Is “economic patriotism” economically wise or patriotic?

Sen. Elizabeth Warren D-Mass., just conducted a town hall to promote her plan for America entitled “economic patriotism”. There wasn’t anything new, just a rehash of ideas she has promoted for years. The left has latched onto it in particular because Tucker Carlson of FOX News has embraced her principles. This is seen as somewhat of a coup when an ideological opponent praises even any part of one’s platform. Who knows what Carlson’s political ideology is. He has a track record of not supporting libertarian principles. Carlson, like so many people, probably doesn’t fit into a tidy description of being conservative or libertarian or just plain old republican. Most people on the ‘right’ likely are a mash-up of particular aspects of each. Regardless, Carlson was just making a point and clearly not endorsing Warren.

What’s interesting is what isn’t clearly acknowledged. There are precious few ‘American’ companies. Meaning companies located on American soil, employed with American citizens, consumers of only American made materials and financed purely by Americans. Companies are global, multi-national conglomerates. The headquarters may be located in America but their supply chain, manufacturing chain, distribution chain, sales arm and investor base is almost guaranteed to be spread around the world. Even a small business, a mom and pop shop, is a consumer of some form of the global supply chain. So what does it mean to be ‘economically patriotic’?

Warren says companies have no “loyalty or allegiance to America”. Correct. She says their only loyalty is to “short-term interests of their stockholders”. Correct again although one could dispute the short-term claim. Fact is the vast, vast majority of so-called ‘American’ companies are indeed globally oriented and publicly financed meaning that yest they are beholden to those stockholders and their interests regardless of their nationality or country of origin. You may not like that but it is reality.

The Warren solution is for politicians to intercede on behalf of American workers. There is a word for that. Socialism. Whenever government controls the means of production, regardless if it’s for a really good cause like the benefit of Americans, it’s socialism. Carlson clearly supports this. Protectionist policies inherently must be socialist. You simply can’t get around it. Therein lies the problem for so many. They don’t outwardly support socialism or protectionist policies but see things like tariffs, buy American mandates, or other measures designed to help the American worker as an acceptable exclusion. The principle is acceptable however the reality of the slippery slope of government intervention is unavoidable. One only need to look at our economy for verification. It has been precisely the role of government that has led companies to their current makeup. Outsourcing labor and materials globally is a natural reflection of the global marketplace. Should a company pay more for parts and labor to prioritize America? If they wish to compete globally costs must be in line with the competition. If you don’t, you eliminate a large portion of the potential global market. Foreigners won’t buy American at higher prices than they can source elsewhere. The solution from the left would be to control corporate profits to stay competitive globally even with countries with access to cheaper labor and materials. Once again, we’ve crossed over into socialism.

Boy, wouldn’t it be great if socialism just worked at face value? If government didn’t quench its unquenchable thirst for power? If companies were ok with a set profit margin and always passed on excess profits to employees, stockholders and customers? So far, no one has ever even proposed a working solution to balance the scale of government power with the profit motive. You can’t get to “economic patriotism” without forced adherence and tipping that scale. Tucker Carlson may wish that republicans would make a promise to ‘protect’ American industries but it’s an untenable position. Companies would have to willingly violate their oath to the stockholders and prioritize America first over a return on investment. Hey, if a company is upfront about their culture and makes it 100% clear in their prospectus that America trumps all, then if investors still wish to invest more power to them. But it has to be a voluntary transaction on both sides. In fact if more investors, employees and customers saw the benefit of keeping the middleman, the Federal Government, out of the picture, we as a country would greatly profit.

The motto ‘Buy American’ needs to be updated. Buying from an American company in an effort to be a patriot may not be as it seems. To be 100% American is likely a bar too high for most. Every facility located in America. Every employee an American citizen. Every part made in America. Every investor an America. All R&D conducted in America. How about Pure American? It’s a moniker that you would certainly pay a premium for. However, that cost would be far, far cheaper than the road to serfdom paved by socialist dreams. Warren and Carlson may believe but America can only lose by joining in.


Draft of Mueller statement should he decide to man up

Hey ABC News, you forgot one number. Zero/0/nada/zip as in none or not any – indictments for collusion. You know, the one job you had Mueller. Over 2 years and tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money and you forgot to mention this little tidbit at your mic drop moment yesterday.

Say it with me Robert. I, Robert Mueller, was hired specifically to find evidence of Trump-Russia collusion and I failed. I knew this at the very beginning of my tenure but continued to waste millions of taxpayer dollars for over 2 years to help advance my partisan ideology. I don’t ask for forgiveness as I achieved what I set out to do.

There, feel better now Bob getting that off your chest?

Mueller makes final statement on Trump probe and illustrates he is just a partisan hack

Special Counsel Robert Mueller closes Russia probe, says charging Trump with a crime was ‘not an option’

Now it’s time for the word games and the left will run wild with this one. Mueller said this.

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller said.”

Oh boy, talk about fresh meat for the left. They will use this statement for a long time to justify the never ending Trump-Russia collusion hoax. However it seems a bit disingenuous for Mueller to say that when he follows up with this.

“Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider,” Mueller explained, adding that “it would be unfair to accuse someone of a crime when there could be no court resolution of the charge.”

Unfair to accuse someone? Right after you clearly insinuated that very thing? Mueller knows full well he has just given the Trump haters the opportunity they sought for endless speculation about what he found in his investigation. His sour grapes are that he simply didn’t have a court option to resolve it or he would have. That’s the impression he wishes to leave as he retires from the office.

What an ass. Mueller knows he could have merely outlined his mandate to investigate and leave any decisions about indictment up to the Justice Department as was clearly the case. Yet he had to show his bias and insure the anti-Trumpers can live on. Only a very small man without integrity would do so. Mueller is clearly that man.

Pelosi claims cover-up and Spellchek completely agrees

Horrors! Nancy Pelosi claims that President Trump is engaged in a cover-up. Is she right? Why yes, she is.

Until all information possible is released which will clearly implicate Obama and Clinton orchestrating the fake Russian collusion narrative, then yes you can say he is covering up. Many on the right aren’t happy with Trump for continuing to keep this information under wraps. The implications with foreign governments as well as our own intelligence agencies are going to be very unpleasant if Trump does release the info. Trump claims to waiting until the time is right. Some say the time has already passed.

The bottom line is that until all information legally possible to release is released, a cover-up is an appropriate statement. Not because Trump is guilty and covering up but the vast extent of the collusion amongst our allies and various agencies withing our government that has yet to be fully exposed. Once that happens and the appropriate legal actions are enforced on the guilty, and then when the appropriate political fallout occurs, we will finally be able to say there is no longer a cover-up. This will include damage to our allies, but it’s a necessary evil. So I say stay strong Nancy. Keep beating those cover-up drums. It will be your party that suffers the most once you get your wish, but that karma is a bitch.

Illegal alien immigration crisis may be killing our planet even faster than 12 years

Unintended consequences. My, my, my, how inconvenient they are. For example, we are now seeing in excess of 100,000 illegal aliens cross into America each month. The left will tell you it isn’t of any concern, we have no crisis. However, they will also tell you we only have until 2030 to save the planet due to climate change. A strange thing happens when someone crosses our border. Their carbon footprint increases. Dramatically. An MIT study confirmed this. So much so that the average American generates more than double the global average.

The somewhat disquieting bottom line is that in the United States, even people with the lowest energy usage account for, on average, more than double the global per-capita carbon emission. And those emissions rise steeply from that minimum as people’s income increases.

You may say, wait, these are just poor migrants who have nothing. How can they possibly produce such a large carbon footprint? According to the study, it doesn’t matter.

“Regardless of income, there is a certain floor below which the individual carbon footprint of a person in the U.S. will not drop,” says Timothy Gutowski, professor of mechanical engineering, who taught the class that calculated the rates of carbon emissions.

This is most unfortunate. The democrat policy is to import as many future democrat voters into the country as possible at the expense of taxpaying Americans. Yet they are robbing Peter to pay Paul. They are securing their future political stranglehold on the country but in the process destroying the country. Not my opinion, the study says so.

The average annual carbon dioxide emissions per person, they found, was 20 metric tons, compared to a world average of four tons.

But the “floor” below which nobody in the U.S. can reach, no matter a person’s energy choices, turned out to be 8.5 tons, the class found. That was the emissions calculated for a homeless person who ate in soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters.

Yes, even a poor fuzzy lovable bunny rabbit of a migrant escaping untold inhumanity elsewhere somehow becomes a planet killing machine once they hit our shores. Even one who contributes nothing to our society but is here merely to survive on our welfare system and pull the democrat only vote arm at the ballot box contributes more than twice the average of our global human companions. Even using the minimum calculation shows that 100,000 illegal alien felons are pumping out 850,000 tons of CO2 each year into our atmosphere that is already overflowing with man made carbon emissions. Each and every month now America is adding another 850,000 tons of CO2 on top of our already planet killing amount.

Just think. According to the study, if those illegal alien felons simply stayed on the Mexican side of the border their carbon footprint would be cut in half. Something to remember when you vote in 2020. Vote democrat and you are guaranteeing our existence on the planet will be shortened. Hey, I didn’t do the study. I’m merely reporting the results of a public institution of higher learning filled with indoctrinated students. There certainly is no bias toward climate change fraud. Voting left is a vote for death! I kinda like that. Maybe I’ll pass it on for Teflon Don to use in 2020.

p.s. Never fear. Apocalyptic planet ending climate change is a fraud. No matter how many new democrat voters cross into our country they will still be very much alive in 2030 surviving on American welfare. Just don’t tell the left. Let them explain how they can ethically promote speeding up the demise of the planet just to guarantee they will have ‘elected official’ engraved on their headstone.

Buttigieg is a libertarian?

Of all the discussion about Buttigieg’s appearance on Fox last night, one revealing point isn’t being talked about. His stance on abortion. No, not the pro-abortion stance. The government shouldn’t be involved stance.

Asked about third-trimester abortions, Buttigieg asserted that such cases were rare and typically involved an unforeseen circumstance, before refusing to endorse any restrictions whatsoever on late-term abortions. Government statistics indicate that in 2015, approximately 1.3 percent of abortions were performed after 20 weeks.

“I trust women to draw the line,” Buttigieg said. “That decision [to have an abortion] is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made.”

Because the government is “dictating” decisions? If you are against government involvement in creating law where none existed as is the case of abortion in the Constitution, then you must support overturning Roe vs. Wade. By the way, I agree. Just as government shouldn’t be involved in so many things such as marriage. They shouldn’t create law to approve or disapprove. A very Libertarian approach, wouldn’t you say? Because you can’t have it both ways. If you believe government shouldn’t legislate a woman’s body this also means they shouldn’t legislate an aspect of it you do agree with. Therefore, Roe vs. Wade has to go.

Not that any of this wouldn’t create huge practical issues. If government is completely out of the picture concerning a woman and her body, then if that woman decides to murder her unborn baby she will have to face the legal consequences just as anyone would who murders another human being. As would the doctor performing the procedure. As it should be when you commit murder. This isn’t a gray area. We aren’t talking about a woman making a decision to remove a body part, we’re talking about a separate entity, another living human being.

Certainly this isn’t what the pro-abortion crowd is after when they demand government stay out of their vaginas. They simply want it their way. Unfortunately, with life altering decisions come consequences. That is the slippery slope that comes with demanding society acquiesce to your beliefs. Progressives would have you believe they can use the power of government and law to enforce their particular agenda, yet expect it to step aside when inconvenient. Mayor Buttigieg is one of them. He wants a proactive government on his core issues including gay marriage. He stated in the Fox town hall that abortion is a woman’s right. Sorry, that’s not how rights work. For it to truly be a viable right, when one exercises it, it cannot infringe upon another’s. Snuffing out a baby’s life qualifies here as the right of the mother does not trump the right of the baby.

Hopefully some reporter with a passing interest will ask Mayor Pete about his ala carte approach to government involvement in our right’s and our lives. He simply can’t pick and choose ‘only when it fits my narrative’ involvement. Do what your promoting mayor Pete. Call for the repeal of Roe vs. Wade.

AOC blatantly lied about Alabama anti-abortion law

Yes AOC, you lied and it’s indisputable.

The key word is “victimized”.

No Twitter limitation. No context error. No missed clues. Physicians, who happen to be a woman, are not victims when they perform an abortion. No one misinterpreted what you said or what you meant. Just own it and move on. You simply look ridiculous trying to twist your own words.

Biden: ‘Not a Single Bit of Evidence’ Son Asked Me to Help Him in Ukraine

Really Joe? Are you going to make it this easy? Wordsmithing used to be a crafty endeavor but Bill Clinton permanently tarnished it with his ridiculous defense of the word ‘is’. I guess Sleepy Joe figures it’s tried and true so he’s going with it here.

Here is his statement.

“We never once discussed it when he was there,” Biden told the Associated Press. “There’s not a single bit of evidence that’s been shown in any reporting that’s been done that he ever talked about it with me or asked any government official for a favor.”

So silly. We never once discussed it? How about multiple times? When he was there? But you could have when he was elsewhere. No evidence shown in any reporting? Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, only that it hasn’t come out in a news report. Asked for a favor? No Joe, he didn’t ask, you made the demand remember?

It’s easy to see how greasy politicians like Biden put out carefully lawyer vetted statements like this one to deflect interest from the public. Nothing to see here. Yet just a cursory interest in reading between the lines yields a wealth of opportunities to deceive.

Let me see if I can help Joe. How about you release this statement instead.

I, Joe Biden, nor anyone acting on my behalf, have ever taking any action which has had any effect, either real or perceived, to impact my son’s business dealings in Ukraine.

How’s that? Simple and straightforward yet extremely broad in covering any aspect of how Biden could have influenced his son’s career. Now we know Sleepy Joe can’t make that statement because he would be lying instead of wordsmithing his way around the truth. His statement may very well be 100% correct in the technical sense of exactly when or where something occurred. But not in the spirit of it and that isn’t a legal threshold.

In the end a completely useless exercise. Those who support Biden continue to do so and vice-versa. And I have just wasted my time and yours by pointing out that politicians lie as if that’s new.