A Tale of Two Attorney Generals

images (5).jpg

Yesterday President Trump fired the acting Attorney General Sally Yates. This came after she refused to defend the executive order in court as plaintiffs challenged portions of it. She said that the executive order was not consistent with her obligation to always stand for what is right nor does she believe that the executive order is lawful. Chuck Schumer said she was fired because she would not enforce an order she believed was illegal and unconstitutional.

This issue touches a pet peeve of mine on how Republicans and Democrats view the Attorney General and the powers of that office. This clash of ideas as to what the Attorney General actually is causes most of this friction.


Republicans see the Attorney General as someone who implements existing law and represents the government in these cases. Like any lawyer they would look at ambiguities in the law and interpret them based on the needs or goals of its clients. Inevitably there would be other people with other interpretations of the law  and they would argue about it in court. The Attorney General would represent the governments side and if he felt he couldn’t he would resign. Once the case is over the way the Supreme Court would interpret the law would stand and the Attorney General and the rest of the administration would follow. This would be the traditional view of an Attorney General.


Democrats have a different view of the Attorney General. Aside from the duties I outlined that the Republicans expect the Democratic AG is also required to make a value judgement on the issue. Aside from judging the legality or constitutionality of each law the Democratic AG must also personally agree with the stances taken by each law and executive order or he could refuse to prosecute and instruct the DOJ itself to refuse to prosecute. Essentially the AG would have veto power over the rest of the administration. This of course presents problems when you have a democratic AG working with a Republican administration or vice versa.

Over and above veto power over the executive branch democratic AG’s are expected to wield veto power over the judicial and legislative branches as well. The supreme court can strike down all challenges to a law or order and can rule unanimously in its favor and the legislature can pass a bill with no opposing votes but if it does not meet the view of the AG they can unilaterally veto that by refusing to prosecute. Illegal immigration is a perfect example of this. The courts say you have the right to control your borders and there could be a law for it but if the AG does not want to punish anyone for breaking the law then it is moot.

The democrats are afraid of Trump being a dictator yet the amount of power they vest upon the AG is as close to a dictator as you will ever see. Once confirmed their version of the AG has the power of oversight on every other branch of government and can take unilateral decisions on that oversight. The AG cannot even be fired as he is acting on some sort of morality that is supposed to be unimpeachable.



Guide to Using the Immigration Ban to Trigger Liberals

images (3).jpg

Here are six handy ways to trigger your friendly neighborhood SJW.

Situation One- Muslim Ban

When they talk about the Muslim ban start freaking out about having to go to Malaysia to train a team to replace American workers and your worried about having to go back. When they say India is not included start freaking out about your vacation to Indonesia. When they say that’s not included too say that you have a girlfriend in Turkey and she is stuck there because of the Muslim ban. When they say that’s not included as well ask them I thought there was a Muslim ban?

Situation Two- Iranian Ban

Loudly start cursing Trump for ruining your travel plans. When they ask why say you were planning to attend a terrorist training camp but now Iran banned Americans from coming in. You were looking forward to it too.

Situation Three – Christian Refugees

Strike up a conversation about how the rights of minorities should be protected. Start with the Indian tribes in Standing Rock then start throwing some BLM for good measure. Once they start going tell them we need to start protecting the Christian minorities in Syria from persecution.

Situation Four- Country Selection

Say that whoever picked the countries is racist because of the countries he selected. When they agree with you start cursing Obama for selecting the countries.

Situation Five – Judicial System

Rant about how terrible the Judicial system is in the country and bring up that parties should always be represented whenever any decisions are made. When they agree point out how terrible it is that the Judge involved in the immigration case struck down parts of the Executive Order without even giving an opportunity to he government representative to speak.

Situation Six- Refugee Crimes 

Wait until they bring up that there have been no acts of terrorism committed by refugees from the countries banned. Agree with them and say that the cologne Rape spree was just mass rape and not technically terrorism and the truck driver in Nice was just taking a nice drive. Not to worry though we will be requesting a different set of refugees than those sent to Europe.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying About a Trade War

download (2).jpg

It has been a hectic last couple of days and it is very hard to keep up with all the news. I take a long weekend and here we are with multiple topics for me to choose from. It seems like it is not enough to do one article a day with the quicksilver speed that Trump is moving in. I may do more soon. I’ll start with the tariff proposal to Mexico and the other methods discussed to make them pay for the wall. Make no mistake we will Build That Wall and Mexico will pay for it, though they will not do so voluntarily.


First of let me point out the logic trap for easy use. In 2014 Russia invaded Crimea. We retaliated with economic sanctions to get them to correct their behavior. We were told that the American economy was strong enough to impact the Russian one half a world a way and it looks like, outside of some very specific companies, there was no impact to the US economy.

Now we are told the US economy is too weak to impose sanctions on Mexico, which is essentially what the 20% tariff is, and it would devastate the US economy while Mexico would have no trouble finding other trading partners. Either the US has gotten absurdly weaker in the last 2 years of Obama or you can smell the BS from here.


This is the primary reason why you a 20% tariff of Mexican goods will not affect you. I guarantee you any product shipped from Mexico has a competitor. I also guarantee you that the price is nearly the same or even less and Mexico does not have the monopoly on any given market. If you are a business worried about your supply chain I guarantee you that another supplier sells that widget for the same price. If you are a mega corporation who set up a factory in Mexico taking away jobs from Americans to take advantage of cheaper labor. Well, this is part of the risks of outsourcing. You knew that coming in.

What the media or our economists who push for globalization fail to mention is that Mexico does not have a monopoly on anything. Say you get a soccer ball from Mexico. You normally paid 2$ for it. We place a tariff. According to the economists this would be passed on to the consumers 100%. In that case you would then be paying 4$ for the ball. What is the most likely scenario though?  Would you still buy that soccer ball for 4$ or would you buy one from another country like India or Vietnam from 2$ as well? Given that the quality would most likely be the same most people would select the 2$ option. Knowing that would the Mexican company price their products at 4$ knowing they will lose market share?

Let me reiterate. The only way the arguments by the globalist economists make is valid is if Mexico had an effective monopoly and could charge whatever it wanted. If it had anything close to this on any product it would be as rich as Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Mexico does not even realistically have the option of selling to other countries as for most products the markets are saturated already and they would be keeping for market share with established players in those markets.

American Jobs

Another persistent message we hear is how would this create American jobs? This would just shift the supplier from Mexico to Vietnam or India. This may be true. Though I would point out at this point we should be making steps to incentivize businesses to come to the US such as lowering taxes.

This executive order does not have to create jobs. Each order or law has a purpose. If you ease regulations you aim to attract new business. If you ban refugees you aim to protect Americans. In this case you aim to extract enough wealth from Mexico to pay for the wall to help with immigration. Not every single executive order and law that will be created under Trump will target jobs.

There you have it. Just apply a little bit of logic and basic economics and you find you have nothing to worry about with a tariff to Mexico.


Justice Democrats


Also known as how the democrats will lose in 2018 and 2020. If you don’t know what the justice democrats are they are basically a rebranding of the Bernie wing of the democratic party. No corporate donors, no “establishment” politicians, and an attempt to return to its roots.

Don’t get me wrong. I like the policies. I would much rather have these democrats in charge than the shrieking social justice warriors of the Hillary camp. Ideologically I am closer to these democrats as well, though I suspect they will be very soft on illegal immigration. This will be a disaster not because of policy but because they are committing the same mistake Clinton did.


So what exactly did she get wrong? Everyone will give you a different answer but the fundamental issue is that she assumed the other wing of her party would go along with her. Yes there were some crumbs thrown to the Bernie wing in the party platform. Yet everyone knew  that following that platform was optional and leaders often have ignored it. In contrast the Bernie wing was frozen out of almost all leadership positions. Paine the VP came from the same faction as Clinton. The Bernie grassroots base were regularly ignored in the campaign. Of course we have the emails and the DNC collusion. As a result the Bernie faction believed they would get nothing as none of the actions lined up with the words.

Everything actually boils down to this. From her hubris, to her emails, to the russian hacking. Ignoring the other portion of the party led to very soft support for her which melted away at the slightest pressure. Whereas support was firm for Trump as each part of the coalition believed they would be getting something. Building a proper coalition would have let her weather the scandals.


Contrast this with Trump. First off his Vice Presidential pick was Pence. If you asked anyone on the alt-right or in the Donald subreddit none of them would have placed Pence in the top 5 of their picks for VP. Which was what made him a very good choice. He represented the evangelical wing of the party and was enough to get them to support Trump despite pussygate. The leadership team of the Trump campaign itself came from many different factions in the party. Some formerly with Cruz and some with other candidates. About the only faction that was frozen out were the neo conservatives and Trump did pay a price for that with the candidacy of Mcmullin as well as other party leaders actively opposing Trump. It was mitigated slightly with constant talks of increasing military spending which may have won over the neoconservative base if not their leaders.

Justice Democrats

Notice that I have not weighed in on the quality of the platform of the Justice Democrats. It is all very good and admirable from my perspective. The problem is different people want different things from the party. The Justice democrats know what they want. They know exactly what they want and are not willing to accept any less. The restrictive nature of their platform means that they lock out any potential coalition partners. If you’re a democrat reading this don’t take my word for it. The leading figures in this movement seem to be Cenk from TYT and Kyle from Secular Talk. What is their message? To all establishment democrats get out of the way or get run over. We will primary all of you.

You believe in the issues you fight for and I understand that. I believe in the issues I fight for as well. Ask yourself though. What is the difference between Hillary telling Bernie to get out of the way and support her and Cenk and Kyle telling the establishment democrats to get out of the way and support the Justice democrats? You may believe that the Justice democrats have the right policies so people should get behind them but not everyone will believe as you do.

This will shock some people but when it comes to electoral coalitions the alt-right nationalists that make up much of President Trump’s base makes a far better coalition partner than the Justice democrats. The alt right has relatively few demands and knows which particular issues it can compromise on. As long as we have economic nationalism, Border controls, and a realistic view on the dangers presented by Islam we can compromise on the rest. Abortion, guns, and a whole host of other issues are negotiable. If we had a left that was not as globalist as it currently is it is not inconceivable for us to coalesce with it.


I want the Justice Democrats to succeed. I think they will be much better for the country than the establishment Democrats as they have a nationalist component which is why I made this article. I intentionally stayed away from policy discussions as I believe the process that the movement is being driven is what will cause its failure not policy.

For the Justice Democrats to succeed they must figure out what their core concerns are. What is most important to you and what can you give up to bring more members into your coalition. On a happy note if they do fail then its 8 years of Alt-right Trumplicans. Good times.


Did We Hand Asia to China?

images (2).jpg

The outcry has begun over the TPP. Richard Haas says that it will slow US growth and the primary beneficiary is China. Micheal Mcaul says we just handed China a major victory. For free! I don’t need to mention the others including John Mccain espousing gloom and doom.

What Actually Happened?

We cancelled a multi-lateral trade deal with a bunch of countries in Asia. Does this mean that we will cease all trade with all Asian countries for now till eternity? No it does not. We have bilateral agreements. We have the WTO. We have prior relationships. All it means is that we will not have this particular trade agreement.

Why are we against it? Well first off bi lateral agreements are much easier to manage and negotiate than ones involving multiple countries. They are also much easier to change and annul. We also have a problem with the potential for outsourcing that this deal has as we have experienced first hand with NAFTA.

Why TPP?

The main argument for TPP seems to be that if we do not do it China will. China is pushing this deal called Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership which would theoretically replace the TPP. According to foreign policy analysts this would freeze out America and give China regional dominance in Asia. Basically China would replace the US in the web of Asian trade.

Let us take a look at the numbers. TPP includes 37.5 of global GDP , 25.9% of global trade, and 11.1% of the global population. RCEP includes 30.5% of global GDP, 27.4% of global trade, and 47.9% of the global population.

Do you see the problem now?

Can China Replace the US?

In short no. If you look at the numbers all the economies involved in the RECP are producer economies. For normal trade deals to work there normally has to be a stronger economy which outsources the jobs to the poorer one who then makes cheap products. The stronger economy now has access to cheap goods extending their budget and can then shift to other more productive fields.

In the case of RCEP the economies involved are the ones that are being outsourced too. The sweet sweet irony here is the countries involved in the RCEP have even lower wage scales than China! China will be in the exact same position as the US as its manufacturing base is outsourced to Vietnam and the other countries.

30.5% of the GDP shared by almost 50% of the populace means that there are almost no consumers to sell to and very little opportunity to make the profits required for the deal to be worth it. It says that almost everyone involved is barely subsisting.

The misconception here is that China can replace the US because of the size of its GDP. The US is the most desirable market in the world not just because of the production of its people but because of its purchasing power. Welfare, Food Stamps, Government Assistance, Easy access to credit. You may not like some of these things but it means that the average American can spend consume a much greater amount of goods than their paycheck would suggest.

In summary. China cannot replace the US in Asia with its trade deal. China and the US fulfill different roles in trade. RCEP is looking a lot like their version of NAFTA. The people who think that China will use this deal to be “economically dominant” are the same people who thought NAFTA was a good idea. The people in RCEP will need bilateral agreements with the US to have a market to sell to. For most of them the US will still be the most important trading partner.

The Alt Right View: Ideology


I have been asked by multiple people what exactly the ideology of the alt-right is? The short answer is pragmatic nationalism. The alt-right does not really hold a set of conservative or liberal views on any one subject. The primary concern is that the policies chosen benefit America first. This means that on some issues we can side with the left and on others with the right.

This is actually a lot more complex than it sounds. There are some groups who believe more free trade is the solution to everything so no matter what the problem they go with that even if it no longer works. There are some groups that believe a more aggressive foreign policy is the answer even if it is not a good idea for that particular case. There are some groups who believe that welcome every culture to the United States is the answer despite Islam proving to be incompatible with the west. Pragmatic Nationalism cannot just pick a default answer. It has to look at the circumstances surrounding each decision and pick the best course. I will give some examples to show how the alt-right position can change depending on circumstances.

Free Trade

There was a point in time where World War 2 just ended. Europe being one of the major battlegrounds of the war lost much of its industrial capacity. Japan and China had the same problem as China was a battleground and under occupation for much of the war and Japan, while not invaded, had most of its factories bombed or nuked. Africa and the Middle east were chugging along hopelessly as usual. In that situation free trade was great! Who wouldn’t want unlimited access to all the market places in the world with no competition? We could produce as much as we wanted and everything would have to be made in America and sold elsewhere as there was nowhere else to produce it.

Fast forward to modern times. Almost every country has the capability to produce basic products. Only a few very specialized things can only be manufactured in America. Other countries can and have taken business from the US by attracting companies with lower wages and low to no taxes. At this point with so much more competition, free trade becomes less desirable and protectionist measures should be put in place.


The statue of liberty says that you should throw anyone you don’t want in your country to the US and we will take them. It may sound strange but there was a point in time where we would have supported this approach. The US has just conquered half a continent from the Indians and the Mexicans. We had a lot of empty land in our hands and not enough people. to fill it. Using the subjugated populations for the areas would just have been asking for rebellions and in any case there was not enough Indians left alive to effectively do this. Making babies would have taken to long as we would have to wait a couple of generations before we could integrate the fallow lands into our economy. Economically each immigrant did not have a safety net surrounding them. No healthcare, food stamps, or any other benefits so there was little additional cost to welcoming them.

We have to compare that to our situation today. According to the latest statistics we have around 40% of the population not working. We have a housing crisis in several cities where the lower economic  classes who run the service sector unable to afford to live in the cities they work in. We have advances in tactics and weaponry which means that one single terrorist is more dangerous than a regiment of troops when our immigration policies were different. We also have different social services in place where a single person costs more to maintain. Simply put we just do not have the same need for the same amount of people than we did when we asked to be the worlds dumping ground.

I hope these two examples show how pragmatic nationalism works and how an idea which may have worked in one generation may not work in another.

Democrats and the Rise of the Mediocre Negro


We now have a new term the democrats use for Negroes who step out of line. Mediocre Negro now joins Uncle Tom, Aunt Jemima, and other tools of psychological pressure to keep the African American population in line.

The issue started when some African American community leaders went to Trump Tower to have a discussion with President Trump about how to improve the lives of the African American community. Of course the pundits in CNN did not like this. They labelled them as mediocre negroes. The mediocre negroes had the gall to talk about the problems in the inner cities and employment when they were not even part of the business community but were rather sports, movie, and musical stars only brought to sing and dance and were used for photo ops.

The Talk

African Americans, like the Union vote, have always been one of the core voting blocks of the Democrats. The push-back that President Trump gets in trying to build inroads to the community is understandable. The question democrats have to ask themselves is.. Well what did you think would happen? When you ignore the interests of one of your core voting blocks in favor of the interests of other blocks you want to bring in then they will find other allies to get their needs.

In championing illegal immigration and creating more competition for scarce jobs the Democrats have shown that the African American community could expect little help from them in dealing with their historic unemployment problems as the Democrats were more interested in acquire the family members of the illegals as a voting block.

In championing NAFTA under Bill Clinton and TPP under Hillary Clinton and President Obama they have shown that they are willing to put corporate and donor interests above the employment issues that the African American community faces.

In cracking down on super-predators and pushing forth a crime bill that targeted African-Americans under Bill Clinton they have shown that the community could not rely on them to protect it.

Can the African American community rely on Trump? They don’t know. Yet there are enough of them willing to try.

The Song and Dance

The party which campaigns with Katy Perry, Beyonce, and gets it climate advice from Leonardo di Caprio is upset at the mediocre negro at only being used for singing, dancing and photo ops.

The hypocrisy is plain to see but the central issue is the fundamental understanding the democrats have of the community. According to Senator Sanders African American youth unemployment has hit 50%. There are no jobs you get early on to teach you work ethics and other valuable life lessons. There are no early paychecks to help you qualify for a credit card early and build your credit score so that when you need a loan for your first business you get favorable interest rates. Instead we have out of work youths who are at a higher risk of turning to crime. The building blocks to be a successful small business owner have been taken away one by one.

If you look at the low income African American community the quickest way out of poverty is to “sing and dance” and maybe catch too. Sports, singing, acting, and other things of this nature have proven to be the only hope of a sizable portion of the community which is why you see young black athletes take their sport very seriously. They know it is the only shot they have. Yet they are faulted for being mediocre negroes when they succeed in the only path left to them.

This is by no means limited to the left. The Republican base revolted against the party this year and voted for someone their leaders were against because they felt that their needs were ignored. As long as you keep ignoring the interests of your voting blocks more and more mediocre negroes will appear.


The Alt-Right View: Trade War


For our topic today I will be discussing our views on trade wars. I have wanted to do this topic for a while as I feel it is one of the few legitimate concerns people would have over President Trump and the alt-right.

To begin with a trade war or economic war is another form of war so it follows all the rules that I outlined when I discussed our views on war. Trade wars should only be done out of national interest and once started there should be no limits to return to peace as fast as possible. I would also like to add that the objective of a trade war does not necessarily have to be economic. We started embargoes against states like North Korea or Iran, not because we need them to open their markets, which no one cares about but because we wanted to inspire societal change by replacing their form of government and political change by correcting the attitudes of their leaders. At the end of the day Economic wars are just another tool in our quiver to further our national interest.

People who do not follow our philosophy wonder why we are not more concerned with a trade war. More than anything our views are pragmatic. We believe that the poor state of the American economy and our trade balance gives us certain advantages in a trade war. These advantages disappear once the economy and trade balance get better but we should use them while they are here. In the Alt Right view trade wars follow two rules.

The Customer is Always Right

Think back to your own life. If something happens and the local Mcdonalds does something to annoy you then you can easily switch to the neighboring KFC , Wendy’s, or Burger King. Due to the number of choices you have available about the only thing that will happen is that the seasoning in your fried chicken changes. The price does not even go up as Wendys, Burger King, and KFC will still have to compete amongst themselves.

The US faces a similar situation with China. From Clothing (34B) to computers (40B) to toys (28B). Almost everything that China sells to the US is a product with multiple competitors. In fact you may not even notice if the Chinese brand is not available as there is a Korean, Philippine, or Japanese one you could buy instead. In fact the other countries would step up production to fill in the void left by the Chinese. The volume of trade is another consideration. The top 10 products that China sells to the US totals over 250 billion in volume. If the US market was closed off or restricted to them there would be no other market available to take that volume and they would have to reduce production.

Contrast this with the US economy. The product we sell in the most volume to China is soy beans(10B). The total of the top 10 products the US sells to China does not even hit 40b. It is a lot easier to find new costumers for 40b worth of goods than it is to find them for 250 b worth of goods. The fact that we produce so little is not a good thing and if we succeed it will change. Yet this is the reality we are dealing with as of the moment.

There is also a misconception that since there is more Chinese than Americans that China is a more important market to enter which is why companies would prefer it. This is wrong. America is the most important market in the world and companies would always prefer access to it over China. Due to social security, welfare, credit cards, and other devices each American has more purchasing power than what his salary would suggest and even that salary would be much higher than his Chinese counterparts. The only real value the Chinese have is low wages and even that is being taken over by the Indians, Vietnamese, and others.

At this point people will then ask. Isn’t the main beneficiary Vietnam, India, and the other countries production will shift to? Why yes. Thank you for noticing. In an age where China is flexing its muscles in Asia its greatest fear next to a US- Russia alliance is having its production transferred to the other Asian countries by the same methods American production was transferred to it. Remember the trade war does not always have to have an economic goal. As for the US dealing with multiple smaller countries is easier than dealing with one major superpower. Some of the jobs which require more infrastructure and those involving restricted technology may find its way back as well.

Unless You Have a Monopoly

This is the second that overrides the first. Think back to your life. When Sprint or Verizon pisses you off what can you do? Cry harder. Unless of course you have actual competition in you area. I mention this rule for the sake of completeness as it does not apply to the situation in China and the US. If one did have a monopoly they could use that to great advantage in a trade war.

Having a monopoly does not necessarily mean having a monopoly in the classical sense. You could supply so much of the demand for the product worldwide that you have a functional monopoly. For instance in World War 2 so much of the demand for oil was spoken for that even if the US was not the only supplier of oil for Japan it could still cripple them by refusing to sell even if they are the consumer as they had no one else to buy from.

You could also have a created monopoly because of technology. This usually applies to the military and other things of that nature. While there are many different tanks for example once you buy an American one then you would have to keep buying ones from American defense contractors as the spare parts would not be compatible if you suddenly started buying Chinese ones. Incidentally this is why forcing European countries to double their defense budgets is a great move as it creates a lot of new business for US defense contractors and jobs for the industries involved in it.

The Customer is Always Right Unless You Have a Monopoly. Which is why we are not worried about a trade war with China.

Foreign Involvement?


With all the noise coming out of the left in the past couple of days trying to delegitimize President Trump I thought I would compile a list of all the foreign entities that tried to influence the election on behalf of Secretary Clinton and the democrats.

Pope Francis (Catholic Church) – Released a statement saying that Donald Trump was not Christian if he wanted to build a wall along the southern border.

Vicente Fox (Mexico)- Constantly went on air saying that Trump was a liar, a bigot, racist, and pretty much everything else you can think of.

David Cameron (Great Britain) – Said that Mr. Trump’s thinking was stupid and wrong. Great Britain also proposed banning Mr. Trump from visiting the country.

Alwaleed Alsaud (Saudi Arabia) – Mentioned in a live interview that Mr. Trump was a disgrace and should withdraw.

Christine Legarde (IMF) – In another attempt to sway the public she gave an interview and said that she and her organization was concerned about Trump’s stance on trade.

Sandro Gozi (Italy) – Said that Trump’s solutions were false. No mention on the solutions of Secretary Clinton

Anders Rasmussen (NATO) – Mentioned that he had concerns for the future of NATO under Trump.

Manuel Valls (France) – Prime Minister of France said that Trump only stokes hatred. Which of course he knew would be played by our press to influence the populace.

Sigmar Gabriel (Germany) – German economic minister. Said that Trump is a threat to economic development.

Dar Al Ifta (Egypt) –  Official religious state body for Egypt. Printed an article saying that Trump’s rhetoric towards Muslims was dangerous to the American community.

Let us not forget the hacking and the leaks targeted at Mr. Trump. None of them were ever investigated, which is strange considering that the tax return was an actual federal document that was hacked or leaked while the DNC according to their very own statements was a private entity. They could have been hacked by foreign entities or the leaks could have been arranged or paid for using foreign funds.

Where is the outrage at these foreign countries trying to tilt the elections towards Clinton?


Democrats Want Civil War Over Slavery: Again…


Four score and seven years ago, or however long ago the Civil War was, there was a Republican named Abraham Lincoln. He wanted to free the slaves and the democrats went crazy. They said President Lincoln was going to destroy their economy and way of life and said he was the most evil person in history. If Hitler were around at that time they would have used that comparison. Instead they compared him to the devil.

Fast forward to today. America is back to its old ways and we have developed another slave class. Just like in ancient Rome and the South of old these slaves were imported from their homes and made to work for the benefit of a foreign land. Along comes President Trump. Not only does he call for the country to free its slaves like President Lincoln did in the past but he goes a step further and calls for repatriation back to their homelands. As they did before the Civil War the left went crazy. They call President Trump Hitler, the devil, and other things. They grasp at straws at random unverified reports. Some even call for the declaration of martial law by the outgoing President. Sadly the country never learns. The democrats of old even use the same argument as the democrats of today.

Economy Needs Them

In the old South the slaves were needed to keep the plantations economically viable. The planters would not be able to make as much money using their cash crops if they had to pay someone an actual wage. Instead they had the slaves imported so they could get all the labor they want for the price of room and board. Not particularly pleasant room and board at that.

Today the democrats say the same thing. Who will pick strawberries at that low price? Who will pick our other produce? Who will work as our waiters , cooks, and other service jobs? We can’t afford to get rid of them and hire Americans as your prices will go up. The same exact argument was made then as it is now.

For their Own Greater Good

In the south the slave owners justified taking the slaves from their homes because it was for their own good. The countries that they stayed in are backwards and they would have no real opportunity in it. The slaves are taken care of here instead of being left to die. The crux of the argument was that it was for their best interests to be slaves.

We have the same argument today. We cannot let the slaves return home. They have opportunity in America that they do not in their home countries. They have to stay here as slaves to live a better life and they would be better taken care of than in their own country. There is no possible way that they could be skilled or talented enough to develop their home countries.  The same argument about how it is in the best interests of slaves.


The south said that Lincoln was not a legitimate president. Due to state rights he had no power to take their slaves away from them. They promised mayhem, protests, and civil disobedience if he was elected. They walked out on their own party when freeing the slaves was discussed. They said that Lincoln could not have won if not for the split in the democratic party (the Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats). They claimed a majority of Americans did not support Lincoln as only 40% voted for him and 60% for someone else. Military officers claimed they would not serve under Lincoln and began preparations. Ultimately this led to secession.

Fast forward to President Trump. The EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS are used. Trump could not have won if not for the split in the democratic party (Berniecrats and Hillary Supporters). A majority of Americans did not vote for Trump as more voted for other candidates despite Trump winning the electoral college. Military officers claimed they would not follow Trump during the election. Sanctuary cities have declared that they will not follow orders by the Trump government just like the southern states. Like the democrats of old the democrats now act like this is the end of the world. We now reach the logical conclusion of some high profile democrats calling for martial law.

150 years and no change in their stance or rhetoric. At this point we have to ask ourselves. What is it with democrats and slavery?