you walk on the other side of the street when you see seedy people coming
you protect your handbag when a group of youths of color approach?
you sit in another subway car if the one you embark on has loud ruffians?
you evaluate a new neighborhood by making assumptions about the neighbors?
you slow down your vehicle when you think that there may be a policeman ahead?
you look twice at the dark-skinned man in a turban boarding the same plane as
you watch the stranger with some trepidation as he walks up your front walkway?
is a natural human condition to prejudge situations. It is one of our best defenses, and is a
natural action that is ingrained in every one of us. Prejudging situations keeps us safe, and
eliminates much random violence and criminality. Profiling, a subset of prejudice, is how we
absolutely protect not just ourselves, but our families.
prejudice in with racism is done all the time to divide us. The narratives
that keep this alive abound on the left.
We are told that prejudice leads to racism, and that we have to fight to
eliminate this sin from ourselves. We
are told that we should not judge racial groups by personal experience or
habit, because we should give everyone the benefit of the doubt. We are told never to profile a person, that
the act itself is evil. We even tell our
security men (TSA) at the airport not to profile anyone. In the same paragraph we are also told that
diversity is our strength. In that
thought, the left also prejudges all white men to be the problem with most of
whole argument against prejudice is crazy!
We are told to eliminate one of our greatest security gifts from God in
order to achieve “Social Justice”. Yet,
these same social justice warriors prejudge “toxic white masculinity”, white
men in general, and white people. They
find great fault with white existence, but find people of color to be
faultless, and clean as driven snow. This
is done with a great deal of prejudice and profiling on their part, driven by
their desire to marginalize white people in particular politically.
is not going away. SJW’s can scream
about it all they want. People of all
colors and backgrounds practice prejudice on a constant basis, and that will
never stop. The “law of the jungle”
states that only the fittest survive, and the fittest pre-judge their
situations on a minute by minute basis.
is a tool. Like all tools, it can be
used for good, or it can be used for evil. Most people use it for good, and
those that use it for nefarious reasons will never stop. Instead of fighting prejudice, we should
embrace the good in it, and continue to point out that there are those that use
the tool as an evil wedge against us all.
wife and I will continue to pre-judge our life’s journey. We proudly wear the badge of prejudiced people. How about you?
was a time when our 2-party system worked.
Both parties, although different in noticeable ways, held the same basic
values at each of their cores. The Constitution
set up the system of government and guaranteed certain rights. The Constitution
has given us separation of powers, so that no one man or group can lord over
all others. This system of separation of powers has worked
well over the years, and afforded us stability that is lacking in most other
world governments. Not only did it give
us inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but amendments
to the document expanded on those rights, making the USA the freest country in
the world. Our economic system,
Capitalism, was never in question, and made our economy the envy of the
world. Our military was admired by our
citizens of every stripe, and either welcomed or feared by our allies and
enemies alike. These core values were
never in question, until lately.
Republican Party still holds these values in their core. Every day they have to battle to ensure that
these values are not trampled upon, but the Democrats are pursuing change to
our way of life that would end America as we know it. AOC and her “squad” promote a toxic mix of
socialism and identity politics, along with a very destructive brand of
environmentalism with “THE GREEN NEW DEAL” and with their social media tools,
are constantly messaging large followings on these topics. These 4 women, along with Bernie Sanders and
Elizabeth Warren have moved the Democrat Party far to the left, embracing government-controlled
health care, the eventual end to most constitutional amendments, and
effectively advocating the destruction of our Constitution. They call for open borders, the dissolution
of ICE, and the welcoming of hordes of people from other less fortunate countries. These people are more than welcome because
they are coming for social benefits, and will vote for those benefits, they
will vote Democrat. In fact, they are
advocating for the destruction of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. They believe that they can create a Socialist
Utopia, with the state controlling every aspect of our lives. This of course, would mean the destruction of
our economy, and the forfeiture of our freedom.
Democrats are currently running for President.
They all are in their own ways advocating for this dangerous form of
political and economic change in our country.
They are doubling down on the divisive strategy of identity politics,
and vilifying all that do not agree with them.
They, along with a good portion of the Democratic Party, have in effect
morphed into something entirely different than their name suggests. Their advocations indicate that the
Democratic Party of yesterday is dead, is just a rotting hulk. The only thing recognizable that is left is
the name. Everything else points to the
party now of record is the Socialist Party, with little to nothing about it
2020 election is to be the most important one we have had since Lincoln. This election will determine whether we will
continue to be a country that values individual freedom, values the economic
freedom of Capitalism, or the tyranny of Socialism. This election will also decide if we are to
remain a country, or with open borders to devolve into nothing more than a
failed experiment. People, our votes
will count. We can vote to keep the
country we love, or to embrace the shackles that will be put upon us by the
party that once was “Democratic”.
My family was Democrat. My father, an honorable man was a Democrat politician. All of my siblings were Democrats. I was a Democrat. In years past Democrats were identified as people that respected everyone’s rights. Growing up in the 60’s was the heyday of Democratic power. JFK’s speech where he passionately plead, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”, was a mantra that we as Democrats fervently and proudly believed. Today, we all are conservative Independents, some registered as Republicans, many as Independents, but no one of us are Democrats anymore, and for good reason!
Fast forward to the first primary debate for the Democrat hopefuls. It was 2 days where we learned a lot about how the Democrat party has morphed into something unrecognizable. These 20+ candidates for the Presidency were advocating a very radical agenda. Open borders, decriminalizing illegal aliens, giving them “free healthcare”, giving all of us single payer health care, making private insurance illegal, embracing abortion to the point that even female trannies can have one for free (would like to see that!), a full-on embrace of identity politics, basic income for all, free college, forgiveness of student loan debt, and many more PC positions. JFK must have been spinning in his grave!
The party now, instead of asking what you can do for your country, is now telling us what they want to do for us. Further, they want to do even more for illegal aliens, who they say are “true Americans”. They want to do it with our money, and they say that we will be happier for it? I think not! In fact, they have just exposed themselves for what they are! They are not of the Democratic Party. They are Socialists and Communists! I hope to God that Khrushchev was wrong, and that we would be conquered from within!
We have a lot of good things happening in our country! The economy is very good. More people are participating in the work force, and minority employment is at all time highs. Wages are gravitating upward for the first time in decades. Our trade deals are being seriously re-negotiated and the effort is showing success. Our porous border is being addressed as best as it can be with a do-nothing congress fighting the President on protections. Bad treaties are being reviewed and re-negotiated, and success is at least hopeful. All this is the result of our President, Donald Trump.
I wonder how these hopefuls expect to win an election? No one that has 1/2 a brain can believe what they espouse. No true American can embrace their values. They have run off the tracks and do not represent America. Instead they simply represent the worst of us, those that expect others to take care of their personal problems, those that come in illegally to our country and expect us to take care of their lives, and those that would take away our freedoms in order to capture and maintain power. This is a defining moment in our country, and I pray that we can survive it!
My wife and I have been chastising ourselves for being
very focused on national politics, to the detriment of what happens
locally. As our penance, we decided to
attend the town hall in our city highlighting our new Los Angeles County
Sheriff. Neither of us knew much about
this man, and our homework on him and local law enforcement issues were sketchy
and incomplete as we entered the venue.
Our new Sheriff is Alex Villanueva. He was a relatively obscure Lt. Deputy Sheriff
that retired in 2018, prior to the election.
He spent 30 years with the department, but never managed large
groups. He never went higher than
Lieutenant in his career, which made him a lower level mid-manager at
best. He was a “dark horse” in the election,
running against incumbent James McDonnell, a seasoned veteran that previously
was Chief of the Long Beach police department and at one time was second in
command of the Los Angeles police force.
That was all we really knew about him when attending the town hall, but
insight into his policies and beliefs became very transparent during the
Q&A session that followed his introduction.
Everyone in attendance was given the option of asking
questions when signing into the event.
Question cards were available and if desired, one could submit one or
more questions for the new Sheriff. Both
my wife and I submitted questions. To
the Sheriff’s credit, he answered every submitted question without hesitation,
and his answers were very telling.
He was asked repeatedly about what his department was
going to do differently to address the growing illegal alien problem. His answer to these questions were firmly in
line with the “California Values Act” passed by the state government giving
cover for all illegal aliens. Simply
stated he said that there are over 1 million “undocumented migrants” in his
jurisdiction, and they are, by his account for the most part law abiding and
productive residents that have rights.
His position is that they need to be treated with the utmost respect,
never put in a position to harbor fears of deportation. In fact, he claims that his policy of respect
makes the job of policing much more effective, because these “undocumented
migrants” will co-operate with the department with information on criminal
activity in their neighborhoods. It was
evident that he sees the illegal alien invasion as a net benefit to our
community, and wholeheartedly supports the Liberal Progressive “California
There were many questions about how he was going to
handle the burgeoning problem of homeless camping out in our
neighborhoods. His position was
unwavering. He stated this; “You talk as
if these people are not yet in your back yards, but they are already
there. We manage the problem with deputies
trained to interact positively with the homeless, working in concert with
social service and mental health personnel to assess the needs of those living
on the street. The big question is what
are you as citizens going to do to make it better for these individuals?” In other words, he bounced the problem back
on us, as if that is where it belonged.
I brought up crime directly to him. Neighborhoodscout.com has put Lakewood CA at
13 in their rating for crime safety.
This means that out of 100 being completely safe, only 13% of USA cities
are less safe than our town. I asked him
what his plan was to reduce the crime rate in our town (Lakewood contracts out
to the Sheriff’s department for police protection). He came up with statistics showing that crime
in Lakewood is down compared to what it was in 2018, but he used annualized
statistics for 2018, and only YTD statistics for 2019. Yes, he compared apples to oranges, and took
a pat on his own back for “community-based policing”, a policy where he will
attempt to hire deputies who live in the same communities where they will be
stationed. In other words, he skirted
over the question to make it go away.
Neither my wife or I voted for the new Sheriff. We voted for the incumbent, as he was doing a
good job of reforming a very corrupt organization where the previous leadership
was actually sent to jail for their activities.
He was the right man for the job, having previously been in charge of
large police organizations, and he was also tough on crime. It came to us that something happened to have
this dark horse succeed in unseating this highly qualified man. Looking into this issue was an eye opener.
It turns out that after the California jungle primary,
where he came in a distant 2nd to McDowell, he went full bore
focusing on the groups that he thought would be most supportive of him. His Liberal Progressive beliefs and his
Latino surname were his strong points.
He lobbied every Hispanic political group he could find, putting himself
up as one of them (his father was Puerto Rican, his mother
Polish-American). He also lobbied every
Democrat Club in Los Angeles County, every Progressive organization with voter
rolls, and pushed hard that he would support all Liberal Progressive ideals
that they held dear, in spite of the Sheriff’s election purportedly being
“non-partisan”. He continually told all
that wanted to hear that he would be an active resister of Trump and the
Federal Government in their efforts to deport illegal alien criminals, making
the LA County Jail system “off limits” to Ice and Homeland Security. He promised to evict them from office space
given to these agencies by Sheriff McDowell.
He became the darling of those that embrace just about everything that
is wrong with California, and that propelled him to his win.
The left is organized and active in California
politics, much more so than Republicans and Conservatives. They fight hard and dirty, and that is their
winning strategy in this state. If we
are to take this state back, we need to have the focus and design to do so, and
that necessitates paying great attention to local politics. We have positive messages, but in order to
win, we need to translate that into understandable sound bites for the public,
and most of all, we need to get out the vote.
If we don’t California, and for that matter the nation will be
permanently transformed into something unrecognizable. Our inaction would produce Liberal Progressive
Socialism, open borders, the end of the nation, and the push for Global
Governance. We have to remember that all
politics starts local. If we ignore that
fact we will lose!
Mr. Mueller spoke to us today. In a nutshell, he cast a dark shadow over the
Collusion theory, indicating that although there was not enough direct evidence
present to indict, there could have been collusion, but that there was not
sufficient evidence to actually make a charge.
With Obstruction, there was in his opinion a clear case for Presidential
obstruction, but no charges were made because a sitting president cannot be
indicted according to Federal law. Then
he made it clear that what he is speaking to is directly contained in his
report, that he would not be making any more statements, but if required, would
only refer to the report itself. His
speech was clearly a political statement, and he invoked the Congress to do
their job. It was an invitation to
impeach, and Jerry Nadler will make sure that does happen.
The report has been out for weeks. We all have had the opportunity to read
it. The first part, Collusion was a wet
noodle. It clearly pointed out that
there was no collusion. The second part,
Obstruction, was a legal work of fiction, showing the President growing weary,
and discussing with his staff ways to shut the “witch hunt” down once and for
all. None of that happened, and for
political reasons, the “witch hunt” went on until its inevitable
conclusion. In effect, no Obstruction
actually happened, but was considered by the President, a man unjustly accused
of crimes that never happened. A
President aware that he was the target of a coup, who wanted to fight back, but
had the realization that doing so would convince the public of alleged guilt to
fictional crimes that would surely lead to impeachment, and one that may have
even been supported in the Senate.
The Mueller team clearly was formed to get the
President, no other reason than that.
Even though they spent much time, treasure and effort to bring him down,
there was nothing there for them to indict, nothing there for them to get their
job done the way the swamp wanted. Now,
with the “Investigation of the Investigators” and the IG report on its way, its
panic time in Washington, and that is exactly why Mr. Mueller spoke in
The swamp desperately wants impeachment, and Jerry
Nadler is a willing accomplice. The
House will impeach, and drag it out before the media until November 2020,
hoping beyond hope that the public will have a tainted view of the President,
and vote Democrat to actually get rid of him.
They know that impeachment is dead on arrival if it goes to the Senate,
so instead it will be a “show trial”.
They are hoping that this circus will divert attention from other
investigations that will be damning to the Democrats if the public pays
attention. With a compliant print and
television media, they may be right, but I give the American public more credit
for common sense than that.
The swamp is terrified that the truth will come out,
and that truth could very well include indictments for many in the bureaucracy,
including Mr. Mueller and his band of merry lawyers. The Clinton Campaign and the DNC will also be
threatened, as they were major players in the investigation and the coup. Democrat Senators and Congressmen will also
be implicated. It will be an interesting
run up to the 2020 election. Fasten your
seatbelts people, this is going to be quite a ride!
The 2015 Paris Agreement was an interesting
exercise. The nations of the world came
together, ostensibly to fight the good fight against climate change. In my opinion, it was a dark Fairy Tale,
designed by Globalists with a more comprehensive idea in mind, something
actually different from the “good fight” that was presented to us
commoners. Our President seemed to see
through the haze of what it was, wealth re-distribution, virtue signaling, and
ultimately globalist governance. He
decided to opt out, and from my perspective, for good reason!
First, the USA was a major contributor to the economic re-distribution. We were in 2020 to start off with $100 billion in tax dollars to be given up for the “cause”, and given to 3rd world countries. In subsequent years we were to increase our contribution from year to year in order to allegedly fund the 3rd worlds effort to comply with establishing a “green economy”. It was called “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”, which sounds a lot like a Karl Marx’s axiom “To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities”.
The objective was to rebalance resources. Developed countries were to give dollars to
the 3rd world (especially the USA) and were to increasingly decline
carbon emissions, so much so that with present technology would put the 1st
world into a declining economic spiral.
On the other hand, the defined 3rd world, with the notable
inclusion of China and India, repositories of the fastest growing economies and
2+ billion people, were actually required to do nothing. They talked about reducing emissions, but in
reality, their emissions are going up exponentially, and there is no end date
in sight for that to stop and reverse itself.
In fact, just in those 2 countries emissions are much higher than in the
rest of the 1st world, but is is the 1st world that would
be sacrificing and paying the economic price.
So this agreement privileges the countries, large and
small, emerging countries under the definition put forth, and severely damages
1st world countries that already have pollution under controls. The Paris convention blames the West for the
world’s problems, but they ignore that the so called “privileged countries are
the most serious threats. This is a
completely lopsided agreement that has no chance of working, especially with
the USA opting out, and Nationalism on the rise in Western Civilization.
The “free riding” is built into the model, not only
with the 3rd world not being held to any accountable standards, but
with the 1st not legally bound to their commitments. In fact, the 1st world for the
most part, even though they give lip service to the accord, are not living up
to the standards they have set for themselves.
Further, technology is not developed enough to actually replace fossil
fuels at this point in time, and so called “Green Energy” as it stands today
will not meet future demands under any circumstance.
So, is there another approach to this goal of “Saving
the Planet”? I seriously doubt it. China and India will continue to grow burning
coal and petroleum. Even the EU, with
most of their countries giving lip service to the agreement are in the process
of building 55 coal fired electric plants.
FYI, the USA has not built any coal fired plants in decades, and is in
the process of retiring 26 coal fired plants in the next few years. That is in the face of getting out of this
failed agreement, and counter to the dialog that globalists are putting
There is also an argument that man’s input into
climate change is significant, but minor to the ebb and flow of that process
that has gone on throughout the history of our planet. A lot of so called “scientific evidence” has
been altered to give credence to the narrative that man is the deciding factor
in climate change. Computer models have
been proven time and time again to have been ineffective in predicting the
future of climate change, and man’s activity as the major imputes to its
swings. Is there a political approach to
this alleged problem? I doubt that there
It is my belief that the US has effectively killed the Paris accord. Even though the EU and others still give it verbal support, without the economic transfer that we were required, it will eventually fall apart. I also doubt that there is sufficient international interest in creating a new agreement, being that Nationalism is on the rise, and people are seeing through the fault lines of the climate change narrative. Further, I believe that as in our own country, individual countries in the 1st world, and some in the 3rd will continue their efforts to keep the environment clean, but it will be an individualistic national effort. Most people on our planet treasure a clean environment. Most people also do not want a 1 world government.
to popular belief in our country, child labor is alive and well in many parts
of the world. Africa, Latin America, Middle
East, Asia and the Pacific are areas where the practice is most evident. The one commonality that these countries have
with each other is poverty. Non-elite
families in these countries have to scrape just to earn enough money for food,
and starvation is often the alternative to either pressing their children into
local labor or actually selling their children into some type of slavery. It is a complex problem that tends to justify
itself out of economic necessity.
are numerous articles on this subject.
The estimates for how many children are participants in the child labor
market vary widely. From what I could
find, they go from 100 million all the way to 218 million as of 2018, being
that there is no official count of child laborers, so these are guesses. Regardless, this is a major problem in 3rd
world countries. Poverty seems to
generate this societal problem.
is the crux of the problem, poverty.
Poverty drives the need for additional income. The exploitation of children is a logical
approach to acquire additional income, but the unintended consequences are
severe. When children are exploited in
the workplace, they have a much higher rate of physical injury, due to the
propensity to be put in dangerous job situations, and their lack of experience
using dangerous tools and lack of PPE’s to protect their health. Young children are put in a position where
they can be permanently damaged physically which will have a direct relationship
on their earning ability later on in life.
some countries, primarily in Africa, children are drafted into the military or
paramilitary groups, with a high rate of mortality. They also are often drafted into the
international sex trade, subject to disease and early death. Those that survive these conditions to
adulthood are then saddled with serious mental health issues.
labor practices also preclude 3rd world societies from economic and
social improvement. Children engaged in
work are not being educated and that perpetuates the cycle of poverty, with no
way out. This is the true moral dilemma of
the practice. With no way out of the
cycle, poverty appears to be a permanent fixture in those affected societies.
is morally reprehensible for child labor to be a permanent fixture. The big question is how to stop this vicious
cycle and give these children and their countries the ability to advance up the
economic and societal ladders to join the rest of the world in peace and
prosperity. We, as citizens in the 1st
world can insist on our retail buyers to only source goods from companies that
do not use child labor. We can crack
down on child sex trafficking and insist on children not being used in
militaries. That would put a dent in the
problem, but the underlying reason for the practice, poverty, would not then in
any way be addressed.
if not all of these countries do not have the assets to fund adequate public schools,
or to offer any government assistance to poor families that would be educating,
rather than working their children. It
points to the need for the international community, possibly the United
Nations, to have a dramatic push to assist these countries in developing their
children through education. Supplanting
family incomes through food distribution in order to make it possible to educate
children for the future, rather than to work them for present needs. Only then would the international community
have an impact on this problem.
the question is, will anything actually get done? Most of these countries that embrace child
labor are corrupt dictatorships or pseudo-democracies that would have little
interest in change, unless it had a direct and immediate benefit to their
income and power. Chances are that any
assistance, if offered, would not trickle down to those that needed it most. With Nationalism on the rise, it would be
doubtful that many countries would be interested in contributing to costly
programs that would have little if any direct benefit to their immediate
national interests. With political
leaders worldwide mostly focused on “short-term” interests, it is doubtful that
this problem will be eradicated any time soon.
Trade protectionism are restrictions on the free flow
of international trade, and it takes on many forms. The intention is to protect a nation’s
economic well-being. It can take the
form of tariffs to protect home industries from foreign competition by levying
fines to make the outside goods less competitive. It can be quotas, which are restrictions of certain
goods that can be imported from other nations.
It can be subsidies, which are payments made by a government to a
private industry, which can be direct cash transfers, lines of credit (low
interest), or government ownership of common stock. Governments can also impose local content requirements
in order to internalize at least a portion of the manufacturing of the finished
good. Rules and regulations can also be
put in place by governments to make it next to impossible for imports to enter
the country. Antidumping policies can be
enforced to prevent other nations from selling their oversupply of goods at
below the cost of manufacturing. Currency
manipulation is also a method of restricting imports while lowering the cost of
a nation’s exports, much like what China does today.
All of these methods restrict free international
trade, some for good reason, and many just to protect inefficient industry in
their own country. Politicians use
reasons like “protecting our legacy industries” in order to sell the idea. They also sell trade restrictions on the
basis of national interest, protecting industries that support the military
complex, thus making it a matter of national defense. Administrative trade policies are often
initiated on the argument that it protects the safety and health of consumers,
and so to anti-dumping policies are also sold to the electorate as some sort of
protection from unfair foreign competition.
The consequence is that consumers pay more for
less. The politicians that implemented
these restrictions usually get re-elected because they did their job of selling
the policies in question as a net “benefit” to the electorate, protecting
health, safety, national defense, or a variety of other reasons left to the
creative processes of these same political actors. Other possibly unintended consequences are
inflation cause by currency manipulation, trade wars, and infant or legacy
industries that intentionally do not modernize for efficiency because of
Most economists believe that these types of
protectionist activities do more harm than good. Few economists agree with President Trumps
contention that tariffs can be used exclusively for bargaining chips to
eventually lower most if not all trade barriers. Time will tell if President Trump is right, but
so far, he has re-negotiated NAFTA to the mutual benefit of all involved, has
China close to a rightly needed agreement on fair trade, and has the EU coming
somewhat closer to the negotiating table.
If he loses this bet it could cost him the election in 2020. A side-note is that congress has to ratify
these re-negotiated agreements, and the Democrat House is refusing to put the
re-negotiated NAFTA agreement on the floor for a vote in order to stop the
President from having a political victory before the 2020 election.
Samuel Clemens visited the land called Palestine. He found it to be a desolate place, with very
few humans and with lands devoid of any useful purpose. In fact, his assessment was very
insightful. Palestine at that time was
not a nation, but simply a place holder for the Ottoman Empire, where nomads
traversed through, going from one point to another in the Middle East. There were few cities and the area was
lightly populated. An Ottoman census at
that time put the population of the area at approximately 400,000 souls.
there never was a Palestinian state. The
only self-governing state on that land was Israel itself before it was
conquered, and up until 1948, the area was conquered and controlled by outside
political actors, the last one being the British. So, if there never was a self-ruled country
called Palestine, what is this conflict all about?
conflict is mostly about religion. Sure,
there are other factors like ethnic, national, and historical, but religion is
the biggest stumbling block. Both of
these religions are apocalyptic.
Fundamentalists on the Islamic side believe that Jerusalem is the place
where the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven, and therefore needs to be under
Muslim control to protect its sanctity.
Likewise, Jewish fundamentalists are avid in their claim for the city,
stating that the city is sacred to them as the original capital of historic
Israel, and home to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall, both highly
sanctified sites in Judaism. From both
fundamentalist sides of this conflict, Jerusalem is indivisible.
We also have
to explore the apocalyptic side of the conflict. Muslim fundamentalists believe that Israel
and Palestine need to be under the control of Islam before the end of
days. This is clearly stated in their
Hadith, and implied in the Qur’an.
Likewise, Jewish Fundamentalists believe that the biblical land of
Israel needs to be completely restored before their Messiah comes. Once again, the nasty head of indivisibility
rears its ugly head.
the past has been amenable to a 2-state solution, but the Palestinians have not
been interested. Hamas has taken a hard
line on this issue. However, I believe
that the Palestinians are overstating their adamance on this issue. Jared Kushner is about to propose autonomy
for the Palestinians, where economic concessions and self-governance will be
offered them within the confines of the Jewish state itself. His thought is that since both the Israeli’s
and the Palestinians want the same land, this would be a suitable
compromise. This will have the full
support of both Israel and the USA.
However, Hamas is funded by Iran, a fundamentalist country hell bent on
the total destruction of Israel. The
plan, although given some support by Palestinians, has seen that same support
fade with the announcement that the USA is building a new Embassy in Jerusalem.
heads prevail, and give this new plan the attention it deserves? In my estimation, probably not. History looks to repeat itself with
failure. There are just too many
obstacles to overcome. Although fundamentalists
on both sides are in the minority, their voices are loud and their actions can
quickly turn violent. Additionally, with
Iran in the mix, success seems even less likely.
I remember back in the late 1980’s,
when I was a National Account Manager for a company that sold products to Home
Centers, Big box retailers, and Paint stores.
At that time there was a big push to put all production into China. The likes of Home Depot, Lowes, Walmart,
Target and other big retailers had massive meetings with all their vendors,
threatening to “knock off their products if they didn’t eventually produce them
in China, and then pass the savings on to them”. If it were humanly possible, companies
formed partnerships with Chinese manufacturers and made their products in
China, shutting down their domestic production operations. This was commonplace, and was the only way
for many companies to stay in business.
At the same time, other companies
that made capital equipment, electronics and other types of products saw the advantage
of using cheap Chinese labor to make their products and rushed into China to
cash in on the cheap labor. They had to
transfer technology and form a partnership with Chinese firms to do so, and
they willingly accepted the terms forced upon them. They also thought that they were paying the
price to enter what would potentially be the biggest market in the world, and
that cherry was too enticing to pass up!
Chinese hacking was and still is in
play. The Chinese have stolen military
secrets, including technology to build hi-tech military planes and
warships. They have also stolen product
manufacturing information on many varieties of US products that have had great
“value added” benefits in the marketplace.
They also have been paying American citizens in places of power for
technology transfers, and this has been an ongoing theme. The theft of American technology by the
Chinese is epidemic, and has cost the USA as much as $600 billion annually,
according to the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property.
Obviously, something needs to be
done. Other administrations have avoided
any confrontation with China for various reasons, but mostly because companies
wanted the cheap labor to be more competitive.
It reached a point where we were potentially losing more than we were
gaining and President Trump decided to act.
He did so in a very unconventional manner, using a strategy that he was
firmly criticized for. Many economists
and Progressive politicians were firmly against using tariffs, and they painted
dire consequences for us if he used this to promote behavior change with trade.
The President decided that he had to
act. He used tariffs to get the
attention of China. He realized that
their countries economy was built by and remained tied to high growth that was
the result of exports. He applied
targeted tariffs to products that would get their attention, and it
worked. They retaliated with tariffs of their
own, but since the balance of trade was in their favor, their tariffs had
little effect on our economy. In
retrospect, our tariffs had the opposite effect.
Our imports from them are the most
robust of all their trading partners. We
import almost $500 billion in goods from China, which is close to 20% of all
their exports. (www.worldstopexports.com/chinas-top-import-partners) The tariffs are
starting to take their toll! “Exports
from China tumbled 20.7% year-on-year to USD 135.2 billion in February 2019,
the most since February 2016 and far worst than market expectations of a 4.8%
decline, amid weakening global demand, ongoing trade tensions with the US, and
a series of lunar New Year holidays which started in February.” (HTTPS://tradingeconomics.com/china/exports)
It looks increasingly like this deal
will pan out much the same way as the NAFTA negotiation. Trade between the two countries will be
fairer, and will most likely benefit both the US and China. Bad practices on the part of China will be
curtailed, and a sense of respect will be a requirement on both sides. Intellectual theft will be curtailed, and no
longer will there be a requirement for companies to turn over patented
information in order to penetrate the Chinese market. This has the potential for both countries to
benefit, and with more economic intertwining, it will also dampen the march to
a new “Cold War”.
As a retired person, I don’t think
this turn of events will have a direct impact on my personal life, but it will
on my children and grandchildren. With a
fair-trade policy, and closer ties with this rival, my people will have the
opportunity to thrive economically in this new environment. They will also have a level of tension
lowered, so that they will not necessarily worry about conflict with this
growing powerhouse of a country that will be a big player with international
politics in the future. This is a great
policy for America, and a great policy for China. Everyone wins, and tensions are reduced. I look forward to this deal coming to
fruition in the next 4 to 8 weeks.
HTTPS://tradingeconomics.com/china/exports “Exports from China
tumbled 20.7% year-on-year to usd 135.2 billion in February 2019, the most
since February 2016 and far worst than market expectations of a 4.8% decline,
amid weakening global demand, ongoing trade tensions, with the US and a series
of lunar New Year holidays which started in February.”