There 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.

The 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. 

24 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 Democratic. 

The 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 Values Act”. 

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 public. 

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!


Image result for 2015 Paris accord images

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 forward. 

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 is. 

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. 


Contrary 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.

There 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.

That 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. 

In 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.

Child 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. 

It 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. 

Most 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.

Now 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.


Image result for pictures of protectionist trade

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 artificial protection.

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.


Palestinians riot on the Gaza border, April 12, 2019. (Hassan Jedi/Flash90)
Palestinians rioting recently at the Gaza border April 12, 2019

In 1867, 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.

In fact, 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?

This 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. 

Israel in 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.

Will cooler 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.


Map of China

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)

Contrary to the “experts”, this strategy is working.  China is hard at work negotiating a fair-trade deal with the US.  Trump says that this trade deal has “a very good chance of happening”.  “The hardest issues have already been resolved, but the two countries still have to hash out intellectual property theft issues and certain tariffs.  (www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-meets-with-chinese-vice-premier-liu-he-as-ttade-talks-appear-to-wind-down-live-stream-2019-04-04/)  Another site says that “Deal is close, enforcement is sticky point with China”.  (www.agweb.com/mmobile/article/more-trade-talks-with-china-this-week

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.


www.agweb.com/mobile/article/more-trade-talks-with-china-this-week  “Deal is close, enforcement is sticky point with China.”

www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-meets-with-chinese-vice-premier-liu-he as-trade-talks-appear-to-wind-down-live-stream-2019-04-04/  “Trump says trad deal has “Very good chance of happening”.  By Grace Segers  4-4-2019  “Hardest issues already resolved, but the two countries still have to hash out intellectual property theft issues and certain tariffs.”

www.worldstopexports.com/cinias-top-import-partners  1.  US $479.7 billion in imports from China (19.2% of Chinese exports)

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.”


The hallmark of the American justice system is the concept of “Equal Justice under the law”.  This means that all citizens are expected to obey the laws of the land, and those that do not are treated equally under our justice system.  This is a concept that sets our system apart from all others.  It was embedded in our constitution so that we would be a nation of laws, not just of men. 

The phrase “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW” is engraved in front of the Supreme Court building.  It is there because this concept is the backbone of our Judicial system.  The 14th Amendment of our Constitution addresses this concept in detail, and the Supreme Court has upheld the concept without fail for over a century. 

Something has gone wrong!  It seems that in the last decade, the concept has been eroding.  Just look at rulings from the 9th circuit court, the Trump “collusion and obstruction investigation” and the numerous lives ruined in this corrupt process, and the exoneration of Hillary Clinton in the face of her felonious activities.  It seems that if your connected you can literally get away with anything, but if you’re on the wrong side of the Progressive movement, you will suffer egregiously! 

This lopsided broken justice system needs to be fixed, and it needs to be fixed immediately.  Jussie Smollett needs his case to be reviewed by the Illinois Supreme Court and brought back to trial.  Prosecutor Foxx and her team need to be held accountable and charged for subverting justice.  In like fashion, all those that were complicit in exonerating Hillary Clinton need to be held accountable, as do all those that were responsible for the illegal and disastrous Trump Collusion and Obstruction investigation.

The stakes are just too high!  Our system needs to be fixed.  If it is not addressed and soon, the whole Justice system we count on for our society will crumble.  If we cannot count on equal justice, the American way of life is doomed.  Our nation cannot withstand this judicial anarchy.

In our country, “Equal Justice under the law” is not optional!  It is mandatory and needs to be upheld at all costs.  We need to bring order back into the system, and we need to do it now!