Day: August 13, 2018

Why the Left Loves Marx and Ignores Douglass


Two hundred years have passed since Karl Marx and Frederick Douglass, a pair of important 19th-century historical figures, were born.  Marx’s collectivist ideas are surging among America’s young, while Douglass, a champion of civil rights and the first black man to receive a nominating vote for president of the United States, sits largely unnoticed in pop culture.  The admiration lavished on Marx – whose communist ideology has led to hunger, misery, and tyranny wherever it has been implemented – should be accorded to Douglass, an iconic American scion of liberty.

Marx was born May 5, 1818 to a middle-class family in the old Germanic kingdom of Prussia.  His father was an attorney, and his mother came from a prosperous business family.  Marx grew up in a ten-room home, received a private education, and married a wealthy heiress.  He never held a real job, living off his benefactors (those being his wife Jenny, writing partner Friedrich Engels, and wealthy uncle Benjamin Philips).  Despite residing in posh European capitals, Marx raised his family in a dirty flat, languishing in poverty until he died of pleurisy in 1883.  His governmental and economic theories, published in his books Manifesto of the Communist Party and Das Kapital, were not broadly adopted during his lifetime.  

Douglass was born a slave in Maryland, likely in February 1818; because of scanty birth records, he did not know the exact date.  He never knew his father, and his mother died sometime in the 1820s.  Douglass had no formal education, and his mistress was excoriated by his slavemaster for teaching him to read.  He experienced extreme deprivation, abandonment, hunger, beatings, false imprisonment, betrayal, and dehumanization until he completed a fantastic escape from bondage on September 3, 1838.  Douglass eked out a living as a day laborer and was a fugitive until the mid-1840s, when sympathetic British supporters purchased his freedom.  Thereafter, Douglass grew into the most prominent antebellum abolitionist orator, met thrice with Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, published three widely read autobiographies, and received federal appointments as marshal of the District of Columbia and ambassador to Haiti.  In spite of his achievements, Douglass faced ridicule and racism from his opponents until his death in 1895.

Despite these résumés, the modern left, with its mainstream media mouthpiece, lionizes Marx and engages in willful blindness of Douglass.  How is it that the smart set in our country today largely ignores the life lessons of a self-made ex-slave who rose to the height of international acclaim while glorifying the teachings of an obscure, slovenly grifter who left his offspring impoverished? 

The left abhors the concept of republicanism, so it is easy for leftists to praise Marx, who did not subscribe to republican governing principles.  Furthermore, as a European, Marx had nothing to do with the Republican Party.  As feckless as the GOP has been in many eras of its existence, of the two major American parties, the Republicans have been better than the Democrats regarding the historical advance of freedom and representation.  In Douglass’s day, they were the anti-slavery party and were in favor of civil rights and the nascent women’s suffrage movement.  The left cannot permit any recitation of these facts, and, because Democrat journalists significantly outnumber Republicans, the media bury this information.  To be a Republican today means constant media antipathy unless one is willing to criticize other Republicans.  It would thus be quite inconvenient for America’s journalistic Jacobins to praise Frederick Douglass – having grown up a slave under a tyrannical Democratic regime in the 1820s and 1830s – who explicitly labeled the Democrats the enemy of black Americans:

There was no path out of the Republican Party that did not lead directly into the Democratic Party – away from our friends and directly to our enemies.

And, famously:

I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.

Leftists romanticize violent agitators and are enamored of pie-in-the-sky utopianism, so they exalt Marx – a dreamer who advocated the use of force to create his socialist nirvana.  As he wrote:

There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.

The left must be reluctant to acknowledge Douglass in this regard because he shunned “revolutionary terror.”  Douglass declined when John Brown invited him to participate in his raid on the federal armory in 1859; thus, he lived to fight the political battle against slavery while Brown was captured and executed.  He spent his post-Civil War career promoting the constitutional principles that “man’s rights rest in three boxes … the ballot box, jury box, and the cartridge box,” yet Douglass was circumspect about government interventionism to address the problems of the freedmen.  In 1865, Douglass proclaimed:

What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice[.] … Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, “What shall we do with the Negro?”  I have had but one answer from the beginning.  Do nothing with us!  Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us[.] … [I]f the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also.  All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!

The modern left rails against the “1 percent” and uses taxation to confiscate the private property of individuals for collectivist ends.  This amounts to legalized theft – a soft form of slavery in which the output of one man’s labor is legally taken from him for consumption by another.  The use of government force to impose this seizure of economic liberty would be fine and dandy with Marx, whose “theory … may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”[i]  Douglass as a bondsman had the fruit of his labors stolen from him with legal imprimatur, until he managed to reach free soil.  Taking his first job as a free man, Douglass described the joy of keeping his own pay:

[T]he dear lady put into my hand two silver half-dollars.  To understand the emotion which swelled my heart as I clasped this money, realizing that I had no master who could take it from me – that it was mine – that my hands were my own, and could earn more of the precious coin – one must have been in some sense himself a slave.[ii]  

Finally, and most potently, the left cannot possibly tolerate raising awareness of the man for whom H.R. 2989 was signed into law.  Not only does this 2017 act intend to bring the life and legacy of Frederick Douglass to the fore, but it was authorized by leftists’ most hated enemy in presidential history: Donald Trump.  The left cannot allow the American people to positively associate President Trump with an entrepreneurial, free-thinking black civil rights hero.  Instead, they uplift Marxist acolytes like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and publish puff pieces on the old wannabe despot (such as fashion magazine Teen Vogue’s glowing profile) in order to keep the grubby Karl Marx in the limelight. 

John Steinreich has an M.A. in Church history from Colorado Theological Seminary.  He has authored two Christian-themed books available on Kindle: The Words of God? and A Great Cloud of Witnesses.  His works are also on Lulu Press.  He is currently developing a stage production on the life of Frederick Douglass: www.facebook.com/freementheater.


[i] Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels.  Manifesto of the Communist Party.  Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org) 1987, 2000, 2010, 22.

[ii] Douglass, Frederick.  The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass.  The Online Library of Liberty, 2011, 130.

Two hundred years have passed since Karl Marx and Frederick Douglass, a pair of important 19th-century historical figures, were born.  Marx’s collectivist ideas are surging among America’s young, while Douglass, a champion of civil rights and the first black man to receive a nominating vote for president of the United States, sits largely unnoticed in pop culture.  The admiration lavished on Marx – whose communist ideology has led to hunger, misery, and tyranny wherever it has been implemented – should be accorded to Douglass, an iconic American scion of liberty.

Marx was born May 5, 1818 to a middle-class family in the old Germanic kingdom of Prussia.  His father was an attorney, and his mother came from a prosperous business family.  Marx grew up in a ten-room home, received a private education, and married a wealthy heiress.  He never held a real job, living off his benefactors (those being his wife Jenny, writing partner Friedrich Engels, and wealthy uncle Benjamin Philips).  Despite residing in posh European capitals, Marx raised his family in a dirty flat, languishing in poverty until he died of pleurisy in 1883.  His governmental and economic theories, published in his books Manifesto of the Communist Party and Das Kapital, were not broadly adopted during his lifetime.  

Douglass was born a slave in Maryland, likely in February 1818; because of scanty birth records, he did not know the exact date.  He never knew his father, and his mother died sometime in the 1820s.  Douglass had no formal education, and his mistress was excoriated by his slavemaster for teaching him to read.  He experienced extreme deprivation, abandonment, hunger, beatings, false imprisonment, betrayal, and dehumanization until he completed a fantastic escape from bondage on September 3, 1838.  Douglass eked out a living as a day laborer and was a fugitive until the mid-1840s, when sympathetic British supporters purchased his freedom.  Thereafter, Douglass grew into the most prominent antebellum abolitionist orator, met thrice with Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, published three widely read autobiographies, and received federal appointments as marshal of the District of Columbia and ambassador to Haiti.  In spite of his achievements, Douglass faced ridicule and racism from his opponents until his death in 1895.

Despite these résumés, the modern left, with its mainstream media mouthpiece, lionizes Marx and engages in willful blindness of Douglass.  How is it that the smart set in our country today largely ignores the life lessons of a self-made ex-slave who rose to the height of international acclaim while glorifying the teachings of an obscure, slovenly grifter who left his offspring impoverished? 

The left abhors the concept of republicanism, so it is easy for leftists to praise Marx, who did not subscribe to republican governing principles.  Furthermore, as a European, Marx had nothing to do with the Republican Party.  As feckless as the GOP has been in many eras of its existence, of the two major American parties, the Republicans have been better than the Democrats regarding the historical advance of freedom and representation.  In Douglass’s day, they were the anti-slavery party and were in favor of civil rights and the nascent women’s suffrage movement.  The left cannot permit any recitation of these facts, and, because Democrat journalists significantly outnumber Republicans, the media bury this information.  To be a Republican today means constant media antipathy unless one is willing to criticize other Republicans.  It would thus be quite inconvenient for America’s journalistic Jacobins to praise Frederick Douglass – having grown up a slave under a tyrannical Democratic regime in the 1820s and 1830s – who explicitly labeled the Democrats the enemy of black Americans:

There was no path out of the Republican Party that did not lead directly into the Democratic Party – away from our friends and directly to our enemies.

And, famously:

I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.

Leftists romanticize violent agitators and are enamored of pie-in-the-sky utopianism, so they exalt Marx – a dreamer who advocated the use of force to create his socialist nirvana.  As he wrote:

There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.

The left must be reluctant to acknowledge Douglass in this regard because he shunned “revolutionary terror.”  Douglass declined when John Brown invited him to participate in his raid on the federal armory in 1859; thus, he lived to fight the political battle against slavery while Brown was captured and executed.  He spent his post-Civil War career promoting the constitutional principles that “man’s rights rest in three boxes … the ballot box, jury box, and the cartridge box,” yet Douglass was circumspect about government interventionism to address the problems of the freedmen.  In 1865, Douglass proclaimed:

What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice[.] … Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, “What shall we do with the Negro?”  I have had but one answer from the beginning.  Do nothing with us!  Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us[.] … [I]f the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also.  All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!

The modern left rails against the “1 percent” and uses taxation to confiscate the private property of individuals for collectivist ends.  This amounts to legalized theft – a soft form of slavery in which the output of one man’s labor is legally taken from him for consumption by another.  The use of government force to impose this seizure of economic liberty would be fine and dandy with Marx, whose “theory … may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”[i]  Douglass as a bondsman had the fruit of his labors stolen from him with legal imprimatur, until he managed to reach free soil.  Taking his first job as a free man, Douglass described the joy of keeping his own pay:

[T]he dear lady put into my hand two silver half-dollars.  To understand the emotion which swelled my heart as I clasped this money, realizing that I had no master who could take it from me – that it was mine – that my hands were my own, and could earn more of the precious coin – one must have been in some sense himself a slave.[ii]  

Finally, and most potently, the left cannot possibly tolerate raising awareness of the man for whom H.R. 2989 was signed into law.  Not only does this 2017 act intend to bring the life and legacy of Frederick Douglass to the fore, but it was authorized by leftists’ most hated enemy in presidential history: Donald Trump.  The left cannot allow the American people to positively associate President Trump with an entrepreneurial, free-thinking black civil rights hero.  Instead, they uplift Marxist acolytes like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and publish puff pieces on the old wannabe despot (such as fashion magazine Teen Vogue’s glowing profile) in order to keep the grubby Karl Marx in the limelight. 

John Steinreich has an M.A. in Church history from Colorado Theological Seminary.  He has authored two Christian-themed books available on Kindle: The Words of God? and A Great Cloud of Witnesses.  His works are also on Lulu Press.  He is currently developing a stage production on the life of Frederick Douglass: www.facebook.com/freementheater.


[i] Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels.  Manifesto of the Communist Party.  Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org) 1987, 2000, 2010, 22.

[ii] Douglass, Frederick.  The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass.  The Online Library of Liberty, 2011, 130.



Source link

Fonda Cements Legacy as Hanoi Jane


Jane Fonda resumes her performance as an historical revisionist on a subject that keeps coming back to haunt her: the Vietnam War.

Fonda’s latest foray into her past as a useful propaganda tool for the communists has reared its ugly narrative all over again on the occasion of the thespian accepting a “Lifetime Achievement” award at the Traverse City Film Festival this summer. Michael Moore, the king of propaganda, added to the publicity swirl by heaping accolades on the actress as he bestowed the award.

Jane basked in the glow of her safe audience at the festival — taking advantage of the occasion to screen the sanitized version of her life in the recently released HBO documentary, Jane Fonda in Five Acts.

At the event, gullible liberals made up most of her audience embracing the activist’s “proud” anti-war participation from the 1970s, but not everyone proved to be a fawning fan. Dozens of Vietnam veterans showed up to protest Fonda’s blatantly false wartime assertions including her attempts to delegitimize and demonize American combat soldiers (which has proven posthumously in the case of more than 58,000 veterans). 

Veterans find many of her actions unforgivable, even 46 years later.

In 1973, Fonda called returning American POWs “liars and traitors” for telling the truth about their systematic torture and the killing of their comrades in captivity. Fonda’s cruel reception for returning POWs — many of whom suffered captivity in cages, years in isolation and sadistic beatings — failed to make the final edit in the appropriately named documentary, Five Acts. The point of the project was to romanticize Fonda’s life — and to that end many viewers would never learn of the irreparable harm she has caused to others. Most Americans will never know Fonda earned the moniker, “Hanoi Jane,” because of her self-initiated broadcasts — which included labeling American soldiers “war criminals” — on Radio Hanoi. She succeeded in demoralizing our troops and acting as a “pro-victory” cheerleader for the communists.

“I am proud I went to Vietnam when I did,” says Jane who hasn’t veered much from her script since the early 1970s. She has even becomes philosophical about the war to further solidify her good intentions. “The U.S. loss represented our nation’s chance for redemption,” says Fonda failing to mention redemption was in short supply in the Gulag of reeducation camps established by Ho Chi Minh and his army of mass murderers. 

Worse was yet to come. “And the communist victory symbolizes hope for the planet,” says Jane who has a difficult time floating this theory past the 100,000s tortured and murdered by the communists in the aftermath of war. This includes men, women, and children.

Veterans are appalled at the prospect of a new generation of young Americans learning about their history by peering through a lens carefully crafted by Hollywood.

Their fears are well founded. Owen Gleiberman is one such impressionable reporter who writes a gushing review of Five Acts, in the entertainment publication, Variety. “Then (she) became the rare celebrity entertainer brave enough to disengage from the system to pursue her political passions,” he writes. 

“She was dissed for going to Hanoi, but the meaning of that crusade was debated all over the world — and if that’s not successful activism, I don’t know what is.” He does have a point about Jane making her treasonous presence known — from Hanoi — to the far reaches of the world.

Many outraged veterans refuse to allow Fonda to serve as a filter for their actions and have pushed back against her wave of propaganda, including her self-serving biography, My Life So Far.

Dexter Lehtinen is one of the most qualified veterans to refute Fonda’s attacks on American servicemen as war criminals, having served more than two years in combat in the most treacherous terrain: He was severely wounded in the conflict and continued to serve his country as a U.S. attorney general and Florida state senator.

Lehtinen employs his legal mind to refute the “pseudo apology” offered by Fonda in her multimedia campaign: he points out the futility of her singling out one (repeat one) treacherous action from the multitude of egregious actions committed against soldiers, and now veterans. “She expressed regret for one photograph,” he writes referring to the infamous photo of Jane smiling and sitting behind an anti-aircraft gun in North Vietnam. “But remains proud of her Radio Hanoi broadcasts, her efforts to achieve a communist victory, and her attacks on American servicemen as war criminals” adds Lehtinen in reviewing the biography, My Life So Far. “She never uses the word ‘apology’.”

With the advantage of hindsight, Fonda does extrapolate on her “regret” saying: “That two-minute lapse of sanity will haunt me until I die.”

Fonda’s two-minute timeline for her lapse in judgment has led Lehtinen to write: “Fonda has always lived in a kind of Wonderland — where American POWs are liars and communist tyrants are honorable men,” he writes. “The Vietnam war only shows that, unlike Alice, Jane Fonda has yet to emerge from Wonderland.”

It appears Jane’s non-apology is not accepted.

Jane Fonda resumes her performance as an historical revisionist on a subject that keeps coming back to haunt her: the Vietnam War.

Fonda’s latest foray into her past as a useful propaganda tool for the communists has reared its ugly narrative all over again on the occasion of the thespian accepting a “Lifetime Achievement” award at the Traverse City Film Festival this summer. Michael Moore, the king of propaganda, added to the publicity swirl by heaping accolades on the actress as he bestowed the award.

Jane basked in the glow of her safe audience at the festival — taking advantage of the occasion to screen the sanitized version of her life in the recently released HBO documentary, Jane Fonda in Five Acts.

At the event, gullible liberals made up most of her audience embracing the activist’s “proud” anti-war participation from the 1970s, but not everyone proved to be a fawning fan. Dozens of Vietnam veterans showed up to protest Fonda’s blatantly false wartime assertions including her attempts to delegitimize and demonize American combat soldiers (which has proven posthumously in the case of more than 58,000 veterans). 

Veterans find many of her actions unforgivable, even 46 years later.

In 1973, Fonda called returning American POWs “liars and traitors” for telling the truth about their systematic torture and the killing of their comrades in captivity. Fonda’s cruel reception for returning POWs — many of whom suffered captivity in cages, years in isolation and sadistic beatings — failed to make the final edit in the appropriately named documentary, Five Acts. The point of the project was to romanticize Fonda’s life — and to that end many viewers would never learn of the irreparable harm she has caused to others. Most Americans will never know Fonda earned the moniker, “Hanoi Jane,” because of her self-initiated broadcasts — which included labeling American soldiers “war criminals” — on Radio Hanoi. She succeeded in demoralizing our troops and acting as a “pro-victory” cheerleader for the communists.

“I am proud I went to Vietnam when I did,” says Jane who hasn’t veered much from her script since the early 1970s. She has even becomes philosophical about the war to further solidify her good intentions. “The U.S. loss represented our nation’s chance for redemption,” says Fonda failing to mention redemption was in short supply in the Gulag of reeducation camps established by Ho Chi Minh and his army of mass murderers. 

Worse was yet to come. “And the communist victory symbolizes hope for the planet,” says Jane who has a difficult time floating this theory past the 100,000s tortured and murdered by the communists in the aftermath of war. This includes men, women, and children.

Veterans are appalled at the prospect of a new generation of young Americans learning about their history by peering through a lens carefully crafted by Hollywood.

Their fears are well founded. Owen Gleiberman is one such impressionable reporter who writes a gushing review of Five Acts, in the entertainment publication, Variety. “Then (she) became the rare celebrity entertainer brave enough to disengage from the system to pursue her political passions,” he writes. 

“She was dissed for going to Hanoi, but the meaning of that crusade was debated all over the world — and if that’s not successful activism, I don’t know what is.” He does have a point about Jane making her treasonous presence known — from Hanoi — to the far reaches of the world.

Many outraged veterans refuse to allow Fonda to serve as a filter for their actions and have pushed back against her wave of propaganda, including her self-serving biography, My Life So Far.

Dexter Lehtinen is one of the most qualified veterans to refute Fonda’s attacks on American servicemen as war criminals, having served more than two years in combat in the most treacherous terrain: He was severely wounded in the conflict and continued to serve his country as a U.S. attorney general and Florida state senator.

Lehtinen employs his legal mind to refute the “pseudo apology” offered by Fonda in her multimedia campaign: he points out the futility of her singling out one (repeat one) treacherous action from the multitude of egregious actions committed against soldiers, and now veterans. “She expressed regret for one photograph,” he writes referring to the infamous photo of Jane smiling and sitting behind an anti-aircraft gun in North Vietnam. “But remains proud of her Radio Hanoi broadcasts, her efforts to achieve a communist victory, and her attacks on American servicemen as war criminals” adds Lehtinen in reviewing the biography, My Life So Far. “She never uses the word ‘apology’.”

With the advantage of hindsight, Fonda does extrapolate on her “regret” saying: “That two-minute lapse of sanity will haunt me until I die.”

Fonda’s two-minute timeline for her lapse in judgment has led Lehtinen to write: “Fonda has always lived in a kind of Wonderland — where American POWs are liars and communist tyrants are honorable men,” he writes. “The Vietnam war only shows that, unlike Alice, Jane Fonda has yet to emerge from Wonderland.”

It appears Jane’s non-apology is not accepted.



Source link

Capital Flight — The Strategy Behind Trump's Sanctions


When there is war, conflict, or instability, vulnerable human beings flee, seeking refuge in safer countries.  Everyone is familiar with the plight of refugees, and the challenges refugees create for surrounding nations.  People need and deserve support, and it requires resources to meet this need.

When there is war, conflict, or instability, vulnerable capital and wealth also flee.  The “problem” of fleeing capital is different, however.  Because capital and wealth are not as encumbered and physically restricted as are human beings, especially in the modern electronic age, capital moves far from the source of instability.  Capital flight makes support of human refugees even more difficult, as capital often flees nations burdened with the obligation of support, nations in close proximity to the underlying cause of flight.  

Unlike human refugees, who consume resources and capital, fleeing capital is welcome with inviting arms by safe havens.  Capital and wealth must “go somewhere,” and if they land in the banks and markets of a particular nation, that nation reaps the reward of that investment.  Banks can lend at lower interest rates.  Businesses can grow, expand, modernize, and invest.  There is great reward and little cost to a recipient nation, especially if that nation has already invested heavily, historically, in the safety and security of the investment, by, for example, modern economic protections, strong security, a stable political system, and reasonable taxation. 

The recipient nation does not have to reduce or compromise taxes, regulations, environmental protections, workers’ protections, and the like, in order to be more “competitive,” in the global market, all costs to capital investment, because these costs are easily accepted and paid in exchange for safety and security.  In other words, when confronted with high risk of loss, those who invest capital and wealth will accept higher investment cost, and lower ultimate returns.  It is not necessarily a simple calculus, but its truth is undeniable. 

Turkey provides an excellent example of capital flight, and insight into Trump’s economic and foreign policy strategy.  The Turkish lira is plummeting.  It is plummeting because the Trump administration announced that it would “review” Turkey’s duty-free access to the U.S. market, after Turkey hit the U.S. with tariffs on U.S. goods in response to American tariffs on steel and aluminum.  President Trump also hit Turkey with sanctions over the country’s hostile detainment of an American pastor.  The result is that capital is fleeing Turkey, because according to the Wall Street Journal,  investors are alarmed  by the amount of control Turkish president Erdogan holds over monetary policy. Analysts bluntly told the Journal that improving relations with the U.S. and raising interest rates would help stabilize the country’s currency.  Turkey has refused to do either. Capital flees Turkey because Turkey is unsafe.

Some economist have struggled to understand the U.S. stock market.  Investment in U.S. domestic and multinational companies is at an all-time high.  Investment advisers worry that valuations of companies don’t reflect well the amount invested and warn of a bubble.  Some are surprised daily that the bubble hasn’t burst.  “It just keeps going up!”  After all, “what comes up…” 

If, however, the U.S. economy generally, and the U.S. stock market, particularly, is seen as a safe haven, the appreciation resulting capital flight is understandable, rational, and beneficial.  More, it may mean that the bubble risk isn’t dire; a bursting bubble means that capital has suddenly flown elsewhere, and in a world of a multitude of choices, capital is always free to flee where it is best employed by its owners to produce wealth.  But, what if the risk of flight is just too high?  Capital might be expected to stay where it is safe, especially if that safety endures, and other opportunities for safe investment with reasonable return do not materialize. 

Consider the many causes of the flight of capital in recent years.  Are competing markets as strong and stable as they were seven years ago, and more importantly, are they as strong and stable as is the U.S. market?  Capital is fleeing Canada.  Capital is fleeing China (strange — people who  command wealth get a bit skittish when several hundreds of their kind simply disappear).  EU instability has caused capital to flee Europe (link behind subscription wall). Capital has flown from India. Capital has flown from Russia, although early indications are that new Trump sanctions may not encourage additional capital flight.  Capital is fleeing Latin America.  There are a multitude of examples, but the point is, too, that capital is not fleeing the U.S. 

Not all capital flight winds up in the U.S., of course, but it’s safe to say that a good percentage is winding up here.  Simple economics: more money chasing the same goods or investment opportunities causes prices to increase. With share prices high, companies can grow, expand, modernize, and invest. The investment increases the value of companies, generates returns for investors, and generates revenues for the U.S. government.  

Trump is counting on U.S. strength and safety to lure even more investment, especially if there is uncertainty, instability, and conflict resulting from trade disputes and sanctions.  Trump calculates that, regardless of the effect on a particular good or service in the long term, the short term or immediate effect will be capital flight.  This flight is particularly certain if nations seek to return to a trade system that is not fair to the U.S.; sanctions and economic risk are not likely to cause capital to flow from the U.S. to nations from which capital has or is already flowing.  

Trump is not employing a philosophically driven foreign and trade policy wielding empty threats of carrot and stick like his predecessors.  His foreign policy is disruptive, and intended to create meaningful reform in both statecraft and trade, first and foremost, to advance U.S. political, economic, and military interests. Achieving these objectives, even in the slightest of degrees, increases the safety and security of the U.S. as a safe haven, which strengthens Trump’s ability to reform both foreign services and trade.  

The Trump administration knows well that there will be a price for economic dislocation and higher costs for goods in some segments of the economy, which is precisely why the administration has invested in worker training.  Trump understands, nonetheless, the value of dislocation, disruption, and instability in reforming markets and institutions. The very consequences experts fear, are the very tools through which Trump will ensure reform.  

When there is war, conflict, or instability, vulnerable human beings flee, seeking refuge in safer countries.  Everyone is familiar with the plight of refugees, and the challenges refugees create for surrounding nations.  People need and deserve support, and it requires resources to meet this need.

When there is war, conflict, or instability, vulnerable capital and wealth also flee.  The “problem” of fleeing capital is different, however.  Because capital and wealth are not as encumbered and physically restricted as are human beings, especially in the modern electronic age, capital moves far from the source of instability.  Capital flight makes support of human refugees even more difficult, as capital often flees nations burdened with the obligation of support, nations in close proximity to the underlying cause of flight.  

Unlike human refugees, who consume resources and capital, fleeing capital is welcome with inviting arms by safe havens.  Capital and wealth must “go somewhere,” and if they land in the banks and markets of a particular nation, that nation reaps the reward of that investment.  Banks can lend at lower interest rates.  Businesses can grow, expand, modernize, and invest.  There is great reward and little cost to a recipient nation, especially if that nation has already invested heavily, historically, in the safety and security of the investment, by, for example, modern economic protections, strong security, a stable political system, and reasonable taxation. 

The recipient nation does not have to reduce or compromise taxes, regulations, environmental protections, workers’ protections, and the like, in order to be more “competitive,” in the global market, all costs to capital investment, because these costs are easily accepted and paid in exchange for safety and security.  In other words, when confronted with high risk of loss, those who invest capital and wealth will accept higher investment cost, and lower ultimate returns.  It is not necessarily a simple calculus, but its truth is undeniable. 

Turkey provides an excellent example of capital flight, and insight into Trump’s economic and foreign policy strategy.  The Turkish lira is plummeting.  It is plummeting because the Trump administration announced that it would “review” Turkey’s duty-free access to the U.S. market, after Turkey hit the U.S. with tariffs on U.S. goods in response to American tariffs on steel and aluminum.  President Trump also hit Turkey with sanctions over the country’s hostile detainment of an American pastor.  The result is that capital is fleeing Turkey, because according to the Wall Street Journal,  investors are alarmed  by the amount of control Turkish president Erdogan holds over monetary policy. Analysts bluntly told the Journal that improving relations with the U.S. and raising interest rates would help stabilize the country’s currency.  Turkey has refused to do either. Capital flees Turkey because Turkey is unsafe.

Some economist have struggled to understand the U.S. stock market.  Investment in U.S. domestic and multinational companies is at an all-time high.  Investment advisers worry that valuations of companies don’t reflect well the amount invested and warn of a bubble.  Some are surprised daily that the bubble hasn’t burst.  “It just keeps going up!”  After all, “what comes up…” 

If, however, the U.S. economy generally, and the U.S. stock market, particularly, is seen as a safe haven, the appreciation resulting capital flight is understandable, rational, and beneficial.  More, it may mean that the bubble risk isn’t dire; a bursting bubble means that capital has suddenly flown elsewhere, and in a world of a multitude of choices, capital is always free to flee where it is best employed by its owners to produce wealth.  But, what if the risk of flight is just too high?  Capital might be expected to stay where it is safe, especially if that safety endures, and other opportunities for safe investment with reasonable return do not materialize. 

Consider the many causes of the flight of capital in recent years.  Are competing markets as strong and stable as they were seven years ago, and more importantly, are they as strong and stable as is the U.S. market?  Capital is fleeing Canada.  Capital is fleeing China (strange — people who  command wealth get a bit skittish when several hundreds of their kind simply disappear).  EU instability has caused capital to flee Europe (link behind subscription wall). Capital has flown from India. Capital has flown from Russia, although early indications are that new Trump sanctions may not encourage additional capital flight.  Capital is fleeing Latin America.  There are a multitude of examples, but the point is, too, that capital is not fleeing the U.S. 

Not all capital flight winds up in the U.S., of course, but it’s safe to say that a good percentage is winding up here.  Simple economics: more money chasing the same goods or investment opportunities causes prices to increase. With share prices high, companies can grow, expand, modernize, and invest. The investment increases the value of companies, generates returns for investors, and generates revenues for the U.S. government.  

Trump is counting on U.S. strength and safety to lure even more investment, especially if there is uncertainty, instability, and conflict resulting from trade disputes and sanctions.  Trump calculates that, regardless of the effect on a particular good or service in the long term, the short term or immediate effect will be capital flight.  This flight is particularly certain if nations seek to return to a trade system that is not fair to the U.S.; sanctions and economic risk are not likely to cause capital to flow from the U.S. to nations from which capital has or is already flowing.  

Trump is not employing a philosophically driven foreign and trade policy wielding empty threats of carrot and stick like his predecessors.  His foreign policy is disruptive, and intended to create meaningful reform in both statecraft and trade, first and foremost, to advance U.S. political, economic, and military interests. Achieving these objectives, even in the slightest of degrees, increases the safety and security of the U.S. as a safe haven, which strengthens Trump’s ability to reform both foreign services and trade.  

The Trump administration knows well that there will be a price for economic dislocation and higher costs for goods in some segments of the economy, which is precisely why the administration has invested in worker training.  Trump understands, nonetheless, the value of dislocation, disruption, and instability in reforming markets and institutions. The very consequences experts fear, are the very tools through which Trump will ensure reform.  



Source link

The Ten Most Hateful Americans and Why they Matter


The American Left is stoking hatred and it’s tearing us apart. Our media is guilty of not only of failing to shame those responsible, in many cases they egg them on, giving them a platform. The volume of irrational hatred spewing into our ether is extremely unhealthy, even dangerous for our republic and the broader American culture.

To be sure, there has been excessive rhetoric from the man who could well go down as the most accomplished and successful president in our history at the rate his achievements mount. But President Trump’s willingness to verbally punch back at his political enemies, sometimes crudely, pales in comparison to the level of hate being spewed out by leftists. 

Our country is 242 years old. One has to wonder how it can survive much longer as the decibels of hate, particularly from the left, continue to rise almost hysterically.  We’ve already had one civil war. That one cost over 600,000 lives. We don’t need another one.

At a minimum, those pumping out the hate need to be identified, shamed and shunned. This is what an active media should be doing. So who are we talking about? Here’s my list of the top 10 most vicious and dangerous haters in America today.

10. Louis Farrakhan  — Even the progressive hate group called The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies Farrakhan’s virulently racist, homophobic, anti-American and anti-Semitic Nation of Islam (NOI) as a hate group and black separatist organization. As the leader of NOI, Farrakhan has preached the organization’s theology that blacks are superior to whites, that whites were created 6,600 years ago as a “race of devils” by an evil black scientist named Yakub and that “white people deserve to die.” Farrakhan accused Jews of being involved in the September 11 attacks. In a speech this year, Farrakhan described “the powerful Jews” as his enemy. “Now that nation called Israel never has had any peace in 40 years and she will never have any peace because there can be no peace structured on injustice, thievery, lying and deceit and using the name of God to shield your dirty religion under His holy and righteous name.”  That’s right, he calls the religion of Moses, who gave the world the Ten Commandments, “dirty.”

9. Robert DeNiro – At the Tony Awards, DeNiro shouted “F–k Trump.” Then doubled down, “It’s no longer down with Trump, but f–k Trump” as he shook his fists in the air. At a Brown University commencement address, he called President Trump “an idiot.” In  2016 he said, “(Trump’s) a punk, he’s a dog, he’s a pig, he’s a con, a bull***t artist, a mutt who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, doesn’t do his homework, doesn’t care, thinks he’s gaming society, doesn’t pay his taxes. He talks (about) how he wants to punch people in the face? Well, I’d like to punch him in the face.” Sadly, Hollywood is full of folks with this highly intolerant mindset.

8.  Te-Nehisi Coates’ National Book Award-winning memoir, Between the World and Me, is a wealth of “pseudo-Marxist legalisms” observes Daniel Greenfield. Coates says police officers and firefighters who died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks “were not human to me. Black, white, or whatever, they were menaces of nature; they were the fire, the comet, the storm, which could — with no justification — shatter my body.” He wants U.S. taxpayers who were never slave owners and some of whose ancestors died to end slavery pay reparations to descendants of slaves who themselves were never slaves. He says America has no right to judge terrorists “in a country built on theft, blood and slavery.” Coates has been richly rewarded for his racist, anti-American screeds. He received a $600,000 genius award, an editorial position at the Atlantic, and a lectureship at MIT even though he never graduated from college. Greenfield says, “His only struggle is deciding which frustration with a taxi, waiter or butler to turn into a column about racism this week.” Coates has called President Trump a “loathsome racist.” This is one bad dude. The adulation he has received from liberal elites is enough to make you vomit.

7. George Soros has been careful not to be quoted with inflammatory language. But his is a classic case of actions speaking louder than words. Through his Open Society Foundation, he is a funder of numerous hard left hate groups including Media Matters for America, Immigrant Voters Win PAC, Tides Foundation, Black Lives Matter and Antifa. George Soros is one of the most dangerous men in America today, but he is hardly ever mentioned by the leftwing media.

6. Whoopi Goldberg   This TV and movie star has a big following on a show called “The View.” When her former colleague Judge Jeanine Pirro came on the show, Whoopi not only showed extremely bad manners but according to Piro told her to “get the f*k out of here” after a disagreement about Trump and then spat in her face. Pirro said, “As I walked out, people started coming around because they heard her cursing at me. At that point, I just walked out as I was being thrown out. As I was walking out, she was following me cursing at me. . . All I can tell you is that I was shocked. I always liked Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar. I co-hosted that show before and I’m not afraid to talk to anybody. But this is a real problem in this country and it’s happening from the left to the right all the time.” Well said, judge!

5. Sarah Jeong is the new darling of the New Times Editorial Board. Shortly after Jeong’s hire, Twitter users unearthed disgusting, highly racist tweets in which she expressed an extreme distaste for white people. “Dumbass f–king white people marking up the Internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants,” she tweeted in 2014. “#Put white people in ovens.” Another tweet reads, “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get from being cruel to old white men.” There are scores of tweets just like these including “F–k the police. . . why don’t we ever talk about banning the police?” But the NYT didn’t see that as a reason not to hire her. What else do you need to know about the NYT?

4. Alicia Garza is regarded by Fortune Magazine as among “50 of the most influential world leaders.” What did she do to deserve this highly questionable accolade? She’s one of three co-founders of Black Lives Matter, formed after the acquittal of George Zimmerman, a white Hispanic found not guilty of murder following the deadly fight in which Treyvon Martin was shot and killed as Zimmerman defended himself from assault. Garza calls BLM “an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise.” Oh, she also maintains that blacks face “deadly oppression” and that “extrajudicial killings” of blacks is a regular feature of our society. She claims “Blacks are uniquely, systematically, and savagely targeted by the state” and this has led to black poverty, “genocide,” and mass incarceration.  Is it possible she actually believes this nonsense?

3. John Brennan was Obama’s CIA director who once voted for Communist Gus Hall for president. This Deep State denizen, who many believe helped organized the Obama spying on the Trump camp during the election, is suffering from a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Following Trump’s meeting with Putin, he tweeted “Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous.”  Treasonous?  What about Obama’s bromance with Putin and using the IRS to interfere in the 2012 elections and DOJ/FBI/CIA in 2016?

2. Linda Sarsour is an rabid pro-Palestinian activist, BDS supporter and anti-Zionist speaker.  This 37-year-old Palestinian-American wants closure of NYC schools on Muslim holidays and elimination of racial profiling. She co-organized the 2017 Women’s March on Washington. Sarsour says Islamophobia is solely based on racism and not the chaos and terrorism caused by Islamic fundamentalists, the Shiite-Sunni schism and regimes like Syria.  She rants against America, “where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.” The most astonishing thing is she has an active following and is a favorite of liberal Democrats.

1. Maxine Waters is a highly polarizing Democrat and leading political hate monger. She recently called on fellow Democrats to harass and abuse Republicans anywhere in public. “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. We’ve got to get the children connected to their parents.”  Waters is a leader of the so-called resistance movement against Trump. She refused to attend his inauguration and State of the Union address. She has been calling for his impeachment since his inauguration. And then this. “[Trump is] one of the most deplorable people I’ve ever encountered in my life.”  Ah, deplorable. There’s that word again. Can’t think of a stronger endorsement for Trump.

Graphic by Max Pixel

Frank Hawkins is a former US Army intelligence officer, Associated Press foreign correspondent, international businessman, senior newspaper company executive, founder and owner of several marketing companies and published novelist. He currently lives in retirement in North Carolina.

The American Left is stoking hatred and it’s tearing us apart. Our media is guilty of not only of failing to shame those responsible, in many cases they egg them on, giving them a platform. The volume of irrational hatred spewing into our ether is extremely unhealthy, even dangerous for our republic and the broader American culture.

To be sure, there has been excessive rhetoric from the man who could well go down as the most accomplished and successful president in our history at the rate his achievements mount. But President Trump’s willingness to verbally punch back at his political enemies, sometimes crudely, pales in comparison to the level of hate being spewed out by leftists. 

Our country is 242 years old. One has to wonder how it can survive much longer as the decibels of hate, particularly from the left, continue to rise almost hysterically.  We’ve already had one civil war. That one cost over 600,000 lives. We don’t need another one.

At a minimum, those pumping out the hate need to be identified, shamed and shunned. This is what an active media should be doing. So who are we talking about? Here’s my list of the top 10 most vicious and dangerous haters in America today.

10. Louis Farrakhan  — Even the progressive hate group called The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies Farrakhan’s virulently racist, homophobic, anti-American and anti-Semitic Nation of Islam (NOI) as a hate group and black separatist organization. As the leader of NOI, Farrakhan has preached the organization’s theology that blacks are superior to whites, that whites were created 6,600 years ago as a “race of devils” by an evil black scientist named Yakub and that “white people deserve to die.” Farrakhan accused Jews of being involved in the September 11 attacks. In a speech this year, Farrakhan described “the powerful Jews” as his enemy. “Now that nation called Israel never has had any peace in 40 years and she will never have any peace because there can be no peace structured on injustice, thievery, lying and deceit and using the name of God to shield your dirty religion under His holy and righteous name.”  That’s right, he calls the religion of Moses, who gave the world the Ten Commandments, “dirty.”

9. Robert DeNiro – At the Tony Awards, DeNiro shouted “F–k Trump.” Then doubled down, “It’s no longer down with Trump, but f–k Trump” as he shook his fists in the air. At a Brown University commencement address, he called President Trump “an idiot.” In  2016 he said, “(Trump’s) a punk, he’s a dog, he’s a pig, he’s a con, a bull***t artist, a mutt who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, doesn’t do his homework, doesn’t care, thinks he’s gaming society, doesn’t pay his taxes. He talks (about) how he wants to punch people in the face? Well, I’d like to punch him in the face.” Sadly, Hollywood is full of folks with this highly intolerant mindset.

8.  Te-Nehisi Coates’ National Book Award-winning memoir, Between the World and Me, is a wealth of “pseudo-Marxist legalisms” observes Daniel Greenfield. Coates says police officers and firefighters who died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks “were not human to me. Black, white, or whatever, they were menaces of nature; they were the fire, the comet, the storm, which could — with no justification — shatter my body.” He wants U.S. taxpayers who were never slave owners and some of whose ancestors died to end slavery pay reparations to descendants of slaves who themselves were never slaves. He says America has no right to judge terrorists “in a country built on theft, blood and slavery.” Coates has been richly rewarded for his racist, anti-American screeds. He received a $600,000 genius award, an editorial position at the Atlantic, and a lectureship at MIT even though he never graduated from college. Greenfield says, “His only struggle is deciding which frustration with a taxi, waiter or butler to turn into a column about racism this week.” Coates has called President Trump a “loathsome racist.” This is one bad dude. The adulation he has received from liberal elites is enough to make you vomit.

7. George Soros has been careful not to be quoted with inflammatory language. But his is a classic case of actions speaking louder than words. Through his Open Society Foundation, he is a funder of numerous hard left hate groups including Media Matters for America, Immigrant Voters Win PAC, Tides Foundation, Black Lives Matter and Antifa. George Soros is one of the most dangerous men in America today, but he is hardly ever mentioned by the leftwing media.

6. Whoopi Goldberg   This TV and movie star has a big following on a show called “The View.” When her former colleague Judge Jeanine Pirro came on the show, Whoopi not only showed extremely bad manners but according to Piro told her to “get the f*k out of here” after a disagreement about Trump and then spat in her face. Pirro said, “As I walked out, people started coming around because they heard her cursing at me. At that point, I just walked out as I was being thrown out. As I was walking out, she was following me cursing at me. . . All I can tell you is that I was shocked. I always liked Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar. I co-hosted that show before and I’m not afraid to talk to anybody. But this is a real problem in this country and it’s happening from the left to the right all the time.” Well said, judge!

5. Sarah Jeong is the new darling of the New Times Editorial Board. Shortly after Jeong’s hire, Twitter users unearthed disgusting, highly racist tweets in which she expressed an extreme distaste for white people. “Dumbass f–king white people marking up the Internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants,” she tweeted in 2014. “#Put white people in ovens.” Another tweet reads, “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get from being cruel to old white men.” There are scores of tweets just like these including “F–k the police. . . why don’t we ever talk about banning the police?” But the NYT didn’t see that as a reason not to hire her. What else do you need to know about the NYT?

4. Alicia Garza is regarded by Fortune Magazine as among “50 of the most influential world leaders.” What did she do to deserve this highly questionable accolade? She’s one of three co-founders of Black Lives Matter, formed after the acquittal of George Zimmerman, a white Hispanic found not guilty of murder following the deadly fight in which Treyvon Martin was shot and killed as Zimmerman defended himself from assault. Garza calls BLM “an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise.” Oh, she also maintains that blacks face “deadly oppression” and that “extrajudicial killings” of blacks is a regular feature of our society. She claims “Blacks are uniquely, systematically, and savagely targeted by the state” and this has led to black poverty, “genocide,” and mass incarceration.  Is it possible she actually believes this nonsense?

3. John Brennan was Obama’s CIA director who once voted for Communist Gus Hall for president. This Deep State denizen, who many believe helped organized the Obama spying on the Trump camp during the election, is suffering from a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Following Trump’s meeting with Putin, he tweeted “Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous.”  Treasonous?  What about Obama’s bromance with Putin and using the IRS to interfere in the 2012 elections and DOJ/FBI/CIA in 2016?

2. Linda Sarsour is an rabid pro-Palestinian activist, BDS supporter and anti-Zionist speaker.  This 37-year-old Palestinian-American wants closure of NYC schools on Muslim holidays and elimination of racial profiling. She co-organized the 2017 Women’s March on Washington. Sarsour says Islamophobia is solely based on racism and not the chaos and terrorism caused by Islamic fundamentalists, the Shiite-Sunni schism and regimes like Syria.  She rants against America, “where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.” The most astonishing thing is she has an active following and is a favorite of liberal Democrats.

1. Maxine Waters is a highly polarizing Democrat and leading political hate monger. She recently called on fellow Democrats to harass and abuse Republicans anywhere in public. “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. We’ve got to get the children connected to their parents.”  Waters is a leader of the so-called resistance movement against Trump. She refused to attend his inauguration and State of the Union address. She has been calling for his impeachment since his inauguration. And then this. “[Trump is] one of the most deplorable people I’ve ever encountered in my life.”  Ah, deplorable. There’s that word again. Can’t think of a stronger endorsement for Trump.

Graphic by Max Pixel

Frank Hawkins is a former US Army intelligence officer, Associated Press foreign correspondent, international businessman, senior newspaper company executive, founder and owner of several marketing companies and published novelist. He currently lives in retirement in North Carolina.



Source link