Where Friedman Made a Mistake in Regards to Free Markets

Milton Friedman was a brillant economist, well-read and informed academic.

He brought forth a number of incredible, essential arguments to defend free enterprise and domestic economic liberty for businesses large and small. Don't get me wrong--I am all for free enterprise. Domestic economic freedom is an absolute must in any country, so that individuals can enjoy the highest standard of living possible.

BUT ... there is a place for government intervention in a number of issues.

1. Tariffs play an important role in securing the national security and interest of a country.

2. Illegal immigration and mass immigration are a bane for any country. No group of people, no mass movement of people should be permitted to overrun a country and complete change the contour and constitutional character of the nation.

This video exposes what the problem became for Milton Friedman's free market views--and Friedman himself admitted to the failure of one of his many tenets.

Check out this video from Reason Magazine here.

Friedman was convinced that the people of Hong Kong, China, elsewhere would rise up and oppose the taxpayer-funded subsidies for national businesses.

However, that never happened. Authoritarian regimes do not listen to the people whom they are supposed to care for. They do what they want. subsidize whatever businesses and interests they please. The pro-tariff arguments are stronger in these cases. Granted, tariffs can amount to a tax, but that only occurs if individuals purchase the goods from the other countries.

If authoritarian countries are subsidizing their goods and dumping them into other nations to undercut their industries, tariffs have to be imposed.

Friedman's argument in "Free to Choose" was not satisfactory for dealing with this problem. If a country lowers its tariffs in the face of countries with cheaper goods based on nationalized policies of currency manipulation and subsidies, the businesses in our country will fail and falter.

This problem occurs in Sub-Saharan countries, as well, in which Western nations offer a bunch of goods as "charity." For example, many countries will send in a bunch of free shoes to help an impoverished area. What happens, though? The local merchants go out of business, because they cannot compete with free."

Hence, the need for tariffs. The same idea is pervasive around the world. The United States was right to enact key tariffs to protect local industries against predatory policies from other countries. Open borders and open international markets can become problematic when these concerns are not taken into account.

WINNING! The Village Voice Savages Me Over Socialism

You know you have arrived when the New York City version of LA Weekly and OC Weekly savages you in one of their articles. Specifically, they targeted me for what I had written about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' upset victory in the Bronx Congressional district last month.

Check out their hit (hate?) piece attack:

At TownHall, Arthur Schaper visibly recoiled from Ocasio-Cortez’s platform — “she calls housing ‘a right,’ ” gasp! — and claimed “the left tends to cannibalize itself when the younger generation demands socialist outcomes at a faster rate,” citing as examples, I shit you not, the French and Russian Revolutions, plus Walter Mondale. Schaper declared that “the Trump Administration’s regulatory rollback and tax reforms have unleashed unprecedented wealth, prosperity, and opportunity,” which he predicted would lead, despite Trump’s lousy poll numbers, to “a 49-state victory.”

I had written, in line with the views of many people on the center and the right, that the upset victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez showed that the Democratic Party has gone too far to the left. They are not listening to the everyday concerns of American citizens. They ignored the incalculable damage wrought by President Obama against his own party during his two terms in office.

The younger, entitled, engaged, and enraged left-wing base what the hope and change which Obama promised RIGHT NOW. Like the violent, bloodthirsty partisans during the French Revolution, they have no problem with resorting to destruction of life and property in pursuit of their Marxist aims.

The truth is that this radical, Marxist turn within the Democratic Party should scare Democrats in particular and worry the country in general. People need to wake up and realize that wealth cannot be obtained by stealing from others.

Free markets, free enterprise, and free people ensure the most equitable, lawful pathway for all to get wealthy, to prosper, and to be in health.

And for the record, the Nazis were socialists:

Hell Freezes Over: Communist Cuba Recognizes Private Property

Hell continues to freeze over.

Or better yet, Heaven is breaking through the dark clouds of decades past.

Francis Fukuyama analyzed these increasingly welcome realities.

Communist regimes do not stay communistic for the long run, even under their communist leaders.

The first dictator is the harshest, the most brutal.

Then the successors start to ease away from such hateful, stringent, bloodthirsty policies because the second tier of leaders want to live with some sense of peace and liberty.

Cuba has been a communist hell hole since 1959.

60 years later, we have witnessed Fidel Castro inviting religious institutions to speak to the Cuban people. Orthodox churches have opened up on the island, too.

Then Castro stepped down in favor of his brother Raul.

Then Raul moved aside to allow for elections.

The elections were not a true contest of ideas and political visions, but they took place.

A new President is now governing Cuba.

For the latest development, the Cuban Constitution will now recognize private property.

REUTERS: Communist-run Cuba to recognize private property in new constitution

— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) July 14, 2018

Here's the full report from Reuters:

Communist-run Cuba to recognize private property in new constitution

HAVANA (Reuters) - Communist-run Cuba will officially recognize private property, something it has long rejected as a vestige of capitalism, under a new constitution that also creates the position of prime minister alongside the president, state media reported on Saturday.

State media has reported this further liberalizing element, but such moves are inevitable withing command-control countries, since communistic policies cannot sustain any society for long.

Consider what happened to the Pilgrim settlers during the first winter, when they worked with a common store instead of allow for individual liberty and responsibility through private property.

Cuba’s current Soviet-era constitution only recognizes state, cooperative, farmer, personal and joint venture property.

But former President Raul Castro’s market reforms, aimed at trying to boost the economy and make Cuban socialism more sustainable, have prompted hundreds of thousands of Cubans to join the ranks of the island’s self-employed since 2010, in new privately-owned businesses ranging from restaurants to beauty salons.

"Making socialism sustainable" is nothing short of impossible. Free markets, free enterprise, and free people are the only ways for any state, any society, any community to remain sustainable.

I can't believe that we haven't read more about what Raul Casto had initiated. It's particularly telling that while Cuba's economy is opening up, Puerto Rico's economy has completely collapsed.

Ruling Communist Party newspaper Granma published a summary of the new constitution on Saturday, saying a draft it had seen included 224 articles, up from 137 previously.

Details were not immediately available, and Reuters did not see the draft. But Granma said it enshrined recognition of both the free market and private property in Cuba’s new Magna Carta.

 

A new Magna Carta ... which we cannot see.

Hmm ... it's a good idea for the rest of the world to remain skeptical and see how things roll out on the island pariah nation.

That could mean enhanced legal protections for Cuba’s fledgling entrepreneurs, and foreign investors too, even though Granma said the constitution reaffirmed that central planning and state enterprise are the pillars of the economy overall.

Watch the central planning unravel. One individual citizens get a real taste of liberty, they will never settle for bondage and statism again.

It also noted the Communist Party would remain as Cuba’s dominant political force.

That would last long. Of course, the Communist Party is the dominant party, but the country is authoritarian, not communistic anymore since business is booming, and Donald Trump is finally talking tough and hitting the country's products with hefty tariffs.

Cuba expert Luis Carlos Battista at the Washington-based Center for Democracy in the Americas cautioned that the acknowledgement of private property did not mean the government wanted to give private enterprise a greater role.

Of course. We get that this is a baby step. Most likely the Cuban government is taking the step because they fear military sanctions from Trump, the United States, and the rest of the Western World. I think it's worth noting that under President Trump's watch, North Korea has moved to denuclearize their weapons, China is forced to play fair (or at least fairer).

Now we have Cuba backing away from its communistic past. I don't think any of this would have happened under the weaker leadership of Crooked Hillary.

Earlier this week, he noted, the government published a set of regulations tightening control on the self-employed and hiking possible fines to include property confiscation.

According to Granma, the government commission revamping the constitution will present its draft to the national assembly when it meets next week. It will then be put to a national referendum, expected later this year.

A National Referendum? I bet that there are plenty of black market operations at work throughout Cuba, and there's nothing that the Cuban Communist Government can do to stop it.

The commission is headed by Castro, 87, who remains head of the Communist Party.

Miguel Diaz-Canel

New President Miguel Diaz-Canel, who sits on the commission, is also expected to announce his council of ministers at the assembly meeting.

This will be interesting.

Apart from introducing the position of prime minister, dividing the roles of head of state and head of government, the new constitution makes the president head of the assembly and imposes a term limit on the presidency of two consecutive five-year periods.

Let's see if the people of Cuba remain vigilant enough to keep the powers that be honest to these promises. Again, once they get a taste of freedom, they will be less likely to tolerate any return to the statist authoritarianism of the Castro regimes.

Castro, who together with his older, late brother Fidel Castro ruled the country for nearly 60 years, had proposed the limit in 2011, as part of a bid to modernize the political system.

Democracy Does Not Protect Liberty: Constitutional Republicanism Does

The best way to ensure freedom is not through democracy.

The rule of the majority undermines the rights of the minority.

Natural rights belong to everyone, regardless of their race or ethnicity.

Natural rights drawn from a Divine Creator provide for our safety and security. We have a final identity in Him.

As for proper governance, democratic processes are not the best assurance for liberty.

The marketplace is, the forum of private, voluntary exchange provides the best means and medium for effective distribution of resources.

I was pleasantly surprised to find an article making this case for the marketplace vs. the democratic process right in the local paper!

If democracy is in ‘crisis,’ we should turn to the marketplace

Recently, catching up on email brought me across several references to a crisis in democracy. Clay R. Fuller had written that “One could fill a library with the books and reports regarding the ongoing ‘crisis’ of democracy.” In most, political democracy is treated as an ideal. Yet it is a seriously flawed ideal. In fact, as F. A. Hayek noted long ago, “all the inherited limitations on government power are breaking down before it … unlimited democracy … is the problem today.”

Democracy has been a necessary evil in certain ways for decades, for millenia. Who can forget that Socrates was put to death by the vote of the majority?

Democracies are bringing in more socialism, which is undermining liberty and freedom of property. Arizona had a state-wide initiative to force up the minimum wage, and for what? So that more robots would take jobs away from entry-level workers? Someone tell me how any of this is a good idea?

Perhaps the most blatant evidence is the frequency with which policies and candidates claiming majority support advance coercive measures that take from some to give to others. Such piracy violates universal moral and ethical condemnations of theft, so it cannot be an ideal.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. A Republic ensures that the lamb has a firearm.

There are, in fact, several ways political democracy falls short as an ideal. To be ideal, it would avoid violating individuals’ established rights. It would be responsive; people’s votes would have to matter. It would give people incentives to become well-informed and think carefully about policies. It would require powerful incentives to deter dishonesty and misrepresentation. It would also have to be limited in scope, as no one wants every issue that concerns them subject to majority determination.

This issue of voters' submission of voting--yes, people's votes tend not to matter in too many cases. If a majority, however slim, is the final factor for an electoral victory, what does one say to the 49.9% of people who voted one way and lost?

It is hard to think of government policies that do not violate some people’s rights. In fact, such  violations are often the main driver of policy (e.g., price controls). And those violations eviscerate the central function of a government advancing its citizens’ well-being–defending existing rights.

Policies imposed by majority violate not just the rights of the minority, but the rights of all citizens! How true that is.

Despite volumes of democracy-extolling rhetoric, virtually no one’s vote changes the results. Name one time your vote for or against a candidate or initiative altered the electoral outcome. Results are not responsive to individual preferences.

I would disagree with this argument on a surface level. I voted for President Trump, and President Trump won. I voted for Assemblyman David Hadley (R-Torrance) in 2014, and he won. I voted for him in 2016 and he lost. The issue has a lot to do not just with voting, but how many people are voting. With those outcomes in mind, other factors play such a large factor in outcomes, not just my own voting.

Further, voters face binary yes/no votes on initiatives or A/B votes on candidates representing bundles of policies and promises. That is far from giving voters power to effectively exercise their desires. The least harmful option, not the most preferred, is frequently chosen.

Good point. The lack of choice, the lack of chosen outcomes, the lack of specific preferences is a problem. Every voter, if the individual chooses to vote, gets boxed into some pretty meager choices. That's how many voters felt during the Presidential election.

Most voters also face very limited incentives to consider policies carefully, illustrated by vast numbers who don’t even know their political representatives’ names. That is largely because individuals’ market voting with their dollars changes their outcomes — better matching their circumstances and preferences — while public policy voting almost never does, but also because more complex policy issues are more difficult to evaluate than private choices.

This part of the article is the most enlightened, the most profound. A voter must spend so much time, energy, and resources figuring out who to vote for, and yet one's exercise of the voter franchise by itself is quite slight.

What's the point of voting when you perceive that your one little vote amounts to just about ... nothing?

Politics also imposes fewer effective constraints on dishonesty and misrepresentation than market arrangements. Beyond greater “customer” ignorance, politics has no truth-in-advertising laws, money-back guarantees or effective warrantees. Politicians’ wares are not easily evaluated. They are primarily plausible-sounding stories about candidates’ intentions, which they cannot accomplish alone, backed with the every-ready excuse that failures represented the best deal actually possible. There is frequently no more than one “electable” competitor to keep you honest, and that is frequently limited only to election season.

Wow. So profound and so sad at the same time. People say just about anything to get elected, but they never follow through. They don't have to follow through! They got elected, and I as a voter cannot recall them or get my "money" back, so to speak!

In political democracy, a majority can also force its preferences on any issue upon all those who disagree. That is why our founders adopted constraints on majority abuse, such as limited, delegated powers and the Bill of Rights. However, those constraints have largely been undermined today.

And a reminder: we are not a democracy, but a republic! Christopher Buskirk wrote in the Washington Post how we are witnessing a restoration of Little R republicanism, a true restraint on the power of the state, specifically the federal government.

We need more of this, not less.

In contrast to political democracy, free market capitalism, which reflects democratic self-government, represents a far better ideal.

The final government ideal would be to have as little as possible decided by the government, and as much as possible in our lives settled by personal choice and marketplace engagement.

Its system of exclusively voluntary cooperation based on self-ownership requires that property rights be respected; no majority can violate owners’ rights. Individuals’ dollar votes change their outcomes, even when their preferences are not the majority’s preferences, generating the further advantage of making them far better informed than about politics. There also are more mechanisms providing honesty and accountability.

Markets, freedom are a better metric for change and accountability. We need more of that. One of the most important aspects is that efforts and outcomes must respond to what people want. Government does not do that well, unless there is a lot of mobilization and force.

Holding out democracy as an ideal overlooks the question of whether market democracy or political democracy better serves citizens. A very strong argument can be made that a superior form is to remove virtually all decisions and policies we need not share in common (almost all of them, beyond the mutual protection of our rights) from government dictation, and let people exercise self-government, protected by their unalienable rights.

Which decisions do not belong to the government? Decisions which we do not share with others. We all share a need for public safety, water, street services, etc.

But not much else. In the end, the best safeguard for our liberty is not democracy, but constitutional republicanism, precisely because it limits the power of the government no matter who enters into power.

Rethinking Conservative Talking Points

Here are a few points of view that I had held for a long time without challenging their merits.

Since President Trump's election and inauguration, there are some ideas which I am challenging with clear evidence in our country and economy.

George Will once asserted, "Populism is not conservatism."

I used to accept this statement at face value. Will had asserted this statement on an ABC 7 "This Week" panel during Election 2008.

Will argued that the anti-elitism sentiment ultimately generates a larger government agenda.

Now I realize that populism which opposes the corrupt, anti-American, pro-globalist agenda is good.

And it in fact wants a reduction of the government into our lives. I cannot believe that I never challenged that precept from George Will. Populism is all about restoring power back to the people. Two Amendments in the Bill of Rights talk about restoring those rights.

Trump's pro-American nationalism, his pro-worker populism has enacted an incredible conservative agenda on many levels. The real sticking point for people like Will and the rest of the cloistered political elites is illegal immigration. They don't understand the costs or the consequences of this destructive problem. They don't live with illegal aliens ravaging their neighborhoods. They don't understand the pain and frustration of losing jobs and quality of life to ongoing foreign invaders.

The distant arrogance of these talking head conservatives is stifling.

John Stossel: "Trade deficits don't matter."

The argument about trade deficits, which means that a country is importing more goods than exporting, had concluded for me with John Stossel's analogy of a grocery store.

"I engage in a trade deficit every time I go shopping at the grocery store. If the store had to buy something from me in order for me to purchase something from them, they would go out of business."

I look back on this analogy, and I realize now how naive it is. A country is not a grocery store. Countries are not just markets or economies.

A free market is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a free society. The United States is a free yet also sovereign nation. There are other nations near and far which oppose our free way of life. Why would we want to trade with them?

Reason.com: "Tariffs are bad."

I would allow for tariffs on a general scale if the income tax were repealed. A tariff is a tax which consumers would have to pay for, but that cost would be offset by no longer paying an income tax.

Tariffs are good for national security reasons. Why should the People's Republic of China dump cheap goods into our country, and they in turn use the money they are making to undermine us further?

These are some talking points I have learned to review and challenge now that President Trump is back in office. Note, however, that tariffs as a rule create higher costs and disproportionately affect different parts of the country. A full-on trade war with other countries furthered the economic recession that led to the Great Depression in the early 1930s.

Tariffs, if any are imposed, must be strategic.

Is America Getting More Conservative?

I loved this article so much, I just had to read it for myself.

And I had to share my glowing comments to celebrate these wonderful trends.

5 Reasons Why America Is About To Become A Conservative Country

By Daniel Lang via SHTFplan.com,

For generations, we’ve seen the political landscape in this country teeter back and forth between the Left and the Right. Usually about every 8 years or so, whichever political party is dominating Congress, the Executive Branch, and the state legislatures, is kicked out by voters and replaced with the other political party.

However, there’s something very different going on this time around. Donald Trump’s ascent to the oval office represents a major shift in our society and culture, and I’m not talking about the intermittent shuffle of politicians that we see every few years. Instead, the pendulum is about to swing very hard to the right.

This second paragraph grants me greater hope about Election 2018. We have seen a paradigm shift in American politics like never before.

The major media conglomerates, who had been propping up the Democratic Party and their left-wing agendas are failing fast. Hollywood is dying on the vine, too.

Of course, I don't want to take away from the findings and insights of this incredible article, either

I think that the political landscape in America is going to be drifting towards conservatism for the next 20-40 years. Though it may not be identical to what we view as conservative today, and it certainly won’t be the phony neoconservatism that dominated the past, it will be right-wing nonetheless. Here’s why:

I think that this is wonderful news! Excellent news!

Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher could have only dreamed of such a paradigm shift in their time. I like the point that neoconservatism is not coming back--like the alt-right, it is a misnomer movement which actually incorporates the nation-building corporatism of the Left.

George W. Bush was indeed a neoconservative in this respect, as is Bill Kristol and even Charles Krauthammer. Their cultural policies have been predominately liberal, but they are convinced that an aggressive intervention into other countries will solve the ills of our world and country here.

Not true. I still remember George W. Bush's second inaugural address in January, 2005. He declared that the security of our democracy here depended on the expansion of democracy elsewhere.

I used to believe that. Now I no longer accept that view. Nation-building requires more than building buildings. It depends on a great deal more than the basic apparatus of democratic elections.

Oh, and W., we are not a democracy here in the United States. We are a Republic. Thanks.

Now, we can expect that the United States is going to trend more conservative for the next 40 years?

1. THE SUPREME COURT IS ABOUT TO CHANGE

President Trump has already chosen one Supreme Court justice, and there’s a good chance that he’s going to wind up choosing several more (much to the dismay of the Left). Because of their advanced age, we may see three more Supreme Court justices retire or die over the next four to eight years, two of whom lean to the left.

If Trump lasts two terms, we’re definitely going to see a Supreme Court that is dominated by conservatives for the next 20-30 years. So even when liberals take back Congress and the presidency on occasion, many of their most radical ideas won’t be able to take hold for many years.

2. IMMIGRATION IS GOING TO DECLINE

The percentage of the population that is foreign born hasn’t been this high since the early 1900’s, and most of those immigrants are liberal. That’s why our loose borders, combined with The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, have probably done more to bolster the ranks of the Left than any other law.

Bingo! Someone give this man a cookie!

That's why the Democratic Party has been doubling-down on stupid and delusional when it comes to illegal immigration. Their only long-term chances for survival or more illegal aliens and low-skilled immigrants. They cannot sustain or survive as a political party otherwise, since they depend on dependent votes, not opportunity makers who thrive and succeed.

But just as our nation’s political landscape tends to swing back and forth between the Left and the Right, so to does number of immigrants in America. In the short term, we can expect people like Trump to restrict the border and maybe pass laws that will decrease immigration to some degree.

This country needs enforcement, not more legislation. The President can continue apace with enforcement, whether Congress paces legislation or not. He has already rounded up and deported illegal aliens in the most entrenched of sanctuary cities. There is nothing that these progressive leftists can do to keep their chokehold on these urban ghettos.

But there’s a long term trend to consider as well, because the election of Trump likely represents a turning point for our society. Considering how crucial his immigration stance was to his victory, it’s clear that a growing number of Americans want the border tightened up, and the number of immigrants moving here to decrease. And rest assured that in the near future, there will be more conservatives voting for politicians who will try to lower immigration rates, because…

Even some Democrats are demanding a limit to legal immigration, specifically when it comes to work visas for low-skilled labor. I kid you not!

3. THE NEXT GENERATION IS INCREDIBLY CONSERVATIVE

Over the years we’ve seen each generation of Americans become a little more liberal than the last, but that’s about to change. According to a study from last year, Generation Z, which represents kids born after the year 2000, is the most conservative generation since World War Two. To give you an idea of just how right-wing the next generation is, when asked if they are “quite conservative,” 14% of teenagers say they are, compared to just 2% of Millennials. That’s a mind boggling shift, from one generation to the next.

This news warms my heart the most.

As a Trump supporter in Los Angeles County, I meet some Trump supporters in Downtown LA.

One notable resident was 16 year-old Justin TrejeGue, for example:

This high school senior Justin Mora:

These two young men, and a growing number of young people with them, are strikingly, refreshingly conservative.

They have lived through the hard times of 9-11 and the housing crises during their formative years. They experienced the devastating Obama Administration, in which secular progressive puritans shoved their anti-American arrogance down the throats of the younger generations.

They are tired of it. They are rebelling against liberalism. They are also enjoying the victories and opportunities brought by conservatism.

Besides, illegal immigration hurts young people as well as other American demographics.

4. LIBERAL BIRTH RATES ARE DECLINING

The Left is about to pay a huge price for denigrating the family and traditional gender roles for so many years. Because liberal women tend to be more career minded and wait longer to have children, they often have fewer kids over the course of their lives. That’s why liberal states always have lower birth rates than conservative states.

BAM!

Yes, social conservatism is necessary, not marginal or arbitrary.

The sexual anarchy and indiscriminate license pushed by the Democratic Party, abject liberals, and progressive leftists has ended up decimating their numbers.

Christians, populists, and nationalists believe in natural marriage, biological recognition of gender, and the sanctity of life.

They will continue to have children, and they will replace the liberal cohorts which are dying out of their own free, misguided will.

All of the states with a birth rate of of 60 or less per 1000 people are liberal, and all of the states with a birth rate of 70 or more per 1000 people are conservative. That may not sound drastic, but consider that these states still have a sizeable mix of conservatives and liberals. Even the most liberal states have millions of conservative residents and vice versa, which offsets the results. If ideology is really driving birth rates, then liberals are probably having very very few children. They’re probably not reaching the minimum replacement rate of 2.1 children per mother.

This is quite so. States like Illinois are having a net negative migration, too. Not just lack of births, but migration is destroying these states. Contrary to the arguments from political pundits, blue-to-red state migration is not making those red states bluer.

Not at all.

When you consider how many values kids learn from their parents and carry into adulthood, it’s obvious that the Left has a serious demographic problem. The only way they’ve been able to create more liberals, is through immigration and through indoctrination in the school system. Unfortunately for the Left, they’re not going to have a stranglehold on our schools for much longer either.

Immigration will be curtailed, and the school systems are falling apart as parents take more control of their kids' education through homeschooling. Colleges are losing enrollment, and they will face their own crisis--just like the housing crisis of 2008-2009.

Speaking of colleges going down the tubes ...

5. LEFTIST ACADEMIA IS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE

From Kindergarten to college, our schools are breeding grounds for liberal ideas. That’s become abundantly clear in recent years, as we’ve seen the horrifying rise of political correctness and social justice beliefs on college campuses. These institutions are little more than indoctrination centers for the Left.

One of the most glaring examples of this deals with the transgender and LGBT movements breaking into public schools. Little kids are being taught that they are born one gender, but that they can become another gender just by what they think? Really? This is child abuse.

I have young parents who contact me, asking for help how to deal with Boards of Trustees running school systems, teaching young people to feel sorry for themselves because they are not white. School districts are teaching children to hate President Trump just because he is white, male, wealthy, etc.

This is disgusting. Instead of educating youth, liberals have turned schools into indoctrination factors to undermine out country and our culture. Oh, and the kids can't read.

But this isn’t going to go on for much longer. We have a whole generation of kids who were buried in over a trillion dollars worth of debt, just so they could get worthless liberal arts degrees that won’t ever help them get a job. They paid tens of thousands of dollars to be indoctrinated by liberal professors, before going back home to live with their parents.

In other words, these young college graduates realize that they got sold a bill of goods, with nothing to show for it but grievance and debt. They have gotten mugged by reality, and they need to learn some street skills to protect themselves and overcome the harsh facts of this world.

All of that theory and fantasy shoved down their throats, with the tens of thousands of dollars attached as a price tag, has woken then out of the dogmatic slumbers of subtle socialism.

That’s why student loans constitute a bubble in our economy, and once it pops, colleges are going to have to cut back on many classes that don’t actually increase the earning power of students. Coincidentally, the fields of study that harbor the most liberal professors, are the ones that don’t help most students get jobs, like the arts, humanities, liberal arts, gender studies, etc. Someday soon, colleges are going to be forced to trim the fat, and many of these Marxist professors and diversity administrators are going to get the axe. Their positions are incredibly superfluous.

I just mentioned that colleges are on the brink of their "housing" crisis. Watch the bubble burst, and homeless, unemployed academics wander our streets as the new, over-educated downtrodden. That won't be pretty, I can tell you. For the last two decades, these arrogant academics have pushed for mandatory minimum wage hikes, regulatory burdens untrammeled, Cap and Trade, etc.

Now they will walk into the real world, where the states and local governments rejected their advice entirely, or worse have embraced the ideas completely and have replaced the viable workforce with robots.

As for the leftists public schools, let’s not forget that the number of kids being homeschooled is growing rapidly, and most of their parents are conservatives. They’re raising a new generation that isn’t going to be brainwashed by government run schools.

And let’s not forget that the mainstream media, which has been largely wed to the left, is dying. So basically, every institution that the Left uses to teach its ideas, from the media to academia, is slowly crumbling away.

WINNING!

Pulitzer-Prize winning cartoonist Michael Ramirez and I discussed the need for conservatives to March onto the Institutions and break the choke-hold of cultural Marxism. Some conservatives charged that they needed to take over these pillars of American culture.

What is happening instead is that these desiccated institutions are falling apart under the weight of left-wing lies and deceit, and conservative alternatives have overtaken them and become mainstream.

In summation, everything liberals have relied on to bolster their ranks, propagate their ideas, and pass their laws, are failing. So there shouldn’t be any doubt. Over the next few decades, America is going to become a very conservative place.

And I am loving every minute of it.

Final Reflection

This analysis was thorough and engaging, and quite promising. I loved the examples provided and the projections offered. They are based no facts and trends, rather than political bonhomie meant to make partisans feel good about themselves.

The part about conservatives replacing liberals in any given population is borne out not just in the United States, but also in Europe. The Alternative for Germany won a record number of seats this year, and Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats had the worst showing since the 1940s. Christians and cultural conservatives in general are having more children, and they will begin voting in leaders who reflect their pro-Germany values. The same holds true in France and Great Britain!

Yes indeed, America is on track to not only become more conservative, but to see possibly a long-term dominance of center-right political victories, even if the Democratic Party does not complete implode. Remember that the Labour Party on Tony Blair ended up adopting free market reforms and values. The Tory Resurgence in 2010 did not immediately foretell a conservative resurgence as expected. They "conservatives" embraced homosexual destruction of marriage and political correctness regarding Islam. The latest government following a snap election has brought the very conservative Union Democrats into a government coalition with Theresa May's Tories.

The United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, and they expect the party leaders to comply or get sacked at the next election. More conservatives are winning at the local and state level not just in the United States but all around the country.

Once again, even though the general political punditry assumes that the opposition party from the President will gain seats in 2018, the conservative base has grown stronger, more active, and larger. They establishment RINOs have been kicked out, and more slow-to-act Republicans are retiring. The widespread voting public wants to the Trump promises kept, enacted, and enforced.

They will not bow out and allow Democrats into Congress, especially when primary challenges--or even the threat of a challenge--has scared off or put away establishment, pro-cronyism, pro-open borders officials. Election 2018 will be a pro-American takeover of DC.

Yes, and it will be more conservative.

Country Club vs. Counter-Culture Republicans

I notice that all the NeverTrumpers are the tassel loafered K street Republicans. The guys who go to the country club on Saturdays.

— Hector Morenco (@hectormorenco) August 4, 2017

This quote says it all.

Why the fight among Republicans has become contentious, and how the GOP Establishment, the country club set which doesn't sweat and never worked outside of a gated community, has been calling many of the shots for the last 16 years.

Republicans had lost their way, not paying attention to the individual needs of working Americans. Gun-rack Democrats are now becoming Republicans all over the country, even in California. Working people have finally realized that the Democratic Party is more committed to Wall Street than to Main Street.

And Wall Street is all about Wall Street. They don't want a big, beautiful wall along our borders. Why should they care, anyway? After all, they have their own gated mansions, private security, all placed in secluded gated communities.

Most of the Conservative media intelligentsia fall into this category, too. They live relatively comfortable lives. They do not worry about an illegal alien undercutting their wages or stealing their jobs. They live in perfect safety, too, because of the reasons listed above. The conservative writing intelligentsia still believed that they will be accepted, that they will be welcomed into the media elitists club. What they do not understand, or do not want to understand that the Printed Press Old Word is passing away. Talking heads, even on Fox News, are a thing of the past. There are now hundreds if not thousands of people who have taken on the mantle of conservatives.

The Country Club GOP Intelligentsia does not like that. The democratization of media is not only hurting the Left, but it is hurting the self-congratulatory, well-lettered right. Not only that, but Country Club Republicans do not want to get their hands dirty. They want to discuss ideas, they want to make nice with political competitors, and in many cases they are content to make money as media talking heads. After all is fought for in the election cycle, the Country Club set still want to be invited to all the parties. They still want to know that they will be liked.

This desperation for civility is hurting our culture. The Country Club GOP are convinced that dialogue and debate can make all the difference. If we meet our opposition in the middle somewhere, everything will work out in the end. What they do not realize, however, is that the Democratic Party has doubled down on its communistic impulses. There is no room for agreement or improvement on socialized ideals.

What is needed know is a clear conviction. This unwillingness to confront the truth about the culture was sets Country Club Republicans apart from the Counter-Culture GOP.  This fight over policy and ideology affects our everyday lives. We cannot afford to tolerate the lingering existence of Obamacare, sanctuary cities, tax hikes, education failures, and other Main Street concerns--many of which have gone unnoticed by Country Club Republicans like Charles Krauthammer and George Will. In fact, Will mocked Mainstream America because of their heightened hesitance to allowing illegal alien minors to flood their local public schools. Excuse me, George, but do you pay the taxes for these schools? Did you have a child enrolled in Montgomery County, Maryland, who was raped by an illegal alien?

Not likely.

The Country Club set has been all too removed from the demands and the constraints of daily life. In fact, they have pressed for policies which seem to make sense in ideological terms, but miss the nitty-gritty of Joe the Plumber.

Let's not forgot that our United States Constitution is for everyone. The reduction of the state in our lives, whether as local citizens or Americans, means that our rights must be protected at all costs. Country Club Republicans feel that their rights are intact, and see no need to protect them against egregious infractions. As for the rest of us, we are enduring a constant attack on our rights--and the opportunities to find gainful employment and provide a prosperous future for our children.

Country Club Republicans are willing to support Establishment Democrats just to ensure their passage to all the socialite parties and fetes. This attitude is all wrong. A political party should serve the needs of all Americans. The Democratic Party has affirmed their indifference to the working Americans. Counter Culture Republicans needs to take hold of their party and ensure that their leaders work for the good of all Americans, not just Big Business, Big Labor, and the Big Fat Cat Country Club Class.

We the People Rising Celebrate Trump-Mas, and Take Down a Moronic Marxist

I am not afraid to celebrate Donald Trump's victory.

This country needed a truth enema, and we got so much more with Trump.

The economy is booming.

People are optimistic about the future. A sense of unity and purpose is budding again.

I no longer worry about my freedoms being systematically reduced then removed entirely.

It's OK to shout "Merry Christmas!" and sing Christmas carols once again!

Check out how We the People Rising partied and shared the festive cheer with travelers near and fear along Hollywood Blvd!

And of course, there were critics.

The intellectual idiots who think they know more than everyone else--Los Angeles has its fair share.

One of them got into a heated argument with us, but we showed up him Christmas cheer plus a strong capacity to tell it like it T-I-S!

This guy claimed that illegal immigration is not that bad

He also believed that the entire economy would collapse if the 12 million illegal aliens left the country.

And of course, he insisted on calling them "undocumented" -- people are not undocumented, because they are not pieces of paper or goods in a warehouse.

But human beings can be illegal if their status in a country is not in compliance with state or federal law.

Check out the "interview":

It was kind of entertaining.

More conservatives should not be afraid to confront liberals like the one above.

They oftentimes end up making your case without saying a word!

This guy's history was really messed up. He claimed that the United States always had open borders ...

He also argued that we thought we were opposed to immigration in its entirety.

Not at all. Leftists often resort to that argument to shame immigration enforcement activists. We were unintimidated.

In the clip below, the Marxist defended open borders.

UNREAL!

This "economist" even claimed that you cannot refute Marx without also refuting Adam Smith ...

Wow! I never thought I would confront so much educated ignorance all at once! YIKES!  He even referred to statistical evidence proferred by .... the United Nations?!

He also claimed that Cuba was a clean and well-run country. WHAT!

Then he suggested that the only Cubans who fled Cuba were criminals?!

WOW!

Ho Ho Ho!

Governor LePage, Tell the Critics: "Kiss My Butt!"

If conservatives fear that Donald Trump is an enfant terrible, then they haven’t been paying attention to their sprawling, engaged coalition of Republican governors for very long.

I’m not talking about Dem-lite Charlie Baker (who has done some good, but really needs to go, now that he has signed off on allowing men into women’s bathrooms), and I am not talking about Governor-to-be Phil Scott of Vermont.

There’s already a true red conservative in blue New England who gets headlines (sometimes) for the wrong reasons, but deserves credit for substantial reforms on tax cuts, improvement of the state business climate, expansion of Second Amendment rights, and heightened state security.

I am talking about Maine Governor Paul Richard Le Page.

I love this guy. He campaigned on a message of ending bureaucratic entanglements, bringing back jobs, and telling President Obama to “Go to hell!” Once elected, he told off the NAACP when they shamed him for not attending one of their events: “Tell ‘em to kiss my butt!”

LePage won his first term on a slim, five-way plurality. The second time around, he gathered more support. I have been a fan of his since the day he announced his bid for Governor. When I wrote a review on the governor last year (Maine’s Paul LePage: Conservative Kicking Butt), his one-liners alone merited his election. Fellow conservatives in California admitted to ne that they had never heard of him. Yes, this praise is strange coming from a conservative in a cozy, crime-free section of Los Angeles California, but Governor LePage’s commands a bravery—and bravado—which should be celebrated on a national scale.

Even though he has never worked with an entirely Republican legislation in the blue state of Maine, LePage has signed off on tax cuts, welfare reform, and shall-issue for concealed-carry weapons permits.

Then I read the latest headlines that Governor LePage was stepping down.

What?!

Evidently, LePage made it into the news (again) for conspicuous reasons.

He left an obscene voicemail for state assemblyman Drew Gattine (D-Westbrook):

“Mr. Gattine, this is Gov. Paul Richard LePage,” a recording of the governor’s phone message says. “I would like to talk to you about your comments about my being a racist, you (expletive). I want to talk to you. I want you to prove that I’m a racist. I’ve spent my life helping black people and you little son-of-a-bitch, socialist (expletive). You … I need you to, just friggin. I want you to record this and make it public because I am after you. Thank you.”

Of course, the governor let off more steam, admitting the he wished he could challenge Gattine to a duel and shoot him “right between the eyes.”

First of all, a little context.

The lawmaker allegedly asserted that the governor was a racist because of his welfare reform policies.

LePage adopted a black kid. Racist? Really?!

What does welfare reform have to do with racism? That’s a racist assertion, connecting welfare use (and abuse) with certain people.

Gattine has since disputed the claim that he called LePage a racist.

Second of all … LePage’s tirade was offensive.

To his credit, LePage has pushed the limits of political incorrectness, especially on race.

This is a discussion executives need to tackle, especially in New England, where drug dealing has eroded a once vibrant region of the country. Lest we forget, the retiring Governor Peter Shumlin of Vermont spent the greater part of his State of the State speech discussing the heroin epidemic devastating his own state.

Who is doing most of the dealing? If the criminal element is mostly black or Hispanic, then every state government should investigate the underlying reasons. Is it just race, or are class and cultural elements involved—as is often the case?

Most people are not aware of the New England opioid epidemic, which is ravaging Maine, too. Despite some insensitive remarks about the ethnic background of these evil drug pushers, LePage rightly challenged the press for not exposing this deep problem.

No matter how justified his anger, LePage should not have left that abusive message.

The governor lost his temper, and his statements were patently unacceptable.

He has apologized.

But public pressure has mounted for the governor’s resignation.

A recent Townhall.com article suggested he might do just that:

“I’m looking at all options. I think some things I’ve been asked to do are beyond my ability. I’m not going to say that I’m not going to finish it. I’m not saying that I am going to finish it.”

“If I’ve lost my ability to help Maine people, maybe it’s time to move on.”

My response: He has not lost his ability to serve the Maine community.

Look over his Twitter feed.

Jobs are growing in the Pine Tree State. Check this index for proof.

Maine has languished in economic stagnation for years, until recently.

The Cato Institute reports:

Maine has long been one of the freest states in the country personally and one of the least free economically—the opposite of Alabama. Since 2009, however, the state has gradually improved on economic freedom.

LePage was elected in 2010. Correlation perhaps?

The governor has been an asset, not a liability for Maine and for the country.

His bold stance on issues, coupled with his rags-to-riches upbringing, command respect and should inspire emulation.

Within minutes of hearing of a possible resignation, I contacted the Maine Republican Party and told them to stand by their man.

An hour later, LePage informed the public that he’s staying.

Good for him!

LePage needs to watch his mouth. So does the Republican Presidential nominee. Trump delivers careful policy speeches. His polling rises. LePage can follow the same path to future victories.

Republican governors who fight for their constituents need to know that all of us have their backs and will support their efforts. So, I say to Governor Paul LePage, if he has any aggressive detractors who want him gone, he should respond:

“Tell ‘em to kiss my butt!”