Please bear with us a few more days and the site will be back to normal. After severe hacking from political enemies over a few years, it finally took the site down again for a month, but it’s back up now and we’re slowly adding features back bit by bit, in order to ensure that none of the malicious coding is being let back in. If you are an IC writer, the url to post your articles has been changed back to intellectualconservative.com/wp-login.
|
||||||
|
Cheeky Observations by George Handlery. Balanced budget. Officially ignoring unbalanced government accounts that bathe in red ink are the fundament of the moment’s “stability”. Except for the day dreamers, we know that the crashing end at the wall of reality nears. The European Central Bank used to purchase monthly € 80 billion worth of bonds that no one would buy with his own money to support the wobbly edifice. Newly, this has been reduced to 60 billion. In part the coming crisis has to do with government deficits. They are, so all admit, to be reduced. There are four ways to deal with the deficit. Note that only the last two items are likely to be attempted –except in countries under “deviant” management. 1.Spend what you have. 2. Spend less so that, what you have, suffices. 3. Spend more and tax more. 4. Spend more and make debts –meanwhile feel good about the postponed reckoning. About the last two approaches: Financially not quantifiable benefits result if you are one of those that govern. You can assure your political survival by bribing voters using their own money. Furthermore, well-paid “cousins” who regulate what works well if let alone, remain employed. Can you be surprised? One of your correspondent’s German-language Sunday papers has an interview with a “famous American journalist”. Like the rest of the Moët-sippers in gated communities he is “upset”. (It is Trump and trumpism!) He reads the Guardian (a left-liberal British paper), the New York Times, and the Washington Post because he enjoys the “diversity”. At the same time the man bemoans that “we” have lost the majority of the population and that “right-wing extremist” news sources have filled the credibility gap. Is it all clear now? Troubling it might be, but at the same time it is also amusing, how not only the US’ Left Coasts but also official Europe responds to the Trump presidency. Ritual condemnations of Trump are becoming a favorite past-time of the “scribe-class”. Cursing the POTUS is a hard-to-avoid daily fare of the media. The predicted doom, forecast by besides-themselves experts, might have an unintended result. Even if Trump delivers only a fraction of his promises, he will appear to be a major success. Meanwhile, those that accuse Trump’s of “extremism” are drifting, encouraged by their like-minded surroundings, into mindless outrage. A sign of that is that “Hollywood”, driven by its orchestrated fashionable compulsory outrage, is sending messages that voice sympathy for Islam. As in the case of arm-chair Marxists –an earlier season’s fashionable requirement of liberalism- it happens without perusing either the “Capital” or the Koran. Rightly so: It is easier to like something for what you imagine it to be than to cope with the facts. Do not check it if its sounds good. Even if you might have felt that some of the President’s original travel ban’s details were “loose”, the tantrum-induced arguments of European critics’ fly like penguins. Straight faced, the experts tell us that the ban will augment Muslim hostility. Unless you suffer from amnesia, you can project the past into the present. Those doing so will wonder how the past’s extremism can be bumped up. Islamist radicals are waging with all their means the most intense war they can conduct. Pray tell, how can “total war” be raised to a higher level? The claim fails on the battle field of logic even if it brings benefits to those that raise it. The subliminal message is that America is to be blamed for future terrorism. Furthermore, since some in Europe prefer to protect themselves by being “nice”, that crowd hopes that appeasement earns a bonus of shielding brownie points. Pursue symbols to avoid reality. Obviously, ideologically unfitting “extremism” is difficult to accept for what it is. Take this bit of news to make your head shake. “Police in Australia allege that the suspect… shouted “Allah Akbar”,… but warned that there was no indication that the assault was motivated by extremism”. The pattern is repeated in other cases when a killer invokes Allah and the incident cannot be hidden from the “immature” public. The official rendition of the event mentioned questioned the role of extremism in it. Apparently moderation is taking on the habit of expressing itself through unrestrained violence. More shadow-boxing. To liberals, the world can become a better place by not reporting migrant related sex crimes. In Germany only ten per cent of these appear in manicured accounts. Thereby the size of the problem is difficult to assess for the citizen who is kept in an artificial fog: The police is instructed to exclude clues that betray the migrant status of culprits. Completing the shroud of silence is that the media is asked not to post pictures that confirm popular “prejudices”. Sometimes the genie is let out of the bottle by those that can afford the racist charge, such as a recently retired Swedish cop. Once safe, he disseminated a piece to bemoan that the criminals are called Selim, Mohamed and Hassan. Only here and there had he to do with a Swedish name. In response people placed flowers before the station where he served. Promptly, photographing was prohibited. While reality is filtered, artificial problems that fit the “party line” are boldly tackled. Norway’s Workers’ Party wishes to enlarge the zone of liberty. Therefore, passport applicants should have the option to avoid the –for liberals limiting- “male” or “female” designation. For those that do not feel to belong to those outdated and restrictive genders, a neutral square to check is to be provided. It sounds like a public opinion survey with “yes/no/undecided” options. PC lets the feeble to capitulate and feel good about it. A German court has ruled that seven Islamists on a vigilante patrol to enforce Sharia law in Wuppertal, did not break German law. No, they were only exercising their right to free speech. Apparently unlike the intimidated victims sporting an improper appearance. The PC decision effectively authorizes a Sharia Police to enforce Islamic law. The kow-tow is to be included into a handbook “Do it Yourself Castration Self-Taught”.. Insight derived. Annihilation must not follow from a battle field defeat. It can begin with the adaptation of ideologies that tell you that there is nothing to defend. First the plea is made that there is no achievement to protect. Second, the pretention follows that the seemingly assertive foe is actually a misunderstood friend who only tries to make us accept him as an equal. All things are relative, you know. A point that responds to the inundation by folks that reject the defining features of the protecting host’s system –except for its welfare payments- needs to be made. Tolerance of that condition is not only unfair by ignoring “basics” but also dangerous. Human communities coalesce and function when a “magnet” holds them together which invokes to a generally felt bond. Besides laws –good laws express existing shared sentiments- there must be something valued and shared. That creates loyalties that go beyond ordinances. You might put it this way: A people is presupposed. Voluntary allegiance is the grease that allows the wheels of successful communities to rotate. Globalist elites, with roots in abstractions, attempt to govern without relying on this, to them suspect, factor. Conveniently, while penning this, a Social Democrat in charge of integration in Germany, came up with an “interesting” recommendation. Everyone present in the country should be allowed to vote. The “Travel Ban” –once more. Those that object to the “ban”, which is actually a “suspension”, call it immoral. They pretend to do so because it lists seven, mainly Muslim countries. Tell the White House that there might be an easy way to get around this criminal prejudice. Insert into the list the Vatican and Monte Carlo. Senseless, but it will momentarily confuse “liberals” who are, in actual fact, due to their perennially bamboozled state of mind, merely capitulationists
We Americans are inundated with constant reminders of the importance of ‘tolerance for those different from you’; the utmost importance of inclusion; of acceptance… However, it has become abundantly clear that these words, seemingly regarded as mantras for the left, all represent perfect examples of hypocrisy at it’s finest across the nation at any given moment, during any given news cycle, and it’s incredibly bizarre to find almost no leadership or members of the media willing to point out this obvious fact of reality. If tolerance is an attribute the people really do consider of the utmost importance, it is unfortunately far from self-evident. The platforms exist so that users may drop the first few words or thoughts that pop into their minds, if they so choose (for the sake of humor, or in attempt at provoking thought and healthy debate) and yet I hear it’s unacceptable to discuss politics from those whose opinions fail to align with those of our own. Isn’t that what free speech is all about? Of course, our right to free speech by no means safeguards that speech from being judged poorly or just simply pissing people off. I really detest when some preach hate or defend abusive speech or behavior with the “I have rights” argument. Our rights to free speech were and are meant solely to protect us from government scrutiny over independent thought. Of course, anyone reading this has the right to choose whether or not to cast judgment on me for my political leanings. However, it seems that even stating one’s well-intended opinions with what they believe to be the best interest of this country in their hearts have become fair game – if those opinions differ from what’s culturally en vogue, intolerance for those opinions abounds. Liberalism was once the beacon of tolerance in this country – however, the facts of the matter are, regardless of your stance, liberals have moved far from a position of tolerance; often absolutely refusing to hear any other perspectives had by fellow Americans. Conservatives – particularly those on the fringes of right wing – are obviously guilty of the same. It seems to be quite popular, particularly around election time, for the inevitable and overwhelming numbers of “safe” social media updates intent on skewering those who use the platform for initiating thoughtful dialogue or debate, or to simply to raise awareness on certain perspectives of a given issue. Instead, self-assigned “social media police” insist on allowing their delicate sensibilities to dictate the content to which they can or cannot be exposed. It’s remarkably bold to preach to others what to discuss or say in a public forum! Americans would do right by eagerly familiarizing themselves with all perspectives; and, to learn to appreciate those who use the platforms in order to evoke critical thought. It seems so bizarre that people would want to silence those who voice their thoughtful opinions regarding very serious matters which affect us all so deeply. By now, it should be no secret many Americans are dangerously uneducated and uninformed. Perhaps some accountability could potentially be established through honest dialogue and the willingness to engage in respectful, thoughtful debate in the hopes some semblance of equal ground might be reached. The politicians of this country are clearly not going to provide we the people a responsible path to American unity. With a partisan divide so immense as with what we are dealing, I find that to be reprehensible. Consider the fact that we have the greatest partisan divide in decades or more between two sides which consist of vast multitudes of embarrassingly uninformed people. These people are just running around mad! Everyone’s mad! Why, you ask? Because of a total lack of the very popular, widely claimed, yet clearly elusive “tolerance”. It’s abundantly clear that those who desire to educate themselves on many perspectives, even on matters with which we fail to agree, are less likely to fall victim to blind ignorance or the inability to provide insights beyond well-known talking points doled out among party leaders, celebrity, and pop culture icons. Be your own man or woman. It may well be the very key to rediscovering the true meaning of “tolerance”; which sadly no longer exists – contrary to the constant, perpetual references to the importance it supposedly plays in the dialogue and narratives which continue to divide our citizenry. I am not an Immigrant. I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
By Dr. Phil Taverna
It is always funny to hear the loony left make up their spins. Like abortion. It is a women’s right to abort the baby. And the baby can’t survive outside the womb. Hey, at nine months they can’t survive outside the womb. Some of these kids at 18 can’t survive outside the womb.
So by 1830 there were about 13 million folks in the United States and about 143,000 immigrants over 10 years so that averages out to about 14,300 per year. So the country had 13 million people. That probably included everyone, slaves, non-slaves, citizens and non-citizens. So by 1830 most of the citizens were not immigrants. My grandparents came over between 1890 and 1910. They were immigrants. And they were quick to become citizens. They worked and raised large families. And all those families were not immigrants. They were born to citizens of the United States. Those children grew up and had children. Again all U.S. citizens and not a one an immigrant. Most of the parents probably never saw another country. Maybe Canada if they were lucky.
So the liberals want to paint another false picture. We are all immigrants. Does anyone agree with them? Think about it, in 1830 we were only taking in about 14,300 immigrants a year. Today Obama and the liberals want to take in millions of immigrants a year.
There is always talk about Lady Liberty that protects the New York Harbor. First off for the loons it is not on Ellis Island. Ellis Island is where legal immigrants were processed to get into the country. In some cases they were given difficult tests. Like can they put a round peg in a square hole.
Many liberals like to talk about the Statute of Liberty as the hostess with the mostest, inviting all immigrants to this country. That is not actually true. It was a gift from France as a thank you representing independence and liberty. Thus the name is the Statue of Liberty. The island is now called Liberty Island.
Many years ago my dad and friends rowed a boat to the Statue of Liberty. The guard there kicked them off. Must have thought they were from Cuba. And they almost lost their lives in a storm. So much for Liberty.
So they never called it the Statute of Immigration. But the liberals would like to call it that. There was a Museum of Immigration on Liberty Island. It closed and was moved to Ellis Island. Well after all, that is the island of past and legal immigration.
So its kind of funny how did we get from 14,300 immigrants a year to millions a year.
Some illegal, some legal, some documented with Visas. Some seeking bogus asylum and refugee status. Just the other day it was revealed that Obama was taking Muslim unvetted refugees from Australia, and they were getting Christian refugees.
It will be fun to talk about all the stupid things that Obama tried to do. Lets see, we are a Christian nation. So if given a choice which set of immigrants do you think Obama should have accepted. Fact of the matter, Australia didn’t want them, why should we take them.
There are different kinds of Visas mentioned in President Trumps executive order which has been deemed a travel ban.
It appears that the visas canceled by the U.S. were diplomatic visas. Connected to NATO, UN and other diplomatic purposes. So again we are hit with fake news. Why would we want to accept diplomats from countries who are not friendly to the USA. And if you dig deeper, these are not really useful visas. These are political visas that are allowed as a courtesy to other countries to allow important people to move to the United States. Do we really want that. And if the Trump administration barred this for 120 days why would Chuck and Nancy think it is unconstitutional, It may be unconstitutional to the Global constitution. But the Democracy of the United States has a right to pick and choose who they allow to become citizens in this country. The concept of open borders only exists in the minds of liberals. None of these Visas were work visas. So why are there so many people without work visas trying to come to this country?
No one ever talks about the state of affairs in these chaotic countries. A) Do you really want these people in our country. B) Do you really trust the vetting if the whole process is political.
My thought is that we should never allow refugees. illegals, legals to immigrate to this country from countries that are in chaos. You don’t know who they are. And this policy encourages the chaos to continue. If all the good people are allowed to come to the United States then you leave a county in more chaos. Do you really want someone who has lived in a refugee camp for several years. It would make more sense to wait until this person figures out how to make their way to Germany. Let them live there for at least 5 years. Then if their record is clean and we really need more people to fill out our Medicaid, Medicare roles. We need more people to go on welfare because they don’t have a job. Or we need more people to work for less pay to drive down the American cost of living. Then we would allow these people in.
And all these folks should have only 6-8 years to become a citizen of the United States. And there is no 7 years of not paying taxes. We will waive that right in countries the U.S. citizens are allowed to make money as tax exempt. In other words there is a reciprocal agreement with other countries to allow U.S. citizens in for 7 years without paying taxes. And they expect the same in return. That should be revoked, so we can charge immigrating folks the same tax that all citizens are paying.
After 6-8 years, the visas and green cards should be revoked and they can emigrate the hell out of this country.
We don’t need workers. And we don’t need welfare recipients. So lets tie the amount of legal immigration allowed to the unemployment numbers, national deficit and Number of folks on disability and Welfare.
If they are coming here with bags of money to invest in this country great. If they are coming here to become another system sucker… Do we really need them? The liberals would call this diversity and all inclusive. You should call it BS.
We need citizens who will invest in this country. And become citizens and not immigrants. If you don’t become a citizen the liberals will claim we are a country of immigrants. Even back in 1776 very few people were immigrants. Every 20-30 years the immigrants give rise to citizens who are no longer immigrants.
Once the anchor baby rule is re-interpreted, then only natural born citizens will come only from United States Citizens! Not from illegals and all other walks of life that are not welcomed in this country.
We the People as a Democracy should decide who and when we allow people to enter this country and when they need to leave! Obama and the liberals want open borders. The majority of our American Democracy has never believed in open borders. And that is why President Trump was elected. If they wanted open borders and partial birth abortions, they would have voted for Hillary!
YourDemocracyChange.Com
This is an update on a earlier posting.
As a retired military veteran, it has caused great concern to me and countless others what this government had done to veterans in the area of health care. Those that are disabled and need to go to the VA are routinely ignored, or given appointments up to six months in advance, or totally ignored all together.
Lawsuit History:
Tricare for Life, first incorporated in 2001 as part of the Managed Care Support Contracts in 2001. It was enacted by Congress to complaints to assist in the payment of rising out of pocket costs to veterans and did not require retirees to pay for Medicare. Te small clause that is not discussed by Congress, once again is the mandatory purchase of Medicare Part B to be eligible for Tricare for Life. So although there is not cost for Tricare for Life there is a cost involved.
https://www.change.org/p/president-trump-veterans-benefits, sign this petition and let veterans know that we have their back.  A deluded ideologue’s willing to sacrifice life and limb for a progressive cause All of me – Why not take all of me Can’t you see I’m no good without you Take my lips I want to loose them Take my arms I’ll never use them Your goodbye left me with eyes that cry How can I go on dear without you… From the movie theme of “All of Me” (1984) Given the generally unhinged and hysterical state of today’s vanquished progressives, it’s singularly appropriate that a dark interpretation of the title song from a 1984 movie would suddenly come to bear. With President Trump’s Supreme Court nomination of the eminently qualified Neil Gorsuch, 49, their squirrelly thoughts shift wildly to the future loss of crone Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 83. Compare the above stanza with the following disjointed rant exemplified by The Washington Post’s Rachel Manteuffel: “I’ve found myself thinking about you lately, and how things are going with you, and I just wanted you to know that I … have some tokens of my esteem that you might enjoy. Such as blood. If you have any need for blood, you can have the eight or so units of A-positive that are right here in my body. There’s also a gently used liver in here, lobes of it just lying around if you need them…. Do you like platelets? I have excellent platelets. I have had all my shots. … My kidneys function well. I have two. Either one is yours for the taking. Both, if need be. … I have scads of nerves that you can have. Just take them. My skin would graft onto you beautifully. Bones, stem cells, a whole eyeball I don’t need, feet of intestines, feet. Just a ridiculous amount of health, way more than should rightly belong to someone with my standing in the world.” Ms. Manteuffel also specifies her large heart to be trimmed to fit Justice Ginsburg’s diminutive size. This frankly gory element brings to mind another ‘body parts’ film, “The Silence of the Lambs” (1991) (released synchronistically on Valentine’s Day). Specifically, how is one not graphically reminded of Jame Gumb’s basement lair of kidnapped and skinned women, or Hannibal Lecter, when Manteuffel suggests: “If you need to keep me on life support in your house, just in case, while you slice off any bits that appeal to you, that is totally fine and my loved ones will understand. … We have discussed it.” Ah, what would Dr. Lecter say about that conversation? In any case, notice the conspicuous absence from the rambling list of human anatomy: this scribbler’s brain. Is that because Manteuffel knows Ms. Ginsburg has no use for such an inferior organ? Or does this Post employee use her gray matter so infrequently that it never occurs to her to offer it? Indeed, her opinion piece is so bizarre she should be known henceforth as Macabre Manteuffel! “MM” would greatly benefit from reading “On Death and Dying” (1969) by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. Within, the five stages of grief resulting from an unexpected loss (read: the 2016 presidential election) are detailed. Philosophically, Manteuffel is stuck at stage three, known as bargaining. Still, the ultimate goal of any grieving process is acceptance. That means intensive therapy, though not with “Hannibal the Cannibal”. This deluded ideologue will need to keep all of her body parts to get there. David L. Hunter is an Associate Editor at “Capitol Hill Outsider.” He’s on Twitter and blogs at davidlhunter.blogspot.com. He is published in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, “FrontPage Mag,” and extensively in “Patriot Post,” “Canada Free Press” and “American Thinker.”
Obama is proud of his record. “I am — not to brag — but I have transformed the federal courts from a diversity standpoint with a record that’s been unmatched,” he said. That is mostly true. A scholar of judicial appointments, Sheldon Goldman, observed that “The majority of Obama’s appointments are women and nonwhite males.” Though only 43 percent of his appointments were women, the former president appointed 11 openly gay judges, more than 10 times as many than any other president. (President Clinton appointed lesbian Deborah Batts as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1994.) Why does this matter? Everyone focuses on the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court hears fewer than 100 cases a year. The lower federal courts handle about 135,000 per year. The vast majority of cases decided by the lower courts become law in their respective circuits. A liberal bench there means a huge number of liberal decisions affecting almost every aspect of American life.  Drain the Washington swamp of Obama cronies President Trump rightfully fired former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates for “acting out”. Still, this holdover should not have been permitted to stay in office in the first place. Likewise, all Obama flunkeys—still entrenched in the federal government’s bureaucracy—need to be immediately terminated. That’s easily accomplished with one executive order to pink-slip all residual Obama political appointments. How many remain like troublemaker Yates, or a radical like former Obama Defense Department official Rosa Brooks? For her part, Ms. Brooks publicly advocated “a military insurrection” to compel two-week Trump from office. How is a coup not on par with nutty singer Madonna’s call to “blow up the White House”? That’s not free speech, that’s un-American sedition. Why is it that Obama’s minions, and Hollywood limousine liberals, only appreciate democracy when it falls their way? As much as Trump’s style may be grating or unorthodox, what he stands for is apple pie Americanism. Indeed, this America First president is a pragmatist and a populist. He wants to curtail government red tape, intrusion and overreach. For example, he approved the Keystone XL pipeline and wants to champion domestic industry. Thus, how is ensuring American energy independence—while simultaneously providing well-paying blue-collar jobs—something for progressives to get hysterical about? To them, is being an unapologetic pro-American capitalist suddenly an impeachable offense? The only measure that mattered in the 2016 election was the Electoral College. In that result, the voice of the American people was crystal clear. Obama’s failed policies—and his heir apparent—are out. For many good reasons, Republicans now dominate all branches of government. Emasculated Democrats must similarly expel these fringe elements from their ranks. If they continue their obstructionist path, they risk further voter alienation and long-term political irrelevancy. That’s what they should really fear: being the minority party in perpetuity. David L. Hunter is an Associate Editor at “Capitol Hill Outsider.” He’s on Twitter and blogs at davidlhunter.blogspot.com. He is published in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, “FrontPage Mag,” and extensively in “Patriot Post,” “Canada Free Press” and “American Thinker.”
Even the saber-rattling threat to employ tariffs is so effective that it intimidates any nation who may harbor thoughts of fleecing the U.S. In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution the Founding Fathers gave Congress the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations.” The Framers encouraged sanctions, duties, and fees as legitimate revenue-raising measures: the second bill signed by President George Washington was legislation establishing tariffs; President James Madison proposed a five percent duty on all imports; Thomas Jefferson admonished Congress in 1806: “We ought not to depend on supplies from other countries. Shall we suppress imposts [tariffs] and give that advantage to foreign over our own domestic manufacturers?” Targeted import taxes allow domestic start-up companies to compete on a level playing field with state-subsidized foreign corporations. Case in point: Brazil produces nearly half of the world’s sugar and uses that status as leverage to manipulate the market. According to Britain’s Financial Times, the Brazilian government plans to underwrite its sugar industry to the tune of $1 trillion over the next ten years. Tariffs, quotas, and embargoes also protect American manufacturers from foreign goods produced by forced labor and in sweatshops that “employ” children. In 2016, the Department of Labor identified 139 products from 75 countries using such practices. New and higher tariffs would help finance a cut in income tax as candidate Donald Trump promised. If the price of some imports rise, trimming consumer tax bills would be a nice trade-off. Conservative ideologues who fear using tariffs should note that Ronald Reagan levied a 100 percent tariff on selected Japanese electronics, a 50 percent tax on Japanese motorcycles being dumped on the U.S. market, and put quotas on Japanese auto imports, steel, and machine tools. He was an America-first free trader. The failure to use tariffs effectively has resulted in a $58 billion trade deficit with Mexico. The U.S. trade deficit with China currently stands at $367 billion. China is flooding American markets with cheap goods but pays just about three percent on its exports – Mexico averages 0.1 percent! Last year, the U.S. charged $34 billion (1.5 percent) in duties and fees on $2.2 trillion in imports. This is a crises that needs to be addressed: our total trade deficit amounts to $539.8 billion, up from $508.3 billion just two years ago, and shows no sign of tapering off. According to the Economic Policy Institute, between 2001 and 2015, there were 3.4 million fewer jobs for American workers due to mounting trade deficits. President Trump wants to raise the admission fee for the privilege of doing business with the U.S. In doing so, he has proven to have an ear for Middle America’s concerns.
The Wall Street Journal estimates that by 2025, the Trans-Pacific Partnership will increase the U.S. trade deficit in auto assembly and car parts by $55.8 billion a year. “Free” (not fair) trade policies have American autoworkers competing against Vietnamese laborers who earn a minimum wage of 56 cents an hour. TPP is a sweetheart deal for a powerful cabal of political globalists, Wall Street moguls, and multi-national corporate elites – the One Percent – who set in place international trade rules promoting their trademarks, copyrights, and patents abroad, and protecting their franchise agreements, securities, and loans. Incredibly, the Trans-Pacific Partnership was cobbled together in secret: 600 corporate “trade advisors” (read lobbyists) were consulted by Obama administration trade techies, but the treaty draft was withheld from Congress, governors, state legislators, the press, and the public. In an appearance on the Bill Moyers TV program, Dean Baker, director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, stated: “TPP really is a deal that’s negotiated by corporations for corporations and any benefit it provides to the bulk of the population of this country will be purely incidental.” The shock and awe reaction to President Trump’s threat of imposing new and higher tariffs is simply political posturing. The International Trade Commission lists over twelve thousand specific tariffs the U.S. imposes on imports. Some Republicans shout “trade war” at any hint of an America-first trade policy. However, economist Ian Fletcher, author of Free Trade Doesn’t Work, states:
International trade is not a competitive contest, it’s a geopolitical war. To defend America on the economic battlefield, Washington, Hamilton, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and every Republican president up to Eisenhower understood the use of tariffs as weapons. The U.S. is the largest market on planet Earth, so we have the high ground. President Donald Trump has now joined the fight – we should have his back.
|
||||||
|
Copyright © 2017 Intellectual Conservative - All Rights Reserved Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa |
||||||
A tariff is a sharp edged tool used to carve out the best trade deals for America. It is used to raise the price of imported goods as a defense against unfair competition from foreign markets. And like any other tax, a tariff doesn’t have to be universal or permanent: it can be limited, lowered, raised, imposed, and repealed as needed.
The 6,000-page Trans-Pacific Partnership deal is the largest trade treaty in U.S. history. TPP mandates would force the U.S., Brunei, Vietnam, Mexico, Malaysia, and other Pacific nations into a one-size-fits-all trade policy. The arrangement even encompasses such non-trade issues as food safety standards, Internet traffic regulations, restrictions on generic medications, and foreign supervision of U.S. financial transactions.
Recent Comments