Deconstructing the Argument for Illegal Immigration


When people defend illegal immigration they do so by saying it is beneficial to the economy. They point out that the illegal immigrants contribute more to the society than they take out. First because they pay sales taxes on the things they buy and second because the products they buy with their salary create demand for products and services which then creates more jobs. They also argue if the jobs were given to the citizens it would raise the prices of goods as they get paid more. If you don’t think about it too hard it does sound plausible. As always when the left makes an argument it only looks good on the surface.


The first flaw in the argument comes with the jobs the illegals take. These jobs exist independent of the illegals. In fact the reason why the illegals come here is that these jobs exist in the first place. Whether the illegals are here or not these jobs still need to be done. Fruit still need to be picked, tables need to be waited on, and buildings still need to be constructed. All that would happen is you have American citizens employed in these jobs instead most likely earning higher wages. At the end of the day the defining characteristic of the illegal is that he is willing to work less than the citizen. In most cases there is no special skill set that he alone possesses.

Illegals Spend

Now that we have established that the jobs would be there whether illegals are here or not we move on to the next point. The money will get spend on the economy whether a citizen or an illegal earns it. In fact the results are worse when an illegal spends the money. The illegal alien would have family in Guatemala, Malaysia, or whatever his home country is which he would have to send money to. This usually results in around 50% of his salary getting sent abroad. The citizen would most likely spend most of his money in the country. True they would not spend their entire salary in the economy as they may buy products from other countries from time to time but that is true for both illegal and citizen. The citizen would also earn more than the illegal which means he has more money to spend than the illegal. Giving the money to the citizen means that there is more of it to spend and that a greater percentage makes it into the economy.

More money spent in the economy means more jobs created as demand rises. The citizen getting the job boosts the economy by a greater amount.

High Prices

When confronted by this argument the first thing you should do is take a deep breath and smell the hypocrisy. The very people who argue for minimum wage increases and say that it will somehow all work out are saying that raising the wages of some workers will cause economic Armageddon. Let us think about this first. The common argument is that businesses can pass on whatever costs they want to the consumers. Is that assumption true? If Pepsi were to suddenly charge you 100$ per bottle would you still drink Pepsi? Or would drink Coke instead? What if both Pepsi and Coke raised their price would you still buy? Or would you buy Juice instead?

The reality is there are numerous reasons why a company cannot just raise prices. Competition, similar products, marketing strategies for market share, and more. Sometimes companies do have to eat the cost. For example some credit cards don’t charge foreign transaction fees. That is not because the bank does not have to pay those fees it is because they choose to eat those fees to be able to offer something that other credit cards don’t. This all means that it is not true that prices are going to skyrocket if you pay people more. The increased demand caused by the higher wages may even allow some companies to lower prices and make up the profit in volume sold.

Once you begin to look at things objectively you find there is no rational economic justification for illegal immigrants.


If Trump is a Russian Puppet then why…..

download (5).jpg

Here is a series of questions that liberals have never been able to answer about their Russian conspiracy theories.

Why is Trump pushing oil and natural gas? 

This is actually the biggest one. Russia relies on oil and natural gas for its economy. In fact it would not be an understatement to say that this is the biggest weakness of Russia. Any major reduction in price would be enough to trigger an economic downturn in Russia. If Trump were a Russian puppet why would he increase production of oil and natural gas by the US? Economics would say that the more supply in the market the lower the price gets. Would it not be more beneficial for Russia if the US were to decrease production increasing the price of oil and gas?

Why is Trump speaking out against refugees in Europe  ? 

The biggest event to destabilize Europe in recent memory was not the election of Trump, Farage and brexit, or even the Grecian debt crisis. It was Merkel inviting millions of savages from the middle east to settle in Europe. This completely overwhelmed border countries who were not in great shape to begin with and even caused a backlash of independence movements across the continent demanding to withdraw from the EU culminating in the UK actually voting to leave. For single handedly inflicting the greatest crisis the EU faced upon itself Merkel was lauded by the liberal world order. If Trump wanted to help Putin by destroying the EU would it not be simpler for Trump to let the situation continue by praising Merkel? After all the refugee crisis has made the EU so weak that it has to bow to the demands or face them releasing their refugee hordes. Instead Trump tells Europe they are hurting themselves by welcoming so many Muslims.

Why is Trump insisting that NATO countries increase defense spending?

Forget about the border countries. Most of them like Estonia are already hitting the target and the rest are too small to matter. In any case their spending is trending up. The real military power in continental Europe would lie within Germany and France. They have the economy necessary to equip a force that can stand up to the Russians and more importantly their spending for defence is trending down. If Trump was a Russian puppet would it not be easier to let the European armies stagnate so the Russians can march into Berlin again?

Judicial Tyranny and the Ninth Circuit


The ninth circuit has ruled on the case of the travel ban of President Trump and until overturned we have new controlling law. I will try to examine all the implications of this decision.

Exemptions Must Be Specific in the Law or EO – The court based most of its decision on the due process rights of the green card holders that were initially part of the ban. In the EO there is a specific provision that allows the government to make exceptions on a case by case basis. The government used this and declared well before the case made it to the ninth circuit that green card holders were exempt from this EO. The court said that it could not take that into account as it was just a directive from the white house as to how to implement the EO and not on the law itself.

Clauses which allow for exemptions are now invalid as each specific instance must be listed in legislation or executive order. Directions made by the executive or legislative are not valid.

Intent is Derived from Surrogates and Public Statements – The court found that the travel ban may have the intent to be a muslim ban because of statements made by President Trump and Mayor Giuliani.

This is a break from normal procedure where you look to the law itself first. Since the EO only affected 7 countries out of dozens of majority muslim countries world wide it could not be a muslim ban by a plain reading of the EO. This means that any statement at any time by a public official can be used to make a law or EO unconstitutional.

For example if a politician were to make a public speech praising an industry or a specific company any law he takes part in could now have the benefit of that company as a motive and be declared unconstitutional no matter what the statute itself states.

Minorities Have No Special Treatment – The court had serious concerns about the EO favoring christian minorities in refugee applications because it was a religious test and it put the majority in the affected countries at a disadvantage.

As of this ruling religion is no longer a protected class. If the Germans started gassing their jews again then the court rules that they should not be given special protections. More realistically if the Chinese for instance start persecuting the Buddhists in Tibet or the Hindus and Muslims in India and Pakistan start something neither of them could be given special treatment. Scholarships available to Muslim students and other things of that nature should be unconstitutional as well according to this rule.

Over and above this any special treatment to minorities can be arguably declared unconstitutional as well using the same logic. In fact giving special treatment to Syrian refugees would be questionable as that would be detrimental to refugees from other countries.

Need Determines Constitutionality – In deciding the constitutionality of the travel ban the courts have said that they are not persuaded by the evidence provided by the government as to the need for a travel ban. They bring up the argument by the plaintiffs that terrorist attacks from these countries have not hit the US from these countries. As an aside let me point out that attacks have hit other countries in Europe we just don’t like to talk about it.

Others have said that it is asinine for the government to need to wait till a terror attack hits before placing a ban on travel from these countries. That is true but the most important development is the courts can now impose a need test to determine constitutionality. If the law is otherwise valid yet the courts are not convinced for a need for it despite the legislative or executive being convinced then it is unconstitutional. Of course the standard for need is left exclusively upon the courts to decide.

For example the US Senate could ratify a treaty. Since need is now part of the considerations it could be challenged and declared unconstitutional because the courts see no need for it.

Due Process is now Global- The courts held that even if the visa cardholders were not part of the equation the refugees in those countries were deprived of their rights without due process therefore the law is unconstitutional.

When sanctions are placed on Russia for example it could be challenged on these grounds as the sanctions would deprive the Russians citizens of either life, liberty, or property without giving each of them due process.

The ninth circuit just changed the way law works forever. Part of me wishes for the Supreme Court to uphold the decision just for the hilarity that would ensue.


Reckless Robart


By now everyone will have heard about the ruling of Judge Robart. Leaving aside the fact that he made a nationwide ban on an issue raised by two states and the text of the relevant immigration law which gives plenary power to the President over immigration law, I find his decision legally problematic on three grounds. Not only is it the wrong decision here but the precedent it sets can be used by other judges, whether on the right or the left, in the future.


At your first year of law school one of the very first subjects you will discuss is something called statutory construction. In essence it is how to interpret laws and executive orders made by the executive and legislative. To simplify things for everyone, you first limit your view to the statute itself. If there are any ambiguities you then try to divine legislative intent, which the courts normally do by looking at the transcript of the deliberations. In rare situations when you still cannot get the intent by these methods then you go to other factors that may help you divine intent.

In this case the muslim ban was not borne out by the text of the order as the word muslim does not appear there. In any case the travel ban was so limited in scope that most Muslim countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, or even Kuwait in the same region are not even affected by it. The judge did not even bother looking for any deliberations nor did he give any credence to the stated intent of the administration which was to ban travel from the most unstable countries in the region.

Judge Robart immediately went to statements made by President Trump during the campaign trail to derive legislative intent. What is worse he even gave credence to statements by former Mayor Giuliani, a well known Trump ally, but one that is not part of the administration for corroboration.

Think about the implications of this. Any president at any time can have his public statements, even before he became the president, taken and used to provide intent for a certain executive order to have that blocked. What is worse is even his allies can have their statements taken as legislative intent for the president. By the standard Robart is using any comments someone like President Obama even while he was a senator could be used to block his orders. Any comments by Soros, Emmanuel, or any other ally could be used to block executive.orders. By his standard you can block any thing you want.


In the courtroom the government argued that the travel ban protects the country from terrorists. Robart said he found no support for these claims. Instead of judging based on constitutionality Robart instead judged based on how effective the ban was. I believe this is something he has no right to do.

Generally there are two sources where people draw their decision making legitimacy from. Electability or expertise. Congressmen, Senators, and the President make laws and executive orders that they believe is effective and are believed to have the right to do so because they have been elected by the people. The second one is expertise. The various heads of the government agencies and the people working under them are assumed to have expertise on the subject as they were appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.

Judge Robart has neither of these, which is why he was asked to adjudicate based on the constitutionality of the issue and nothing else. There is no limits to their power once the judiciary can strike things down based on effectivity. Do you have a judge that does not like Obamacare? Well he can find that they are not effective in reforming healthcare and strike it down. Do you have a judge that does not like social security? Well he can find that it is not effective at providing a social net and strike it down.


One of the questions of the case was whether or not you could give priorities to religious minorities which were persecuted. The President would normally have the power to do this given that he has wide plenary powers given to him by the legislative to tailor immigration to national interest.

Understand the implications of this. If the Germans decided to start gassing their jews again you would not be able to prioritize them for the refugee program. Given that religions are banned , the same argument can also be applied to other divisions such as nationalities or race. If the South Africans decided to massacre their white population you could not give them special treatment. If the Chinese did the same to Tibet you could not either. In fact arguing in this same line of thought it is arguable that you could not even give Syrians special treatment as that would discriminate against everyone else.

I am actually stunned at these decisions and the massive judicial overreach that they represent. I do not see anyway they can hold but if they do then the precedent they cause will change our legal system forever.

Debunking the Travel Ban Myths


For today I will be listing down the common talking points of the left regarding the travel ban to the terrorist infested countries and debunking them one by one.

This is a Muslim Ban!

No. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ban is centered on nationality not religion. If the left would bother to look at the facts 90% or more of Muslims are not affected by this ban. Indonesia, India, Philippines, and many more countries which have significant Muslim populations are not affected.

One of the other complaints of the left is that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt are not included in the ban. That complaint alone acknowledges that it is not based on religion but on nationality.

This is a Win for Terrorists!

The argument says that since we lump all Muslims together then the terrorists win. Except it is not a Muslim ban as I previously mentioned. In fact since the left is adamant in included all Muslims in the ban even those from Indonesia or Malaysia that it was never meant to apply to then they are the ones giving the terrorists the victory. After all the order only applies to less than 10% of the worlds Muslims. It is the left who extends it to the other 90%

The Federal Courts Declared it Unconstitutional!

No they didn’t. One or two courts placed a temporary restraining order on it, some only for the jurisdiction of their districts. This is not a major victory or one that is important. There are liberal judges and there are conservative judges. Given enough resources I can find a judge to file a TRO for any law or executive order that has just been implemented. It is not a coincidence that the circuits that issued the TRO are among the most liberal in America. Eventually the case will make its way to the Supreme Court and it will be decided one way or another.

Yates said it was Unconstitutional! 

She never even offered any arguments as to why it was unconstitutional. All she said was that it was not in tune with the traditions of the DOJ and that it was not right. On this basis she told the entire DOJ not to cooperate with the White House. It does not get brought up enough but this abuse of power is unprecedented. Without any legal arguments offered it becomes a political move. Even if there were legal arguments there is a fundamental principle that acts by the executive and legislative have a presumption of constitutionality. This means that if there is any ambiguity or lack of clarity you are supposed to assume the interpretation that would have followed the constitution. What Yates declared was that there was no possible interpretation of the order that would have been constitutional she just could not be bothered to give a legal argument as to why.

But Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt!!!

The left also complains that we are not banning enough Muslims with the wholesale Muslim ban and we should include these countries as well. Don’t mind the fact that the left wants closer cooperation with NATO and now wants to ban Turkish nationals from coming to the US.

Is it hypocrisy that we allow these countries in despite some terrorists coming from them? Is it a double standard? Probably yeah. Welcome to the real world. There are some countries that offer valuable services to us that we have to use and there are other countries that provide more risk than service. It is a value judgement. If they are more trouble than they are worth they can go on the list if not they wont. As mentioned Turkey is a NATO member, Saudi Arabia is friendly enough to us in the area and is rich, and Egypt recently did us a huge favor by pulling its resolution to condemn Israel in the UN.

But Religious Minorities are Getting Special Treatment!

The left also complains that christian religious minorities in the affected countries are being prioritized. Do me a favor and bring this up to them next time they want special treatment for some other minorities.

It has been a long-standing feature of US refugee policy to take the most affected parts of the population first and prioritizing religious minorities. The left are just angry that this time Christians are the minority. It is not under dispute that ISIS treats Christians worse than Muslims. There are documented cases of Muslims beings spared while Christians got beheaded.

No Terror No Terror!

None of countries were involved in a terror attack in America. It is a well parsed statement and one that insults your intelligence. It assumes that you don’t see the rapefugee crisis in Cologne. The driving spree in Nice. The various other attacks in Europe. Even NATO commanders have said refugees are being by ISIS to infiltrate areas. It is not like we are getting a different set of refugees.

On a personal note the attack that scared me the most was not 9/11. It was the attack on Brussels. Time and other media sources reported that the actual target for the attacks was a nuclear power plant and they just went after softer targets when they believed they were about to be exposed. I can only imagine the damage a nuclear explosion would have caused.

Giuliani said it was a Muslim Ban!!

This one is pretty simple. People say a lot of things. Sometimes that’s all we have to go on but in this case we have the act itself. Does the executive order ban all muslims? The answer is no.

These are the common ones I see. If you have any others feel free to put them up in the comments and if I see a common thread ill add to the answers here.

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.

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.


4D Chess: Sanctuary Cities


Today I’d like to discuss what I consider to be the most brilliant 4d chess move of President Trump to date. Sanctuary Cities. My personal moniker for it is “Operation turn Illinois and New York red.”

As everyone knows Trump ran on a platform that is against illegal immigration. Appointing Senator Sessions as Attorney General also shows that he is serious about this particular campaign pledge. It was then leaked that sanctuary cities may lose federal funding. This then prompted numerous cities in mainly democratic held areas like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles to promise that they would stay as sanctuary cities no matter what happened.

So who is the target? This is aimed at the poor and middle class citizens living in the big cities. If you recall in the election Trump overwhelmingly won the rural areas, was competitive in the suburbs, and normally lost in the cities themselves. Making inroads into some of these places means that future elections will be easier to win.

Under normal situations the democrats would be able to choose how to react. However due to their over the top fear mongering during the election they cannot choose to capitulate to Trump and help with the deportations. Their base would revolt. The only option they have is doubling down on their protection for illegal immigrants which is the best result Trump could hope for.

Let us analyze what the most likely scenario is. You have a President saying that he will let ICE and other enforcement agencies fulfill their duties while you have liberal cities declaring they will protect illegals come what may. An illegal alien has two options. He can either stay where he is and risk deportation or move to a city that guarantees he will be protected. Naturally some if not most will decide to move.

What happens if they move? First off they vacate the jobs they currently have and make it available to the citizens in the area. Will it be a good job? Most likely not, but it will still be required to pay minimum wage and the person working now spends all his money in the local community instead of sending half of it abroad to their home country, leading to more jobs being created in their home community. This helps fulfill the promise of more jobs.

What happens to the cities that the illegals go too? Logically once the illegals go there they will need a place to stay and they will need a source of income. Cities generally have limited space, an influx of new arrivals would mean that rental prices go up. There is also a limited number of available jobs. When the illegals get there they have an competitive advantage over the residents as they are willing to work for wages below the minimum which means that they will push out some of the current residents. Of course not all illegals will be able to find jobs so some will inevitably end up turning to crime to survive.

You can make an argument that when new residents arrive in an area they can be a positive impact on the area. Yet when new residents arrive they usually bring with them money, have a job and a place to stay waiting as well. Illegals would not be likely to have any of this.

We now have a situation where the poor and middle classes in the sanctuary cities face increased competition from illegals and possible exposure to more crimes. Any jobs taken by the illegals will contribute less to the community as well as some of the money will have to be sent abroad. Can they take out their anger on Trump? Sure that it is a possibility, but they are starting of as democratic strongholds already so it would not matter. Their ire would eventually fall on their local leaders who inflicted this upon them by forcing their cities to be sanctuaries which gets them to turn on them and vote for the other team or not vote at all.

A more extreme version of this is already happening in Germany as Merkel effectively declared the EU one giant sanctuary city with predictable effects. Of course we don’t expect our crop of illegals to be as violent as the islamic refugees so the process may take longer but with this 4-d chess move I fully expect Trump and his successor to be competitive in the cities in 4 or 8 years.

Progressive Globalism : Boarding the Trump Train



One of the hallmarks of progressivism is that it asks more from the rich to help out the poor. On a local level I have no problem with that. I have written about a trickle up economy here and believe that the best way to stimulate an economy is to give the tax cuts and benefits to the people most likely to spend the money inside the economy creating velocity of money and providing more jobs and employment.

On a local level that is good. It is a disaster on a global level. This is my main problem with Bernie Sanders as a candidate. He wants a lot of good things but they can only be achieved by a nationalist like Trump. You are probably thinking that Sanders is a nationalist too right? Whatever label he gives himself his ideas are that of a globalist populist. Basically you try to do what is best for everyone on the globe instead of everyone in the nation. This is why his stances to the refugees, illegal immigration, and his lack of understanding on the issue of healthcare.


In its simplest form progressive policies takes money from the rich and gives it to the poor. Who is the rich though? Is it China? Britain? The EU? If you haven’t figured out yet it is America. Progressive Globalism is at its heart a transfer of wealth from the US to every other country in the globe. The country is already poor and struggling but we are about to make everyone poorer.


One of Sanders main arguments is that other modern countries provide healthcare for all their citizens yet the US cannot. Why is this? Well the other countries have a limit on how much companies can charge for drugs and the US does not. The answer seems to be simple right? Place a limit on the drugs prices of the US. Well the companies recover their research costs in the American market. Without the American market then there would be no new drugs available. In effect the European countries can have good healthcare because the American healthcare system is bad. Once you fix the drug prices and crack down on illegal immigration, thereby lowering the total number of people who need healthcare and most likely cannot pay healthcare cost will be lowered.

Would a progressive globalist change this once he sees the impact of his policies on the rest of the world? I have my doubts. I have no doubt that a person who puts America First would have no trouble doing it.


People will be surprised to see this on the list. Isn’t Sanders the champion of 15$ minimum wage and Trump say we may have to lower it? It should be a no brainer right? My own personal view of minimum wage is that 15$ may work for California and New York who have economies so different from Iowa, Michigan, or Alabama that they may as well be from another country but it will not work for the poorer states who will not be able to afford it.

On to Sanders, you can legislate whatever minimum wage you want. You can say it will be 100$ it does not mean that it is good for the country nor does it mean that businesses will necessarily follow it. I would like to remind everyone that illegals exist and Sanders is the one most in favour of them. They can be hired like they are now to bypass the minimum wage.

Lets look at it without the promises. What keeps wages down? Well the scarcity of jobs and the excess of workers. More workers mean that they lose the ability to negotiate a good wage because they are easily replaceable. Given this data the only way to increase wages then is to increase the frequency of jobs and remove the excess of workers.

Let us take a look at what Sanders offers. He has offered citizenship to illegal aliens and has said he would not deport any. The gist is more incentives for illegal immigrants. The pope one of the biggest proponents of this has effectively endorsed him. What does illegal immigration do? Well it increases the available pool of workers. What about companies then? Currently after all the loopholes we have a 15% interest rate. Sanders would close the loopholes so we are back at 35% and then increase the tax so we are we effectively triple their rate. I am all for taxing corporations but at some point it is better to stop doing business in the country. You also don’t hear about tariffs from Sanders because that would hurt other economies who depend on selling to the US.

Wages are low because of scarcity of jobs and too many workers. Sanders adds to both fronts.


Well what about Trump? The person who says the national minimum wage will be lowered or left alone. Lets take a look using the same standards as Sanders. Trump has made it a central piece of his platform to aggressively go after illegals. Removing benefits, installing e verify, and then deporting them faster. This of course reduces the pool of available workers.

Trump has also made the wall a central piece of his campaign.  A lot of people see the wall as an anti – immigration program. Which it is, but it also doubles as a jobs program. After all does anybody think the wall will build itself? That adds to the frequency of jobs by itself. Trump also proposes to lower the corporate tax to 25% and close all loopholes. Corporations who can afford armies of lawyers will see their tax rate rise but small business who can’t will see it drop. The tax rate increase though is more modest than Bernie’s proposed one and combined with the Tariff Trump is threatening increases likelihood of companies remaining in the US.

Trumps policies increase the frequency of jobs and reduces the available workforce giving more opportunities for workers to negotiate a better wage for themselves.


Here both sides agree. We have to get our partners in alliances to foot the bill for more of their own defense spending. Right now because of globalization the US is paying for everyone spending facilitating the transfer of wealth from the country to outside.

The difficult thing then with Sanders position is he wants to cut the military whereas Trump wants to rebuild or spend money on it. On its face cutting the military may make sense. After all we are strong enough and we spend more money on the military than a lot of our competitors combined. If you live in a big city you most likely do not see the downside to this but there are so many small towns and cities across America that need their local base or manufacturing plant to survive. If you remove them then all of a sudden you get more Flint’s and Detroit’s. Of course the displaced citizens need jobs as well. What do you think a huge influx of unemployed workers will do to the negotiating power of labor? What do you think it will do to the demand for labor in the service industries in the affected areas.

I wrote earlier about the need for a trickle up economy but the military industrial complex is a roller coaster that we are on that we cannot get off until we have employment for the people displaced. The military is also unique in that due to security reasons they spend their money onshore. I would rather they spend all of it onshore but they spend such a high percentage that im convinced that it’s not totally wasted. If we want any hope of raising the wages we have to keep military spending as is at least for the meantime.


I feel that this article has gone on too long already so I am cutting it here. Trump does not set a high minimum wage instead he creates a condition wherein wages can be raised. As opposed to setting a wage which businesses will not be able to meet without hiring illegals. If you want quality healthcare and a higher wage I urge you to support Trump it is really the only way. Supporting someone with globalist principles, even progressive ones, just brings the standard of living of the US to the level of other countries.

If you have any other points that you would like me to address as to why only someone with the philosophy of Trump can achieve the goals of Sanders put it in the comment section below and ill make an article for it in the future.

Cuckservative? No. Fluffservative? Yes!


There has been an effort by the hacks employed by the establishment to try to dismiss alt-right viewpoints as simply racist. They believe that by simply chanting this mantra they will be able to ignore all the arguments of the other side. Let me borrow a phrase from Marco Rubio here. I want to dispel the notion that the alt right is racist. It’s not about race. It’s about the nation and all the people in it.

When you are called a “cuckservative” its not because you support positions that are supposedly anti white. It’s because you support view points that are anti- America. If something is anti America it’s against all the races that are citizens of it. whether they be black, brown, white, yellow, or any other color.

If it was all about race then illegal immigration would not be an issue. After all they hurt African-Americans a lot more than they hurt any other race. They are the only demographic with 50% youth unemployment. The misdirection is so deep that the only candidate trying to fix that is the one who is called the most racist. If it was about race then NATO would not be an issue. After all who does NATO protect if not the predominantly white population in Europe? Sweden, Denmark, Germany are all predominantly white. Wouldn’t we be fine using the countries resources to protect other white people? No NATO is an issue because America is paying a lot more than its fair share. The nation as a whole is getting screwed and that involves blacks, whites, asians, and latinos. If it was about race would we complain about high medicine prices? After all the only reason its high is because we have to pay for the drug companies to recoup their investment in research here instead of in price controlled areas. Price controlled areas that are predominantly white like Europe. The sad thing is these cuckservatives don’t even see that if America is drained dry then the rest of the world goes down the tubes too.

Do you think the forces of the establishment miss this fact? No. Let me dispel the notion that they do. I gotta say I love Rubio for giving us that line. They know that the alt right is all about nationalism and putting America first but they have no defense against it. The only way they can fight against it is not by ideas, but rather by crying racist so loud that it drowns out the argument of the other side. Next time you read one of their articles pay careful attention. They never really defend the arguments for illegal immigration and NAFTA taking jobs, nor do they defend the fact that the US has to pay for the defence around the world. It’s all a history of the alt right and how somehow being nationalist in a nation made up of many different races is racist.

I will say one thing in their defense though. Cuckservative is the wrong term. A cuckold only watches as his wife or in this case his nation gets violated. The proper term is Fluffservative. A fluffer not only watches as his wife or nation gets violated but helps facilitate the act. Usually on his knees. After all who refuses to stop illegal immigration, insists on sending jobs overseas, and shouts down any attempt to get other countries to pay more for their defense? Is there a more apt description for the current political establishment?