised taxes.

ATRA’s passage prevented the expiration of most of the major tax cuts enacted between 2001 and 2010. It made permanent the tax savings included in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. ATRA extended through 2017 the tax cuts built into the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009. Along with these extended tax cuts, ATRA raised payroll taxes for many Americans and reversed cuts for the highest earners that had been passed with the support of the George W. Bush administration.

Well, what about The Tax Relief Act of 2010, which cut taxes by $210 billion per year as PolitiFact’s claims?

Nope. Same thing. According to Wikipedia, it extended the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 for two years.

The Act centers on a temporary, two-year reprieve from the sunset provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), together known as the “Bush tax cuts.” Income taxes would have returned to Clinton administration-era rates in 2011 had Congress not passed this law.

So this “tax cut” also merely kept the Bush tax cuts in place for two years. It did not cut taxes. In fact, this mere two-year reprieve of the taxes being increased is what led to the 2012 one above.

Both of them kept rates the same. They did not cut taxes.

The Reagan tax cuts might have been higher, it’s hard to find firm, inflation-adjusted numbers there. But the last line in PolitiFact has the most interesting twist.

Did the Trump tax cuts actually only cut $150 billion? I could not find that number and PolitiFact did not cite it or provide a link — which is pretty sloppy for a fact-checking outfit. I did, however, find plenty of much higher numbers by liberal outfits painting the picture of how irresponsible the tax cuts were.

One of those, the Tax Policy Center, said the tax cuts amounted to $275 billion — much more than expected. Of course, they were making the case then that the tax cuts were not paying for themselves as the GOP had promised, so the much higher number was convenient for that.

So it looks like on every, single element of their conclusion that Trump was wrong on the tax cuts, they were wrong.

But we should totally trust PolitiFact.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Hawaii: It’s the Economy, Stupid

by Tom Yamachika, President, Tax Foundation Hawaii

“It’s the Economy, Stupid” is a catchphrase made famous by Bill Clinton when he ran for president in 1992 and won.

Recently, we have been getting lots of news about our economy here in the islands, and none of it has been good.

The national site WalletHub has pegged our economy 48th out of 51 (including DC). We eked out a victory over only Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alaska.

The University of Hawaii’s economics organization,  UHERO, also came out with a somber assessment. “Over the past year,” it said, “there has been a broad slowing of growth across the four counties. To varying degrees, each has seen a falloff in tourism activity and a slowing of employment growth in a number of sectors.”

The Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism publishes a quarterly forecast. The  most recent one for Q2 2019 predicts modest growth in the gross domestic product for the state, with annual increases a little less than 4%.

In the meantime, our county governments are passing record-busting budgets.

The City and County of Honolulu recently passed a budget 8.8% higher than last year, which included tax hikes on hotel and resort properties and in non-owner occupied “Residential A.” The Mayor’s chief of staff was quoted as saying, “The additional revenue will be used to remedy Honolulu’s unfunded healthcare and retirement liabilities, and to prepare us for future rail operations and maintenance.” Prepare us? Uh-oh, it looks like we have more revenue woes to come.

Maui County passed the largest budget in county history, including tax increases in almost all property classifications including residential. The budget proposes to spend $823.5 million, 8.6% more than fiscal 2019.  “The council opted for economic investment in Maui County, rather than austerity,” the council chair stated in a news release. That’s easy to say when the money being invested isn’t theirs.

Kauai  adopted a $278 million budget, a 7.75% increase over the prior year. “With a new Mayor and Administration onboard, the Council carefully set out to provide the Administration with the tools needed to innovatively improve systems, services, and functions Countywide,” the County Council said. Now someone needs to use the tools.

And the Hawaii County Council passed a $585 million budget, which is more than 13% over last year, adding 95 positions. “We’re demonstrating to our constituency and taxpayers that we’re watching the bottom line,” one council member is quoted as saying. Maybe someone needs new glasses.

So, let’s now ask the question. If the economy isn’t growing as much as the rate government is spending, what’s going to happen?

There is an engine in our society which we call the economy. Businesses provide goods and services to people and other businesses. Those businesses can’t do it alone, so they employ people. The businesses themselves need goods and services to perform, and their employees need meals, shelter, and other goods and services. Our tax system takes a piece of each of almost all these financial transactions. So, if our economic engine is running and spinning, our government is taking in money. That taking acts as a brake on the engine, but if the engine is running fast enough it won’t slow down so much. But what happens if the engine is just sputtering along and government demands more anyway through tax rate hikes?

Lawmakers, if you don’t know the answer to that question, just listen to a few of your constituents who were forced to dip into savings, sell household goods or the family home, or even leave our sunny shores for greener pastures—or at least pastures where the taxes are lower. If it gets bad enough for them, they might exact retribution at the ballot box. Like how George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton because of “the economy, stupid.”

Money Can’t Buy You Health

Preview:  So how would government-funded primary care have prevented the diseases my patients have had? Heart failure? (Statin drugs probably make it worse.) Heart attacks? (When the patient has one, it is too late to prevent it.) Stroke? (Preventive aspirin is now criticized because of the bleeding it may cause.) Osteoarthritis? (We have great joint replacements but are much better at blocking access to surgery than at curing the arthritis.) Gall bladder disease, cancer, pneumonia, blood clots, thyroid disease, cataracts, arrhythmias such as atrial fibrillation, herniated disks, asthma, endocarditis from drug abuse, on and on. If we put all the doctors to work pretending to keep people healthy, who would treat disease and injury?

Healing the sick is what medicine is about. The politicians who promise to “fix healthcare” can only destroy medicine—while bankrupting the country.


“Healthcare” is supposed to be the big election issue, and politicians promise to give people universal and equal “healthcare,” or prevent the bad guys from taking it away.

Everyone of course wants to be healthy, and a $3 trillion industry wants to keep the money flowing.

So, I have a confession to make as a doctor: I don’t think I have ever kept anybody healthy. If someone comes to me asking for “health maintenance,” I don’t have a shot of “health” to give, or a prescription for “health” to be filled at your neighborhood Walgreens, CVS, or Rite-Aid.

And as a patient, I can’t recall any ways in which doctors kept me healthy, although they did save my life by taking out my appendix, and they treated some illnesses and injuries. I am very grateful to them, and whatever I paid them seemed reasonable and well worth it.

To my mind, a healthy person is one who does not have to see a “healthcare provider” regularly or take medicine every day, and who can go to work, take care of family, and generally lead an active life.

We hear endless complaints about how we spend too much money treating sickness instead of preventing it. If only we had the government take all the money, plus trillions more, and “invest” it in health, we wouldn’t have to spend so much, and everyone would be healthier—so they say.

This was the rationale for the National Health Service in Britain. Once the NHS took care of the backlog of untreated illnesses, much of the need for it would melt away. This did not happen. Expenditures kept rising and were never enough. The backlogs and waiting lists grew. Ambulances circle emergency departments, and patients are crammed into hallways and storage rooms.

Suppose you go for your government-funded, “value-based” health maintenance visit. Details of your once-private life will be entered into a very expensive electronic health record. (For most people, it will be their own data, but occasionally someone else’s will be cut-and-pasted in, causing endless trouble.) You will be checked for diabetes or pre-diabetes, hypertension or pre-hypertension, tobacco use, cholesterol, in many cases gun ownership, body mass index, and other government-mandated items. You will get educated about the evils of tobacco (in case you have been on Mars and hadn’t heard). You’ll be lectured about obesity if your BMI is too high. You’ll very likely get a prescription to lower your blood pressure or cholesterol, and you may get vaccinated for something.

Your provider will likely get a bonus for checking all the right boxes and for “keeping you healthy,” and will get penalized if your “numbers” don’t improve or you get sick. Since I don’t think others are any better than I am at creating health, there is a huge incentive to “manage the case mix” to discourage unhealthy or noncompliant patients from joining the practice.

People on drugs for blood pressure or cholesterol may feel worse rather than better, but are supposed to be less likely to have a heart attack or stroke decades later. Studies with huge numbers of patients, who may be very different from you, have shown a decrease in such events with treatment. So far, a decrease in expenditures has not been shown, in view of the cost of all the drugs and side effects.

Of course, as an internist I treat high blood pressure and diabetes, but I consider this to be disease management. Would better diet prevent these things? Possibly, but what diet? I recommended low-fat diets for years. This government-approved advice is now questioned.

So how would government-funded primary care have prevented the diseases my patients have had? Heart failure? (Statin drugs probably make it worse.) Heart attacks? (When the patient has one, it is too late to prevent it.) Stroke? (Preventive aspirin is now criticized because of the bleeding it may cause.) Osteoarthritis? (We have great joint replacements but are much better at blocking access to surgery than at curing the arthritis.) Gall bladder disease, cancer, pneumonia, blood clots, thyroid disease, cataracts, arrhythmias such as atrial fibrillation, herniated disks, asthma, endocarditis from drug abuse, on and on. If we put all the doctors to work pretending to keep people healthy, who would treat disease and injury?

Healing the sick is what medicine is about. The politicians who promise to “fix healthcare” can only destroy medicine—while bankrupting the country.

Before the Income Tax, our Nation was Supported by Tariffs

The prohibiting duties we lay on all articles of foreign manufacture which prudence indeed requires us to establish at home, with the patriotic determination of every good citizen to use no foreign article which can be made within ourselves, without regard to difference of price, secures us against a relapse into foreign dependency. Thomas Jefferson, in an 1815 letter to John-Baptiste Say, a French economist

A free people … should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essentials, particularly military supplies.  President George Washington

Under free trade, the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man. Free trade destroys the dignity and independence of American labor… It will take away from the people of this country who work for a living— and the majority of them live by the sweat of their faces— it will take from them heart and home and hope. It will be self-destruction. President William McKinley


I wish we still had tariffs on all imports.  Why?  Because tariffs are what kept America’s manufacturing alive, our people with decent jobs, our ability to purchase quality goods produced by American owned companies, and because those tariffs once supported the entire cost of running our country. For 126 years, until 1913, there was no federal income tax and we kept all of the monies we earned.  Today’s communist progressive taxation is a far cry from what our founders envisioned for America’s citizens.

Following World War II, America began switching from a policy of protection, to a policy of “free trade,” which used international trade deals as a means of diplomacy and alliance-building, slowly eroding and ultimately destroying America’s status as the world’s dominant manufacturing power.

The idea that America’s economic tradition has been economic liberty, laissez faire, and wide-open cowboy capitalism, which would naturally include free trade… is simply not real history. The reality is that all four presidents on Mount Rushmore were protectionists. Protectionism was, in fact, the real American way.

Trump’s populist pro-tariff advisors Bannon and Navarro opposed the globalists in Trump’s administration, including economic adviser Gary Cohn, and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member, Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, then Trump’s national security adviser.

Gary Cohn resigned when the President called for broad import tariffs on steel and aluminum, anathema to establishment free-trade Democrats and Republicans.  McMaster was fired and replaced by former UN Ambassador, John Bolton.

The 1913 Income Tax

This tax dominates the revenue scheme of the federal government today.  It is totally unconstitutional.  Prior to ratification of the 16th Amendment (income tax) in February 1913, the federal government managed its few constitutional responsibilities without an income tax, except during the Civil War period. During peacetime, it did so largely or even entirely on import taxes called “tariffs.”

Congress ran the fed government on tariffs alone because fed responsibilities did not include welfare programs, agricultural subsidies, Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid.  Before the Northern War of Aggression, the need for tariff revenue to finance the federal government generally kept the tariffs at reasonable levels. During wartime throughout early American history, the Founding Fathers were able to raise additional revenue employing a different method of direct taxation authorized by the U.S. Constitution prior to the 16th Amendment. These alternative taxing methods gave the young American nation embarrassing peacetime budget surpluses that several times came close to paying off the national debt.

President Andrew Jackson boasted in his veto of the Maysville Road Bill in 1830 that God had blessed the nation with no taxes (except tariffs on imports) and no national debt.  “Old Hickory” presided over a nation where Congress had abolished all federal internal taxes, and no citizen saw a tax collector of the United States unless that citizen was in the business of importing foreign goods.  (And now, the $20-dollar bill sporting the visage of Tennessee’s beloved President Andrew Jackson will be replaced with the picture of abolitionist, Harriet Tubman.)

While American consumers were occasionally manipulated by outrageously high protective tariffs, inside the United States a massive free market emerged over which the U.S. government had almost no influence.

By way of contrast, the advent of the income tax prompted some congressmen to note that this tax was designed not principally for revenue, the U.S. government had always had plenty of money from tariffs, but to manipulate the American people and their choices in the market.

This has been the legacy of the income tax. While the income tax has produced the type of revenue that has made a massive transfer of wealth from the productive to the unproductive, the incentives, through thousands of deductions and tax credits have manipulated the American people into choices that they wouldn’t have otherwise made in a free market. These manipulations, whether in favor of “green energy” research, “cash for clunker” automobile purchases, or tobacco crop subsidies, have been chosen according to the prevailing virtue in Washington.

Prior to 1913, Americans were responsible for themselves and independent enough to know that their future depended not on the government, but solely on themselves.

Selling Out American Manufacturing

In 1992, ads in local newspapers encouraged businesses to transfer their manufacturing to Honduras, El Salvador, the Caribbean Basin International Development Zone, of the Dominican Republic and Haiti.  These were International Free Trade Zones and Port Industrial Free Zones. This included Mexico.

Instead of paying living wages in the United States, corporations were urged to move to countries where wages were $.33 to $.56 per hour.  In 1991, a U.S. government agency actually directed apparel firms in the Southeast to be approached and sold on the idea of going offshore where the labor was cheaper.  There is a Puerto Rican and Asian connection as well.  Hundreds of companies moved their plants out of our country, and this was 27 years ago.

I remember a friend of mine who worked for Levi Strauss jeans at a terrific middle-class salary being told to train the Mexican workers how to do their jobs knowing the company was moving manufacturing to Mexico.  The Mexicans were given free living accommodations in our country, they were free from our income taxes, and they took over the jobs our American citizens had for a lot less money and manufacturing was ultimately moved to Mexico.

Check out the 1992 article from the Pennsylvania Crier.  It will shock you.  Then go to the original Pennsylvania Crier home page and click on “Downloads.”  The information in this website documents history with far more than anything you’ll find in today’s school books.  It is invaluable!

Our country’s manufacturing was purposely sold to third world countries to the detriment of our own people.  When NAFTA was first promoted, the calls to our Congressional reps were ten to one against it, but our globalist enemies sold us out and voted for it.

Unfortunately, Trump’s Trade Representative, CFR member Robert Lighthizer has sold us out and fooled our President into thinking the USMCA is a better deal than NAFTA.  It is not! And Trump does not have conservative advisers who will read Lighthizer’s USMCA and tell him the truth.  Numerous articles have been written regarding the contents and the loss of our sovereignty.  Publius Huldah wrote that it not only violates our U.S. Constitution, but it also sets up global government.  And my friend, J.W. Bryan, has written numerous articles exposing the dangers within the USMCA.

Trump’s Tariffs on Chinese Imports

Last September 2018, President Trump announced tariffs on “roughly $200 billion of imports from China.” These tariffs are on top of the ones imposed during the summer on $50 billion of products from that country.

Mr. Trump has consistently believed that Beijing needed America far more than America needed China, largely because China is the country running large trade surpluses. In 2017, China’s merchandise trade surplus against the United States hit a record $375.6 billion. As Trump knows, trade-surplus countries get mauled in “trade wars.” Therefore, Beijing, not Washington, is the party that needs to talk to reduce tension.

After extensive trade talks with China ended without an agreement on May 10, 2019, President Trump raised the tariffs on another $200 billion in Chinese imports from 10% to 25%. China retaliated three days later, announcing new tariffs on $60 billion of American exports.

Asia expert, Gordon Chang is urging the president to remain strong on tariffs, telling Fox Business’ Lou Dobbs Opens a New Window. the only way to prevent Chinese theft and trade imbalance is for the U.S. to raise tariffs Opens a New Window. and implement continued pressure on the Chinese.  Chang told Dobbs, “We have seen so many trade negotiations between previous presidents and the Chinese. They have all failed. The Chinese have violated every single agreement. This is really important for us. This is where we either stand or we fail, and the only thing that’s going to get us there is President Trump.”

Of course, there are free-trade Republicans like Senator Ted Cruz who claim these actions will hurt the farmers and people of Texas.  Cruz previously supported giving fast track authority on trade to President Obama.  But our President already said the government would be subsidizing the farmers’ losses during this “fair” trade battle with China.

The Mexican Border and Trade

Personally, I’d like to see the border closed completely.  The trade trucks can stand in line at the border and be thoroughly inspected to allow them into the states.  But the border should be closed.  All border ports of entry should also be closed.  We are being flooded with illegal immigrants pleading asylum, being loosed in America and never showing up for their court appearances.  If anyone believes there are only 12 to 30 million illegals in this country, they are not paying attention.  The count is over 60 million or more and growing daily.

We do not have enough border patrol agents, ICE agents, fences or walls built as high as the Vatican, or congressional laws to protect American citizens from the influx and costs of these lawbreakers.  There are many Islamist terrorists amongst them who daily illegally cross into America.

President Trump threatened tariffs on Mexico being raised every single month until something was done by Mexico to stop them.  According to the State Department, Mexico agreed to dispatch 6,000 national guardsmen at the border with Guatemala to block migrants from reaching the United States and expand a Trump administration program that holds thousands of asylum-seekers in Mexico during U.S. immigration processing.  Over 90 percent of those released into America never appear in court and are free to remain in America.

If Mexico’s actions “do not have the expected results,” additional measures could be taken within 90 days, and the two countries will continue to discuss add-on steps during that period.  This includes tariffs on Mexican goods coming into our country increasing every month until this influx of illegal aliens is quelled.  Link  Without our President and without these tariff threats, there would have been no deal.

In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson put more than 100,000 National Guard troops on the Mexican border.  The military buildup followed an early-morning raid at the garrison town of Columbus, New Mexico. Ten soldiers and eight civilians were killed when the Mexican revolutionary leader General Francisco “Pancho” Villa attacked with almost 500 men.

It’s time for America to put thousands upon thousands of National Guard troops on our border again, and armed with equipment to prevent the surge of illegals from entering our country.  And yes, there is new military equipment that repels invaders called the Active Denial Systems Non-Lethal Weapon and turns them back without hurting them.  This needs to be manned and used on the entire southern border.

Conclusion

Pat Buchanan was absolutely on target when he stated, “Once a nation has put its foot onto the slippery slope of global free trade, the process is inexorable, the end inevitable: death of the nation-state.”

Tariffs are the answer.  The only way our nation can regain control of trade that benefits American citizens is through tariffs.  Neither China nor Mexico will cave to our demands unless they suffer the consequences of American tariffs.

If we subsidize our farmers and those who lose during this battle, a battle that we continue to fight over a period of five years or more, manufacturing would again start up in America, first with small businesses, and then it would spread.  Our nation would again be one of productivity, surplus, and financial growth for her citizens.

To right the wrongs can be painful for a short time, but in the long run will revive and restore our country.

PODCAST: Carbon Tax Scam, Politics of Virginia Beach Shooting and Benghazi Stand Down Exposed!

GUESTS

Jordan McGillis is a Policy Analyst at the Institute for Energy Research. In his role, McGillis writes on energy policy and contributes to IER’s communications initiatives.
McGillis graduated with a B.A. from the University of South Florida and an M.A. from Seton Hall University, both in International Affairs. Areas of focus: Federal Lands (permitting, drilling rights,ect.), Carbon Tax & Climate Change, Free Market Theory.

TOPIC..Carbon Tax Scam!

Alan Gottlieb is a strong advocate of defense. A nuclear engineering graduate of the University of Tennessee, publisher of Gun Week, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, and serves on the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union.

TOPIC…Virginia Governor Pushes Gun Control After Virginia Beach Shooting!

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, West Point Graduate, Founder of “Stand up America” and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations under President Reagan and retired as Deputy Commanding General for the US Army Pacific. Now a guest military analyst for TV and radio and co-author of the book “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror”.

TOPIC…Exposed!! Benghazi Stand Down!

Here Are The Republicans In Congress Standing With Trump Over Mexico Tariff Threat

A number of Republicans in the Senate are standing with President Donald Trump over his threat to apply tariffs to Mexico on Tuesday after several party members spoke out against it.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that “there is not much support in my conference for tariffs” and he is hoping that the tariffs are not implemented. Other Senators also decided to speak out against Trump’s threat.

Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney said he will not support applying a tariff to Mexico, saying he “would not be inclined to vote [for] a tariff against a friend,” Politico reported Tuesday.

Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford reportedly also criticized Trump’s threat, saying the White House “is trying to use tariffs to solve every problem but HIV and climate change.”

However, a number of Republicans are in favor of applying tariffs to Mexico, such as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who said in a tweet Wednesday:

I don’t generally like tariffs either. But what alternative do my GOP colleagues have to get #Mexico to secure its southern border, use the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to screen northbound rail cars & vehicles & act on intel we proved on human traffickers?

Republican North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis also defended Trump’s move, saying “I think it’s more likely the tariffs go on,” and that it would be “foolish” for Republicans to try to block the presidents move, in an appearance Tuesday on Fox News.

“I don’t think they’ll do that. If they do, it’s foolish. There is nothing more important than borders,” he continued.

Another senator who has supported Trump’s proposal to apply tariffs to Mexico, is Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby. He told reporters on Capitol Hill Monday he is “not a tariff man,” but that he thinks “if it leads to a better trade agreement, I can understand his strategy.” Shelby also said, “well, if it doesn’t work you are right where you are. Probably have nothing to lose.”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy defended Trump, according to the president, who tweeted a quote attributed to McCarthy.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Full-Blown Emergency’: Southern Border Arrests Surge

Democrats (Again) Side With Criminal Illegal Aliens in Amnesty Bill

Another Obama-Era Official: Yes, There’s a Serious Crisis at the Southern Border

GOP Divided On Trump’s Mexico Tariff Threat

Here Are The Seven House Republicans Who Voted For Amnesty Bill

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.