History Tells Us That Wealth Taxes Don’t Work

With Democrats now in control of the House, Senate, and White House, many of the most significant policy battles of the next two years will be determined by intraparty fights within the Democratic Party’s various factions.

Although not a moderate in any meaningful sense, President Joe Biden has always positioned himself strategically at the center of his party. Nevertheless, his defeat of the party’s left-wing in the last presidential primary won’t be the end of a populist insurgence. Sadly, one fight will be between those, such as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who want to raise taxes significantly, and those who, like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), want to raise taxes even more significantly.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) would prefer the latter and has reintroduced her proposal for destructive wealth taxation. Her tax would impose a 2 percent annual levy on wealth over $50 million, going up to 3 percent for wealth over $1 billion. This purely class-warfare scheme is advertised as a way to close the U.S. wealth gap.

My Mercatus Center colleague Jack Salmon and I recently published a paper that looks at the economic literature on this issue to evaluate the arguments of wealth-tax proponents. We found that they generally exaggerate wealth inequality in the United States, overestimate the potential revenue a wealth tax would raise and minimize the negative impact of such a levy.

If you’re skeptical of economic predictions, consider that these scenarios have already played out in the real world. A detailed analysis by the Tax Foundation shows that while many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have tried a wealth tax, only five of those countries still have one today.

Wealth taxes weren’t widely abandoned because these governments suddenly embraced free-market principles. Instead, implementing the tax put reality on a collision course with the same theoretical myths now being spread in the United States. These taxes don’t rake in the revenue or solve the supposed problem of inequality. For starters, wealth taxes aren’t paid by rich people who reduce their consumption as a consequence. They reduce their investments, which reduces capital formation, which slows productivity and wage growth. In other words, wealth taxes may be originally paid by wealthy folks, but the economic burden falls heavily on workers.

Previous wealth taxes also triggered capital flight to other countries, which explains the relatively small amount of revenue actually collected. Declining capital stocks then slowed economic growth and depressed overall tax revenues. The Tax Foundation notes, “Among those five OECD countries collecting revenues from net wealth taxes, revenues made up just 1.2 percent of total revenues on average in 2019.” And high administrative costs due to a more complex tax made even the little bit of revenue raised unappealing. That’s why so many countries gave up.

Preventing the inevitable capital flight that follows the imposition of a wealth tax would require authoritarian measures. Indeed, to go hand in hand with his proposed wealth tax last time around, Sanders called for the creation of a “national wealth registry,” a major expansion of the IRS and the imposition of an “exit tax” that would confiscate 40 percent of a rich person’s wealth under $1 billion and 60 percent over $1 billion if they renounce their citizenship and try to escape the tax. Is this the world we really want to live in?

I’m sure Biden is under tremendous pressure to acquiesce to these progressive demands. He also needs loads of revenue for his big spending plans. He must resist. History tells us that he won’t raise much money from a wealth tax, and he won’t even deliver on a class warfare agenda, since workers will pay the price at a time when they can least afford it.

Biden’s Crony Anti-Infrastructure Plan

“A crony anti-infrastructure plan” is, sadly, the best description of the Biden administration’s proposed $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan. It’s insanely expensive and unnecessary, especially coming, as it does, on top of last year’s fiscal insanity.

Over the past year, our leaders have spent $6 trillion in bailout and COVID-19 relief funds. They’ve driven local, state and federal government spending up to 43.5 percent of GDP, meaning that we’re already in financial trouble. Now they want to top it off with trillions more of wasteful spending, describing it as “infrastructure” spending, which arguably everyone likes. But once you look at what’s in the bill, you realize that the label is mere marketing for more handouts to politicians’ friends and payments for pet projects.

A large share of the plan, for instance, is a massive handout to private companies. The proposal includes $300 billion to promote advanced manufacturing, $174 billion for electric vehicles, $100 billion for broadband, $100 billion for electric utility industry, and more. This is interesting since Democrats never miss an opportunity to rail against big corporations while professing their love for small companies. Yet they’re eagerly subsidizing their big corporate friends whether these companies need it or not.

And in most cases, they don’t, since they are big infrastructure investors already. AT&T, Verizon and others are set to receive $100 billion for broadband despite their collective investment of more than $50 billion in broadband-related network infrastructure. The same is true of electric power companies, which are not only profitable firms but also massive investors in the electrical grid. In fact, during the pandemic, they actually increased their capital expenditures (or CapEx) to $141 billion from $121 billion. Yet, they will also get $100 billion.

Freight railroads, which will get a share of that $80 billion, are very lucrative, too. As former budget director David Stockman explains in a recent newsletter, freight railroads “have prodigiously reinvested in tracks and rolling stock.” He adds that these companies don’t need help, “especially not Warren Buffett, who owns a big chunk of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe… The latter, in fact, posted $23.5 billion of sales, $5.5 billion of net income and $3.6 billion of CapEx during 2019. And the figures for the other big publicly held railroad companies are similar.”

Biden’s plan also includes hundreds of billions that have nothing even remotely to do with infrastructure. One example is a $400 billion handout to expand access to long-term, home- and community-based care services under Medicaid and extend its Money Follows the Person program. While this has nothing to do with infrastructure, The Wall Street Journal explains how it has everything to do with bolstering unions, writing that Biden’s proposal highlights that “his home-care plan would ‘create good middle-class jobs with a free and fair choice to join a union… and the ability to collectively bargain.’ This is where the SEIU comes in.” The Service Employees International Union, they write, “has been able to exploit Medicaid home-care programs to expand its membership with help from state Democratic lawmakers.”

Finally, this plan would be paid for by eliminating tax preferences for fossil fuel companies, raising the corporate tax rate to 28 percent from 21 percent, doubling the top capital gains rate and imposing a large minimum tax on the overseas earnings of U.S. companies. To the extent that Democrats are trying to pay for this spending with taxes, they’re doing it in a way that belies their claim that this plan will result in a boost in quality infrastructure. That’s because, as the Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards reminds us, these tax hikes would punish the investors and corporations that drive infrastructure and own 65 percent of nondefense, nonresidential infrastructure. The federal government only owns 5 percent of it, with state and local governments owning 30 percent.

The Tax Foundation estimates that Biden’s tax increases would reduce investment in fixed assets by more than $1 trillion. That means fewer infrastructure investments, too. This is unfortunate since a 2016 Congressional Budget Office report finds that private sector investments deliver twice the economic returns of federal investments. But as Edwards notes, “Biden’s proposed green and labor union regulations would further undermine infrastructure investment.”

There’s much more to say about this plan and its backers (who continue to assert that it will grow the economy and finally fix our allegedly “crumbling” infrastructure). But for now, just remember that it’s best described as a crony anti-infrastructure plan.

Pres. Biden Will Go Down as the President Who Poisoned Baseball

Baseball’s greatest day was April 15, 1947. It was the day when Jackie Robinson broke baseball’s infamous color line to become the first Black player ever to play in a major league game.

Finally, after centuries of racial discrimination, there was a sense that merit, not skin pigment, was what was to be valued in America’s life. Because baseball was America’s game.

What has been baseball’s worst day?

Just last week, when the corporate suits of Major League Baseball stripped Atlanta of this year’s All-Star Game. Why? They caved to the racial demagoguery of the most powerful man in the world:

Joe Biden, president of the United States.

He’s the president who pushed baseball into taking the All-Star Game from Atlanta because Georgia’s politics offend him. He poured his own politics into sport, something that should unite us all. He politicized something that should not be politicized.

Biden’s legacy?

He’s the president who poisoned baseball.

Just months before, as major league teams were preparing for spring training, Biden made that speech at his inauguration promising to end America’s “uncivil war” pitting red states against blue states.

Remember?

“We must end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural … versus urban, conservative versus liberal,” Biden told the nation. “We can do this if we open our souls instead of hardening our hearts. If we show a little tolerance and humility, and if we are willing to stand in the other person’s shoes — as my mom would say — just for a moment, stand in their shoes.”

But the other day, Biden opened his baseball soul on ESPN and a demagogue came out.

There was nothing remotely civil, tolerant or humble about the president falsely and repeatedly using the race card to attack Georgia’s new election integrity voter law by comparing it to the horrors of the apartheid Jim Crow South.

Even the rabidly pro-Democrat and pro-Biden Washington Post gave Biden four Pinocchios for lying about Georgia.

Georgia’s new election integrity law expands voting and isn’t as restrictive as Democrats insist. Other states, including Democratic New York, headquarters of Major League Baseball, and Biden’s own Delaware, are in some ways more restrictive. And Democrats say nothing. Are these racist states?

Georgia did strengthen requirements for voter identification, but is that racist when we’re all required to show ID to get on a plane or buy liquor?

What’s poisonous is that Biden used the weight of the presidency to pressure baseball into punishing the people of Georgia for deciding on their own election laws according to the Constitution.

Once he said he’d “strongly support” a move to strip Atlanta of hosting the All-Star Game, it was done.

“The very people who are victimized the most are the people who are the leaders in these various sports,” Biden said on ESPN just before opening day. “And it’s just not right. This is Jim Crow on steroids, what they’re doing in Georgia and 40 other states.”

Biden and many Democratic allies in media continue to compare voter integrity laws to Jim Crow, even though they know it’s not true.

We may reasonably disagree on the critical need for election integrity in America. But I don’t think we can reasonably disagree on this:

The Georgia voter law isn’t remotely Jim Crow. And those who use that language are demagogues.

Under Jim Crow apartheid, schools were separated by race, with separate washrooms and separate water fountains and no service for Blacks at restaurant lunch counters. Blacks were lynched.

This is not that. If so, then New York and Biden’s Delaware are Jim Crow states.

Jackie Robinson was baseball’s answer to much of that hate. His excellence and courage in the face of all that forced white Americans to deal with what was happening to Black Americans.

Atlanta is a majority Black city and stands to lose at $100 million as a result of moving the game to majority white Denver, and many Atlanta businesses are Black-owned.

Notice that Biden isn’t demanding that the Masters Tournament at Georgia’s Augusta National be moved.

Baseball is a game for families that buy cheap seats and plan summers around those $1-a-hot dog bargain days. The Masters is for the masters, the wealthy elite, such as the commissioner of baseball and Washington lobbyists.

Asked Tuesday if the Masters should be moved out of Georgia, Biden punted:

“I think that’s up to the Masters,” he said. “Look, you know, it is reassuring to see that for-profit operations and businesses are speaking up about how these new Jim Crow laws are just antithetical to who we are.”

As the Biden-driven all-star boycott of Georgia took shape, as panicked corporations sided with the president and against Georgia lest they themselves be shamed by the media as racists, an odd thing happened:

Georgia’s failed Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacy Abrams began panicking, calling for a stop to boycotts, saying minorities in the state would be hurt. Abrams doesn’t want to wear the jacket for Black business owners losing out on that $100 million.

But she will. It suits her.

Years ago, America was in love with those church-of-baseball movies. One of the most popular was “Field of Dreams.”

“America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers,” said James Earl Jones. “It’s been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time.”

Now Biden, Democrats and the woke corporations caving to woke activists have rolled over the game.

They’ve left their mark. And Biden has his legacy.

How Former Gov. Walker Is Providing a ‘Cancel Culture’ Alternative for America’s Youth

Many young Americans find themselves ill-equipped, under-supported, and facing intimidation when simply attempting to express their personal opinions and live accordingly. Fortunately, former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, now president of the Young America’s Foundation, has a plan to help. 

By offering greater support, encouragement, and resources to open-minded students throughout the country, Walker’s 12-point action plan, dubbed “the Long Game,” aims to loosen the left’s stranglehold on institutions and fight back against the pervasive damage caused by “cancel culture.“ 

“The Long Game is the way we win not only the battle but also the war. It’s investing in our children’s children,” said Walker in press release. “This plan will help ensure future generations of Americans pass on the same love of country and freedom which our parents and our grandparents shared with you and me.” 

YAF is “the nation’s largest and most effective conservative youth outreach organization“ with chapters on college campuses across the country, about 2,000 in total. In February, Walker assumed the organization’s top position and brought with him “ambitious goals.”

Now, just two month into his tenure, the Wisconsinite has a plan in place to further expand YAF’s already substantial influence.

Through both virtual and in-person interactions, the Long Game aims to expose a record number of students to Ronald Reagan, America’s foundational principals, and Judeo-Christian values. In doing so, it will host a record number of student programs nationwide, sponsor over 1 million new program participants, and expand to over 4,000 college campuses.

In an interview with Townhall, the experienced politician weaved through the 12-points of the Long Game, commenting of his own upbringing and offering his analysis of the challenges facing today’s children, teens, and young adults.

Walker spoke fondly of then Presidential Candidate Reagan, saying, “Ronald Reagan was a clear optimist. He talked about the shining city on the hill. He talked about things that were very uniting.”

Like Walker, YAF continues to find the conservative icon and his principles immensely valuable; the organization preserves two of Reagan’s properties, his boyhood home in Dixon, Illinois, and the Reagan Ranch in Santa Barbra, California. 

Both properties are monuments to Reagan’s humble nature, and each offers the opportunity for student engagement through tours, conferences, and seminars. 

“We bring [students] to the Ranch, or now to the boyhood home not so much just to learn about our president, although that’s interesting in its own right, but to learn about the values that he believed and that he fought for his entire public life,” says Walker.

In an effort to further spread conservative values such as “free speech,” the action plan aims to develop programs for middle school-aged audiences, aiming also to develop a digital reference app to aid students of all ages in defending their beliefs.

Walker explains, “young people overwhelmingly… get their information on social media, from YouTube more than any other source. It’s dramatically high. And the good news is that means they’re hungry for content, not just flashy memes.”

He’s is attempting to provide substantial food for their intellectual hunger, aiming to increase YAF’s social media footprint to “5 million subscribers and 1 billion… views.”

Walker believes “there are a lot more people, particularly young people on college campuses, and even in schools across America, who share [conservative] views or at least major portions of them, they’re just intimidated from speaking out because the left is so aggressive.”

Accordingly, the Long Game aims to expand YAF’s premier campus lecture program and bring a YAF speaker to all 50 states. Walker posits exposing students, virtually or in person, to speakers like Ben Shapiro, Katie Pavlich, and Michael Knowles provides a new generation of leaders with examples and arguments to better defend their own individually held beliefs. 

Other goals of Walker’s Long Game include holding a record number of schools accountable for free speech violations and creating a support network for free-thinking educators who feel intimidated and fear backlash for speaking up in their institutions.  

The Long Game, says Walker, “is about not only supporting conservatives, but just teachers, educators and professors who want to be objective… Not only are they trying to silence students, but you see the same cancel culture applying to anyone who doesn’t completely double down on their far left radical doctrine.”

Walker speaks of the need for active engagement, saying, “This isn’t some initiative. This really is an action plan and the key to our success is getting people excited about that and engaged, whether they’re students or supporters or others. We need people to step up and help us in this battle.”

The final focus of Walker’s 12-point plan is to continue the training of proactive and truth-seeking journalists through YAF’s National Journalism Center (NJC). In full transparency, this reporter is currently an active fellow in the NJC fellowship. 

Rounding up his thoughts, the newly minted YAF president stressed the seriousness of the challenges facing our country and the importance of engaging a new generation with the humble and liberty-preserving ideas of Ronald Reagan, free speech, and individual responsibility. 

“Those on the left believe in socialism, which means more government, and we think there’s a stark contrast,” Walker concludes. “The only way they prevail is if they pit enough groups of people against each other to create chaos there, the way we prevail, is by, again, putting our faith and our trust in the American people and the more we tell that story. I think people see that’s an optimistic story.”

Pompeo Leaves the Door to 2024 Bid Open

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo hinted at a potential 2024 presidential bid, as speculation about the field of contenders for the nomination continues. Before serving as the top diplomat in the Trump administration, Pompeo served as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 2017-2018. Predating his tenure in the administration, Pompeo represented Kansas’ 4th congressional district.

Pompeo joined Ruthless podcast on Thursday after traveling to campaign for various Republicans, and left the door open to a possible 2024 bid for the GOP nomination. Like most Republican leaders, though, the former secretary of state is laser-focused on winning back Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

“You know, I love this country. I am always up for a good fight. We are in an enormous fight with the progressive left. There’s no doubt about that. I’m going to focus on the next year, year and a half, making sure that they don’t own both houses of Congress come January of 2023, and then everything else will settle out. We’ll see what happens after that. It was fun to be up in Iowa,” Pompeo said when asked about a potential run. “Everybody still understands that the challenges that America faces are in a better place today because of what we did these past four years, but they’re under assault today and so they’re anxious to get back at and it was fun to be up there with them and help them think through how we should approach that.”

Pompeo is one of a growing number of Republicans, including former Trump administration officials, to be thought of as a 2024 contender. Others include former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

Pompeo’s full interview can be found below:

Great time on the @RuthlessPodcast. Thanks for having me @HolmesJosh @ComfortablySmug!

Listen here: https://t.co/ylg1LOvePH— Mike Pompeo (@mikepompeo) April 1, 2021

Hunter Biden: That ‘Russian Disinformation’ Laptop ‘Absolutely’ Could’ve Been Mine, Actually

In the 2020 election’s home stretch, the New York Post published a story about the Democratic nominee’s son.  The Democratic nominee’s campaign immediately and angrily dismissed the story as ‘Russian disinformation,’ without evidence — and without actually denying that the Post’s sourcing was authentic.  Much of the media fell in line, uncritically repeating that denial, and certainly not demanding supporting proof from the Democratic nominee’s campaign.  Large social media platforms censored the story, or intentionally made it harder to access.  Twitter blocked the newspaper’s entire account for weeks.  In case you’ve forgotten the details, here is an excerpt from the original report:

Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post. The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month. “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads. An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf. The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings” — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer. The computer was dropped off at a repair shop in Biden’s home state of Delaware in April 2019, according to the store’s owner.

Numerous allegations about the younger Biden’s overseas business affairs have been raised and substantiated by at least some evidence, calling into serious question his father’s blanket denials.  The Biden campaign and their news media and Silicon Valley allies effectively squelched this potentially-unhelpful issue by deploying the baseless ‘Russian disinformation’ claim, to which former intelligence officials eagerly lent their reputations and expertise.  Months later, after Biden was elected president, we learned that Hunter Biden had in fact been the subject of a federal investigation related to these matters since 2018.  Politico reported the probe focused on Biden’s taxes, foreign ties, and possible money laundering.  As for the infamous laptop, many observers noted that the campaign had never explicitly denied that it was real, in spite of their credulously-parroted ‘disinformation’ misdirection.  In a new interview, Hunter Biden admits that the computer “certainly” could have been his:

Months after it was alleged that a laptop revealed Hunter Biden’s business interests in China and Ukraine, the president’s son tells Tracy Smith that the laptop “could be” his

Watch the full interview this weekend on #CBSSunday pic.twitter.com/DhtY5IcPeg— CBS Sunday Morning ?? (@CBSSunday) April 2, 2021


It could have been his, or he could have been hacked, or it could have been stolen, or it could have been Russia.  He doesn’t know.  “For real.”  What an answer.  Who knows whether the underlying controversy or scandal would have altered the outcome of the election if it had been properly covered and adjudicated, rather than censored and downplayed by people whose job is to be skeptical of politicians’ claims.  There’s a case to be made the in a close election — remember, Trump only lost the decisive states by roughly 44,000 total votes — that it could have made a difference.  There’s also a case to be made that there were much bigger factors on voters’ minds than this kerfuffle, even if it had received substantially more attention.  Regardless, the coordinated effort to nip this possible threat in the bud among the Democrats, the media, and Big Tech — at the eleventh hour, with very high stakes — is instructive and highly disturbing.

The censorship occurred against a bona fide news story, with documentation.  The actually unverified claim was the “Russian disinformation” deflection, which served as the basis for crushing the news story.  Talk about collusion.  And the people who did the crushing continue to present themselves as society’s vanguards of truth against misinformation.  Feeling reassured yet?  Finally, how could Hunter Biden (supposedly) not know whether is laptop was stolen?  It turns out he has an alleged history of misplacing personal belongings.  This recent story never gained much steam:

On Oct. 23, 2018, President Joe Biden’s son Hunter and daughter in law Hallie were involved in a bizarre incident in which Hallie took Hunter’s gun and threw it in a trash can behind a grocery store, only to return later to find it gone. Delaware police began investigating, concerned that the trash can was across from a high school and that the missing gun could be used in a crime, according to law enforcement officials and a copy of the police report obtained by POLITICO.  But a curious thing happened at the time: Secret Service agents approached the owner of the store where Hunter bought the gun and asked to take the paperwork involving the sale, according to two people, one of whom has firsthand knowledge of the episode and the other was briefed by a Secret Service agent after the fact. The gun store owner refused to supply the paperwork, suspecting that the Secret Service officers wanted to hide Hunter’s ownership of the missing gun in case it were to be involved in a crime, the two people said. The owner, Ron Palmieri, later turned over the papers to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which oversees federal gun laws.

The White House has denied the president had any knowledge of or involvement in the bizarre and partially-disputed incident.  And they’d never lie to us, would they?

The Socialist-Democrat false narrative of systemic racism and white supremacy

“Malarkey”, to quote the current occupant of the White House.

This could be the shortest opinion piece in history, since that single word pretty much accurately sums up the topic of systemic racism and white supremacy in America today. There really is not much more that needs to be said with regards to that false narrative that is being proclaimed all across the country by the party of the ‘woke’, the Socialist-Democrat Party, and their supporters in the news media.

Yes the history of slavery and racial prejudice did indeed exist and certainly is a stain on America’s heritage.  But for most Americans the subject of racial division in our nation had become a thing of the distant past. For a few decades now Americans for the most part had rid themselves of racial prejudices. They no longer paid any attention to the color of one’s skin n their daily life.  Dr. King’s hopes for a color blind society had finally arrived for most Americans.

Are there still individual racists today in America? Absolutely, there’s no denying that there have always been, and very likely always will be a very small number of people who simply won’t give up their racial stereotypes and personal animus towards people who are different from themselves. But their numbers have dwindled to near insignificance in the overall picture of American in 2021.

The overwhelming vast majority of Americans dismiss them, and view them with disgust and disdain. As a society America discarded racism and white supremacy long ago.  It simply no longer exists, with the exception of a few very small pockets and groups who do not reflect the opinion, nor represent the majority of Americans.

But unfortunately in January of 2009 with the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama all of this changed.  And now our country is afire with racial division, the fires stoked by the usual suspects like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and indeed Barack Obama himself.  But racial tensions are also being inflamed by organizations like BLM and ANTIFA, along with and being encouraged by the Socialist-Democrat Party (Plantation Party).

The ‘Plantation Party’ instead of working for Dr. King’s colorblind society now uses the black community and racial unrest as their only way of staying in power. They keep telling the lies of systemic racism and white supremacy over and over hoping that eventually many will believe it to be true.

It’s a tactic used since the days of former Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson. I won’t repeat here the well-known quote made by Johnson about attracting black voters for the next two hundred years, but suffice it to say it was a disgustingly racist and insulting comment that clearly illustrates the mindset of many Democrats then, and even now. Curiously I haven’t heard that Nancy Pelosi has been calling for any sculptures or plaques of Lyndon Johnson to be removed from the U.S. Capitol.

The Socialist-Democrats are the direct cause of any racial tensions occurring in this country. They have been lying to Black Americans for decades, promising everything and delivering little. Sadly many of the black members of the Socialist-Democrats in Washington feed this false narrative as their way of getting elected and re-elected, so that they can enrich themselves and their families off of the votes of Black Americans.  And what do Black Americans get in return for their votes? Not very much, maybe a new ‘ObamaPhone’.

But if you keep feeding them lies and empty promises, hopefully enough of them will keep coming back so that you can stay in power.  At least that’s the tactic that the Socialist-Democrat Party continues to use.

And many Black Americans indeed do stay loyal to the party, even though it had done very little for them for decades.  That is until President Trump offered them an alternative.  Lower unemployment, criminal justice reform offering a second chance for many black offenders in prison, and ‘Enterprise Zones’ to give new opportunities for black entrepreneurs.  An alternative to which a larger percentage of Black Americans started to turn to, leaving the Socialist-Democrat plantation for a real opportunity for a better life in America.

Which is exactly why the Socialist-Democrats have ramped up this “systemic racism and white supremacy” campaign.  Nothing more than a blatant attempt to scare Black Americans who deigned to think for themselves back into the Socialist-Democrat fold.

And it’s all nothing but a bunch of Malarkey.

Top Cuomo Aide at the Center of the Nursing Home Scandal Is Being Looked at for a New Reason

New York Attorney General Letitia James’ (D) office has subpoenaed members of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D) administration. James is asking Cuomo staffers to turn over documents as part of her office’s investigation into sexual harassment allegations made against the governor. 

One of the main people on James’ radar is Melissa DeRosa, the governor’s secretary, who also played a major role in the administration’s Wuhan coronavirus response. DeRosa is at the center of a federal investigation over the Cuomo administration’s COVID response, particularly relating to the governor’s nursing home scandal and the altered nursing home death reports, the Wall Street Journal reported. She was the top Cuomo staffer in the meeting with state legislators and said she feared the Trump administration would politicize the true nursing home death numbers if they were made public.

DeRosa’s name came up in the investigation because of her close ties to Cuomo. Multiple people told the WSJ that DeRosa has “regularly berated” a number of “officials, lawmakers and journalists in profanity-laced phone calls and text messages when they have crossed the governor.”

When Cuomo’s first accuser, Lindsey Boylan, came forward in December, DeRosa was reportedly part of a team of aides who contacted former staffers to ask about Boylan. She was also part of a circle of top aides who wrote a letter about Boylan’s personnel records, something Boylan says could be inauthentic and part of a larger “effort to smear her.”

“No one should be surprised that the AG’s office is issuing requests for documents and interviewing witnesses, including many who work for the governor,” Fishman told the WSJ. “That happens in every investigation, and it’s wildly premature to speculate what it means. Good, thorough, and fair investigations take time.”

So far, eight women have accused Cuomo of sexual harassment. Despite mounting calls for his resignation, Cuomo has repeatedly refused to resign. 

America’s Radical, Foreign-Policy Alinskyites Destroyed South Africa

Perplexing as it may seem, American foreign policy has been informed less by what Samuel P. Huntington termed civilizational consciousness than by the idea of the propositional nation. America, to her governing neoconservative and left-liberal elites, is not a nation but a notion, a community of disparate peoples coalescing around an abstract, highly manipulable, state-sanctioned ideology. Democracy, for one.

Yet to Russell Kirk, the father of American conservatism, and an old-school conservative—as well as, arguably, to the founders of the nation themselves—society was a community of souls, joining the dead, the living, and those yet unborn. It cohered through what Aristotle called friendship and what Christians call love of neighbor, facilitated by a shared language, literature, history, habits and heroes. 

These factors, taken together, constitute the glue that binds the nation. 

By contrast, the rather flimsy whimsy that is the American “creedal nation” is, ostensibly, united in “a common commitment to a set of ideas and ideals.” If anything, when expressed by the historical majority, the natural affinity for one’s tribe—a connection to kith, kin and culture—is deemed inauthentic, xenophobic, and racist, unless asserted by non-Occidentals.

The Foreign Policy Of A ‘Creedal Nation’

The disregard a country’s policy makers evince for the fellow-feelings stirred among countrymen by a common faith and customs—secular and sacred—is invariably reflected in its foreign policy. 

America’s foreign policy looks at populations as interchangeable as long as they are “socialized in the same way” and, as paleoconservative thinker Paul Gottfried puts it, “molded by a suitable public administration and a steady diet of human-rights talk.” The generic American government’s foreign policy reflects America’s denationalized elites, who are committed to “transnational and sub-national identities” both at home and abroad.

According to her ruling sophisticates, America’s mission is to “democratize mankind.” To fulfill this mission, and to do justice to American exceptionalism, Americans are, as Pat Buchanan put it, “indoctrinated in a fabricated creed that teaches they are being untrue to themselves and faithless to their fathers unless they go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Or, welcome The World into their midst. We aren’t Americans, we are the world, we are lectured. 

One such “monster” targeted for rapid reform was South Africa.

South Africa Betrayed

Cold War confrontation prompted the United States to acknowledge South Africa as a surrogate for American interests on the Dark Continent. In defense of these interests in the region and against the communization of their neighborhood, South African soldiers fought Russia’s Cuban and Angolan proxies with the same fortitude that the country’s founders displayed when battling the Zulus in the Battle of Blood River. 

Yes, South Africa had faithfully fulfilled its role as a Cold Warrior. It fought alongside other advanced Western nations, led by the United States, and “engaged in a pervasive ideological, political, economic, and, at times, military conflict with [other groups] of somewhat poorer, communist societies led by the Soviet Union.” 

A surplus of courage, however, was no panacea for a deficit in democracy.

Thus, although South Africa was regarded as “an important Western geostrategic bulwark” against Soviet encroachment in the region, the American reservoir of good will toward South Africa was quick to run dry. It’s not that the US did not have democratically flawed allies; it did and does. But such imperfections are usually the prerogative of non-Western nations. China, for instance. 

For South Africa this meant fighting communism’s agents while being handicapped by sanctions. “The United States had imposed an arms embargo on Pretoria in 1964 and had joined the international consensus in refusing to recognize the ‘independence’ of four of South Africa’s black homelands between 1976 and 1984.” 

While during the 1970s and the 1980s all American administrations condemned apartheid, they had generally opposed broad economic sanctions, arguing reasonably that these would hurt the very population they were intended to help. With the Carter administration (1977-81) came an even “tougher line toward Pretoria.” Jimmy Carter viewed black African nationalism as perfectly “compatible with US interests.”

In fairness, the left turn in American foreign policy came well before Carter. 

America’s support for Soviet satellites such as the African National Congress was likely a hangover from Yalta; a long-standing official policy of support for the Soviet alliance, and the subsequent ceding of most of Central and Eastern Europe to Stalin?

The shift in American foreign policy ironically saw the US adopt and deploy slogans popularized by the Soviet Union in support of African liberation and against the “imperial, colonial” West. 

There was a “pullback of military forces around the communist periphery” and the “frequent support of the Third World in disputes with Western nations” around the world. Thus, left-wing revolutionaries were propped up, instead of a Western ally like Salazar in Portugal; Mugabe was favored over Ian Smith, as was Nasser above Britain and France; Batista was ousted to make way for Castro.

Republicans Too Radical For Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan at least favored “constructive engagement” with South Africa, together with a tough resistance to communist advances in the Third World. But political pressure, not least from the Republican majority, mounted for an increasingly punitive stance toward Pretoria. This entailed an “elaborate sanctions structure,” disinvestment, and a prohibition on sharing intelligence with the South Africans. 

In 1986, the Soviet Union, which had until the 1980s supported a revolutionary takeover of white-ruled South Africa by its ANC protégés, suddenly changed its tune and denounced the idea. Once again, the US and the USSR were on the same side—that of “a negotiated settlement between Pretoria and its opponents.”

For advocating “constructive engagement,” members of his Republican Party issued a coruscating attack on Reagan. Senator Lowell P. Weicker Jr., in particular, stated: “For this moment, at least, the President has become an irrelevancy to the ideals, heartfelt and spoken, of America.” 

Republicans had slipped between the sheets with the fashionable left. What’s new? 

For sustainable change to take place, change must be gradual and “rooted in the institutions of society.” In tracing the contours of such Burkean thinking, Kirk referred to “that aspect … which is prepared to tolerate an old evil lest the cure prove worse than the disease.”

To Kirk’s contention that “true freedom can be found only within the framework of a social order,” I’d wager that in my former homeland, South Africa, this bulwark against barbarism has collapsed. In my new homeland, America, the framework that sustains the country’s ordered liberty is so rapidly being eroded, so as to be near collapse. 

Decades back, no less a classical liberal thinker than Ludwig von Mises warned that liberty in the United States could not—and would not—endure unless the founding nation retained its historic national identity and cultural hegemony. 

An ahistoric, rootless America, shot through with dangerous and systemic, anti-white animus, is an America in which liberty has been lost.

MSNBC Host: Ted Cruz Isn’t Really Hispanic…And There’s No Border Crisis

It’s not shocking that MSNBC, its host, or the liberal media peddles these sorts of attacks on nonwhite conservatives who don’t cower to the liberal narrative. In fact, conservatives who happen to be part of minority communities face the most abuse and ridicule from liberals. The only other group that faces more harassment and outright viciousness are women who don’t want any part of the Democratic Party’s plantation. So, when Joy Reid implied that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) really isn’t Hispanic, we roll our eyes, but this isn’t shocking. In fact, it’s probably the tamest she’s been in a while—and that’s saying something. Reid made these remarks as the nation deals with the border crisis, which the MSNBC host says isn’t happening (via Newsbusters):

https://www.mrctv.org/embed/558715

After her fact-free segment on “gun reform,” MSNBC’s Joy Reid pivoted on Tuesday’s ReidOut to immigration with a segment that could have easily been penned by the White House. In said block, Reid repeatedly said there isn’t a “crisis” at the southern border and said “caterwauling” from “the Grand Q Party” doesn’t care about the children there because they’re too busy perpetuating a “brown scare.”

And with help from the University of Texas at Austin’s Victoria DeFrancesco Soto, they compared concerns about the border to 20th century eugenicists and even implied they don’t view Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) as a real Hispanic 

[…]

After gently calling for more press access to migrant “facilities,” Reid gaslit viewers into further hating their right-leaning family members and neighbors as having hearts so cold that children lack value:

[F]or Republicans, their caterwauling is not about concern for those children. Let’s just be clear. Those children are just a prop for fear-mongering and doing the old brown scare as evidenced by what you heard from Lindsey Graham earlier.

Speaking of gaslighting, Reid then butchered and further misled by saying FNC’s Justice host Jeanine Pirro used “nativist” and “racist” language. 

What Pirro actually said was that cartels trafficking children to the U.S. was a form of “slavery” and would endow these children to them in a way that would render them “a lower level of human being who will be controlled from other countries.”

[…]

…[T]hey turned to whether the border is “a crisis” with DeFrancesco Soto stating that it’s a decade-long crisis and Reid going utterly ballistic and almost shouting about how “no, it’s not a crisis” because it was supposedly worse under President George W. Bush. 

[…]

REID: [B]ut I just have to get your thoughts on Ted — Rafael Cruz, who himself is a person of color, participate in that? Your thoughts.

DEFRANCESCO SOTO: He is, Joy Ann, but he has never embraced that identity. In fact, I would — I would argue that he is pushed back against his Latino identity. And I think the trickier part is that, in framing his dad’s immigration to the United States from Cuba, he always is very clear to point out he was a political refugee, that he came here fighting communism. He didn’t want to be in that communist bastion that was Cuba. He came to the U.S., so he uses a very different frame to separate himself from immigrants who are coming as a result of economic reasons or the plight that we’re seeing in Central America. So, it’s been always interesting to see how Ted Cruz has separated himself from his immigrant experience and when pushed, you know, puts the difference of his dad and other immigrants.

MSNBC really paid its due regarding keeping the Democratic National Committee happy and its audience comforted. The moral superiority the oozes from the Left and their media allies is beyond insufferable, so hates off to the crew at Newsbusters who have to endure this idiocy 24/7. It never ceases to amaze me how there is zero room for nuance with liberals. If you’re a nonwhite immigrant, then in the minds of liberals, especially white, college-educated ones, you must be for amnesty and a pathway to citizenship. If not, you’re not really part of your ethnic group. Really? I also believe in the rule of law, and breaking federal immigration law is, in my book, highly frowned upon. It’s also a national security issue. And now under Biden, it’s a full-blown humanitarian crisis. There’s a reason why he’s blocking media access to his detention centers. It’s because it’s atrocious inside. Kids are packed to the rafters. There’s COVID, disease, and a host of issues these liberal media types would have used gleefully against Trump. No, scratch that; they did. It’s classic interference. It’s not a real crisis because it was worse under Republicans, and Cruz isn’t a Hispanic because he refuses to be an unhinged woke moron who thinks his or her racial identity is THE most important part of who they are. Not the case. 

Also, why is Reid still on the air? Besides accusing former Attorney General William Barr of being involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s death, which was some grade-A tin foil hat material, have we forgotten that she bashed the one group who you cannot insult ever as a progressive: the LGBT community. Old posts were rehashed. They’re very problematic. She said she was hacked, which was absolutely not possible unless she has a time machine. Also, no one believed her hacking claim and yet she’s still there hosting a show on television.