When Biden took office, one of his first acts was the elimination of our border security. Like a power-hungry dictator, Biden simply decided to ignore our immigration laws. His catastrophic border policy resulted in untold millions of unidentified foreign citizens from around the world pouring into our country. Its impact is now being felt in cities across the country. The worst is yet to come. PETER LEMISKA - AND WE'RE ALREADY THERE!!!
Sunday, October 13, 2019
THE GLOBALIST DEMOCRAT PARTY FOR BOTTOMLESS BANKSTER BAILOUTS, BILLIONAIRES AND WIDER OPEN BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED
In their own words, leftist Democrats confirm that
they are counting on a misinformed public in
order to gain power. RICK HAYES
That phase of the takeover was started in 2008 by President Barack Obama. Throughout his eight years in office, Obama practiced divisiveness and hammered away at the Second Amendment while pouring gallons of fuel on the fire of the "Black Lives Matter" lie. His administration was rampant with corruption, pushing the envelope with every new scandal. RICK HAYES
For the past half century, America's political history has been driven by the Democrats' effort to fire up these constituencies by denigrating the rest of America. PETER SKURKISS
The political establishment encourages massive Illegal immigration. PETER SKURKISS
Free Trader Paul Krugman Admits Failure of Globalization for American Workers: ‘Major Mistake’
Jae C. Hong/Associated Press
3:21
Economist Paul Krugman, the longtime defender of global free trade and a member of the failed “Never Trump” movement, now admits that globalization has failed American workers.
In a column for Bloomberg titled “What Economists (Including Me) Got Wrong About Globalization,” Krugman admits that the economic consensus for free trade that has prevailed for decades has failed to recognize how globalization has skyrocketed inequality for America’s working and middle class workers.
Krugman writes:
In the past few years, however, worries about globalization have shot back to the top of the agenda, partly due to new research and partly due to the political shocks of Brexit and U.S. President Donald Trump. And as one of the people who helped shape the 1990s consensus — that the contribution of rising trade to rising inequality was real but modest — it seems appropriate for me to ask now what we missed. [Emphasis added]
…
The pro-globalization consensus of the 1990s, which concluded that trade contributed little to rising inequality, relied on models that asked how the growth of trade had affected the incomes of broad classes of workers, such as those who didn’t go to college. It’s possible, and probably even correct, to think of these models as accurate in the long run. Consensus economists didn’t turn much to analytic methods that focus on workers in particular industries and communities, which would have given a better picture of short-run trends. This was, I now believe, a major mistake — one in which I shared a hand. [Emphasis added]
Krugman, though, writes that he and his fellow free trade economists “had no way to know” that globalization of the American economy or a surge in trade deficits “were going to happen,” though the anti-globalization movement had warned for years of the harmful impact free trade would have on U.S. workers — including Donald Trump.
In an interview with SiriusXM Patriot’s Breitbart News Tonight, economist Alan Tonelson said that Krugman’s acknowledging that he and the free trade economic consensus has been wrong is “better later than never,” but “the damage has already been done.”
LISTEN:
“There’s been an even more startling, in fact jaw-dropping, development on that front. Paul Krugman, the famous Never Trumper, the famous pro-free trade economist, the Nobel Prize winner just published an article … saying that for the past 20 years, he and his other globalist, free trade economist friends have been substantially wrong about the effect of globalization, particularly more trade with low income, low wage countries like China,” Tonelson said.
“They’ve been substantially wrong about its effects on the American economy and American workers in particular,” Tonelson said.
Meanwhile, decades of free trade have spurred mass layoffs, unemployment, and offshoring of high-paying American jobs while surging trade deficits. Since China entered the World Trade Organization (WTO), the U.S. trade deficit with China has eliminated at least 3.5 million American jobs from the American economy. Millions of American workers in all 50 states have been displaced from their jobs, which have been lost due to U.S.-China trade relations.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
Today's liberals are not Progressives, but Regressives
The time between 1890 and 1920 was known as the Progressive Era. It was a time when Americans demanded responses to a number of economic and social problems. These problems were brought about by the transformative Industrial Revolution (I.R.).
The I.R. propelled the U.S. to have the world's largest and most prosperous economy. It was remarkable, since the U.S. went from the birth of the nation to the most prosperous in less than 150 years. Other countries were hundreds or even thousands of years older.
But with the prosperity and a much higher quality standard of living came some economic and social problems.
Prior to the I.R., there were no factory jobs. As a result, the labor force was generally employed in agriculture, ranching, or a skilled trade. Many families simply produced enough to sustain the family, usually with a minimum of tools. This resulted in a lifestyle where there was little extra income earned.
The I.R. changed that.
Machines were built in factories that could efficiently produce many goods. Factory jobs began to appear. Because of these factories, workers became very productive. As such, they could earn much higher wages. But every time a new factory opened, thousands of workers applied for just hundreds of jobs. That resulted in low wages.
Still, the workers reasoned, the wages were higher than they could earn elsewhere. In some instances, labor market conditions were such that the wage was extremely low — so low that only children would work those jobs. In addition, working conditions were poor, and children were mistreated.
Americans reacted to this by demanding that the country progress forward to cure these social injustices. According to the History Department at The George Washington University, these progressives "were people who believed that the problems society faced (poverty, violence, greed, racism, class warfare) could best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace."
Essentially, this was when decisions had to be made about the role of government in regulating big business. Also, since the country was so prosperous, what public goods should the government offer?
By the time the Progressive Era ended around 1920, the Progressives' goals were on their way to being met. Workers were gaining protections in the workplace, and the role of government was being expanded.
There was, however, some resistance to expanding the role of government. Some argued that our economy was able to prosper because Americans were free to pursue their interests without government intervention. They also feared that once the government intervened, more control and regulation would follow. That will tend to slow economic growth.
There was also some concern about the government providing more services to the public. That's because the extra services had to be paid for by income-earners. The resulting higher taxes tend to reduce economic growth. The Progressives said they did not agree with that assessment, since expenditures for public goods like education are really investments.
Over time, a balance was found where social injustices were held to a minimum and the economy prospered. That balance reflected the need for social justice and adherence to the principles that fuel economic prosperity. Those principles emphasize individual freedom, individual responsibility, low rates of taxation, and a limited role for government.
It is critical that the balance is kept. Leaning too far to either side causes significant problems. While Americans today tend to have a strong social conscience, this country was founded mainly because of our forefathers' quest for a less dominant government, lower taxes, and more individual freedom.
Today's liberals want to dramatically upset the balance. From 2008 to 2016, liberals were successful in "fundamentally transforming America." During that period, they heavily regulated health care and almost turned it into a public good. They also severely regulated both the business sector and the banking industry. That resulted in very slow economic growth and no prosperity.
Now they want to make health care a fully public good, paid for by higher taxes. They also want to make higher education a public good, paid for by higher taxes. And they want to regulate heavily, which will be paid for by higher taxes or higher prices for goods and services. Often it seems as if they want to regulate everything.
This would not move the country forward. This would result in the economy stagnating and never seeing true economic prosperity again. Why? Simply because the increase in public goods leads to increases in taxes. That results in less overall demand from consumers. That means less growth.
Since the wealthy would end up paying way more in taxes, there would be way less capital going into markets. In a capital-intensive economy, that means slow growth.
This would not be progressive; this would be regressive. We would go back to the time before our independence, when taxes were high, the government was heavy-handed, and there was less individual freedom.
Today's liberals really are Regressives.
Michael Busler, Ph.D. is a public policy analyst and a professor of finance at Stockton University, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in finance and economics.
"That
phase of the takeover was started in 2008 by President Barack
Obama. Throughout his eight years in office, Obama practiced
divisiveness and hammered away at the Second Amendment while pouring gallons of
fuel on the fire of the "Black Lives Matter" lie. His
administration was rampant with corruption, pushing the envelope with every new
scandal." RICK HAYES
The
American Political Civil War, which began in November 2016, has so far
witnessed leftist Democrats initiating a series of unsuccessful offensive
maneuvers against the president and his allies. The unrelenting
Russian collusion bombardment did not produce the shock and awe promised by
leftist operatives such as Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy
Pelosi. And so a new front was opened up against the president,
having the appearance of impeachment proceedings that dealt with a routine phone
call from President Trump to the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky.
Sometimes
aggression must be met head on, with resolve to stop it in its
tracks. History reviles Neville Chamberlain not because he was
unsuccessful in halting German expansion, but because he couldn't identify or
didn't want to acknowledge the clear evidence of imminent war.
Chamberlain's
self-deception and fear helped pave the way in allowing an aggressor to gather
strength and strike when he had amassed enough power. In the same
way, it was the self-deception and cowardice of Republican members of Congress
that allowed the Democrat impeachment machine to gain control of the House
during the midterm elections.
But
the leftist Democratic Party has taken a different approach toward total
political and social conquest. Unlike the German war machine that
promised peace but delivered war, leftist Democrats do not promise any
compromises. Instead, they are openly mobilizing for political war
and are prepared to deliver on that threat, no matter the cost to the country.
And
to be clear, it will continue to be an all-out, extremely aggressive assault on
the president and any American who wants nothing more than to live in peace and
raise a family. To pretend that what is happening today is merely
dirty politics as usual would be the equivalent of British citizens identifying
descending V-1 rockets in the battle of Britain as no more than pesky
mosquitoes.
It
is, thus far, a bloodless, political civil war to change America
forever. And it has already seen a coup attempt against the
president by the Left that desires a winner-take-all conclusion. And
because Leftist Democrats never conceived that anyone other than a person they
selected would become president, the rules, laws, and language must change and
contort to fit their agenda so they can finally seize power. Once in
power, the rules and laws dictated by the Left will become unrecognizable, and
there will be no bridge to cross to get back to the Constitution.
Politically
speaking, these leftist radicals have proven that they will attack all those
who want to remain living in a Republic. As in every past revolution
into socialism, the socialist victors demand complete obedience from the
conquered.
In
their own words, leftist Democrats confirm that
they are counting on a
misinformed public in
order to gain power. Take, as an example, the
statement made by Jonathan Gruber, the architect of Obamacare, where he brags
to a group of people how in order to pass Obamacare he relied on "the stupidity
of the American voter." Although Gruber doesn't explain how the
American voter becomes so "stupid," the evidence is clear that the
corrupt, indoctrinating media play a crucial role. They dole out
misinformation and deceit, as does the leftist education system.
There
are no more pretenses, as the corrupt major media have all but announced their
alliance with the far left's aggressive goals. An article in the
October 2018 edition of Investor's
Business Daily points out this blatant one-sided absurdity that passes for
today's media:
To say that the big networks haven't exactly had
a love affair with Donald Trump, as they did with President Obama, is an
understatement. A new survey shows that not only is coverage of Trump
overwhelmingly negative, but the President's biggest accomplishment — the
roaring economy — gets almost no attention.
The
article goes on to say Trump receives 92% negative coverage and that the Media
Research Center watched network TV for four months and found that the coverage
surrounding Trump's economic boom was only 0.7% of the entire coverage.
It
cannot be overstated that for America to "change," there had to be a
push to revoke some or all of the Bill of Rights. That phase of the
takeover was started in 2008 by President Barack Obama. Throughout
his eight years in office, Obama practiced divisiveness and hammered away at
the Second Amendment while pouring gallons of fuel on the fire of the
"Black Lives Matter" lie. His administration was rampant
with corruption, pushing the envelope with every new scandal. Only
because outsider citizen Trump became President Trump do we now know that there
was no chance that justice would have ever been served for the victims of the
scandals of Benghazi, the IRS, and Fast and Furious while Obama was in
office. Just like the leftist Democrats of today, Obama was
protected by America's version of Pravda.
The
ongoing coup attempt against President Trump and his administration will
continue. The American people will get deluged with fake news and
lies from hostile media sources. There still exists a sliver of hope
in the name of William Barr. But even Barr holding a winning hand is
not enough to turn the tide against the waves of corruption slamming into
America. It will also take the selfless efforts of the average
American who demands liberty. It will take the courage and grit of
ordinary men and women to secure a victory — not just for the president, but
for America's bright future and the joy of living in ultimate freedom.
Pollak:
Barack Obama Wrote the Playbook on Political Division
Left-wing pundits have accused President
Donald Trump of using his tweets last weekend to launch a divisive re-election
campaign.
David Axelrod, former adviser to
President Barack Obama, tweeted: “With his
deliberate, racist outburst, @realDonaldTrump wants to raise the profile of his
targets, drive Dems to defend them and make them emblematic of the entire
party. It’s a cold, hard strategy.”
That is debatable — but if so,
Axelrod should know; Obama did it first.
By 2011, Obama knew that re-election
would be difficult. The Tea Party had just led the Republicans to a historic
victory in the 2010 midterm elections, winning the House and nearly taking the
Senate. The economy was only growing sluggishly, and Obama’s stimulus had
failed to keep unemployment below eight percent, as projected. Moreover, the
passage of Obamacare had provoked a backlash against Obama’s state-centered
model of American society.
Facing a similar situation in the
mid-1990s, President Bill Clinton had “triangulated,” moving back toward the
middle, frustrating the GOP by taking up their issues, such as welfare reform.
But Obama rejected that approach.
Having watched his icon, Chicago mayor Harold Washington, settle for an
incremental approach when faced with opposition in the 1980s, only to die of a
sudden heart attack before fulfilling his potential, Obama chose the path of
hard-left policy — and divide-and-rule politics.
The first hint of his strategy
emerged during the debt ceiling negotiations in the summer of August 2011. As
Bob Woodward recounted in his book
about the crisis, The Price
of Politics, then-Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) had
wanted to reach a “grand bargain” with the president on long-term spending
cuts. But Obama blew up that agreement by demanding $400 billion in new taxes,
to his aides’ surprise. Obama wanted an opponent, not a deal. (Last week,
Boehner told Breitbart News
Tonight that Obama’s decision was his worst disappointment in
35 years of politics.)
In the fall of 2011, a new left-wing
movement, Occupy Wall Street, was launched. A mix of communists, anarchists,
and digital pranksters, the Occupy movement cast American society as a
struggle between the “99 percent” and the “one percent.”
Obama and then-House Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
embraced the movement — and failed to distance themselves from it even as
it collapsed into
violence, sexual assault, and confrontations with police.
Instead, Obama picked up on Occupy’s
themes and used them to shape his campaign.
In December 2011, Obama gave a speech at
Osawatomie, Kansas — a place steeped in radical
symbolism — at which he doubled down on his left-wing policies. He focused on
the issue of economic inequality, and attacked the idea that the free market
could lift the middle class to prosperity. “This isn’t about class warfare.
This is about the nation’s welfare,” he insisted.
Then, in the spring of 2012, Obama
made a controversial play on race. When a black teen, Trayvon Martin, was
killed in Florida during a scuffle with neighborhood watch volunteer George
Zimmerman, Al Sharprton — who was serving as an informal adviser to Obama at
the time — made the local crime story
into a national racial controversy. Obama, following Sharpton’s lead, weighed
in: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said at the time.
Poll numbers suggest that race
relations, which had been improving, dropped precipitously after that. But to
Obama, it was worth it: the campaign needed to find a way to motivate minority
voters. (Vice President Joe Biden did his part, telling black voters
that GOP nominee Mitt Romney was “gonna put y’all in chains.”)
Trump is pushing a non-racial,
nationalist message. But if he actually wanted to divide America for political
gain, he could learn from the master.
Joel B.
Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social
Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard. He is a
winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author
of How Trump Won: The Inside
Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter
at @joelpollak.
Donald Trump’s opponents are completely
unhinged. The hate and slander directed towards the president and his supporters
is off the charts. The vitriol comes not just from the Democrat party, the
media, and the world of entertainment, but also from a sizable proportion
of the federal bureaucracy and many seemingly ordinary people.
The media coordinates this campaign and
amplifies the hate at every opportunity. Media twist every event, be it
big or small, into a criticism of the president. The goal is always to present
Trump in not just an unfavorable light but to make him appear too loathsome for
polite society. And Trump is not the sole target of this demonization. It is
directed at his supporters, too.
Where will all this lead? No less
than Angelo M. Codevilla fears it could ultimately result in a bloody civil
war. And if it comes to that, there's no doubt where he places the blame.
The story of the contemporary American
Left's sponsorship of hate and violence began around 1964, when the Democrats
chose to abandon the Southern constituencies that had been its mainstay since
the time of Jefferson and Jackson. In less than a decade, the party found
itself increasingly dependent on gaining super-majorities among
blacks, upscale liberals, and constituencies of resentment in general
-- and hence on stoking their hate.
For the past half century, America's
political history has been driven by the Democrats' effort to fire up
these constituencies by denigrating the rest of America.
Codevilla notes that prominent Democrats
like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton have led millions of their
followers "to think and act as if conservatives were simply a lower level
of humanity, and should have their faces rubbed in their own inferiority."
It’s not surprising that many ordinary
followers have concluded that harassing conservatives in restaurants, airports,
and public functions is "not just permissible but praiseworthy,
and if thousands of persons who exercise power over cities, towns, and schools
have not concluded that facilitating such harassment and harm is their duty."
This is the toxic environment that the
Democrats, in conjunction with the media, have created. Has Pandora's box been
opened? Are we beyond the point of no return? Are leftists and their liberal
soulmates too obtuse not to expect that hate and violence will someday be
answered in kind? These questions are up in the air. Right now, one thing is
clear. As Yeats wrote: "The best lack all conviction while the worse
are full of passionate intensity."
Just to touch on a few of the changes that
Strauss and Howe see: today's soft criminal justice system will become swift
and rough. Vagrants will be rounded up and the mentally ill recommitted.
Criminal appeals shortened and executions hastened. Pension funds will go
bust and Social Security checks become iffy. The full spectrum of society
will be under distress. All the problems will be combined into one -- the
survival of society.
Aren't the seeds already planted for a
crisis? Trust in Washington and in government institutions is at an all-time
low. Political violence is tacitly condoned and often openly encouraged by
Democratic officeholders. The political establishment encourages massive Illegal
immigration.The
mainstream media is highly partisan and corrupt beyond reform. The American
flag, the country's history, and even its nationhood are openly
despised in universities. American public schools are a disgrace despite
the money poured into them. The country is burdened by a $22 trillion
national debt to which many trillions more of unfunded government liabilities
must be added. Students owe a trillion dollars in school loans that can never
be repaid.
Someday there has to be a reckoning for
all this dysfunction. Irrespective of the election results in 2020, the time
frame of 2020-2022 sounds about the right for things to come to a head. It
would be prudent to be ready.
No comments:
Post a Comment