​Hey stupid talking heads, you all still cannot see the forest for the trees.  Here is my theory of the Russia investigation.  Why would the Obama administration start a Russia investigation on Trump when they knew Hillary Clinton was going to win the election?  Everyone, including the media, Clinton and probably even Trump himself assumed Clinton was going to win the election. No one thought trump was going to win. Comey, McCabe, Lynch and Obama investigated the Clinton Foundation bribes and her private email server criminality and cleared her of both of these treasonous acts before the election. She was now cleared to rule the nation. Everyone assumed she would take office and all the little criminal players would keep their cozy jobs for the next eight years and their collusion would never see the light of day.  Only one problem emerged.  Trump.  He mysteriously won the election and became President of the United States.  So McCabe calls in the insurance policy, a trump Russia collusion investigation to impeach Trump.  They use Carter Page and lies to the Federal judiciary to obtain FISA warrants to spy on American citizens.  The White house was unmasking names by the dozens.  (When will the FBI reveal the names unmasked by Susan Rice and Samantha Powell who are part of this treasonous act?).  The investigation stalls when trump assumes power and fires Comey and then fires McCabe. Rosenstein tries to salvage the investigation by appointing Mueller. (Rosenstein is a criminal player and a traitor.  He must go.)  I just cannot understand why they would need to trash and destroy Trump when all the criminal players just knew that Clinton was going to win.  The answer is probably vindictiveness.  These people are criminals and hypocritical pompous asses.  They felt slighted by Trump’s treatment of Clinton during the election and wanted to pay him back with indictments and threats of criminal prosecution.  They all need to be hanged from the nearest tree.

​John 9:31-32 “And yet we know for certain that God does not answer the prayers of sinners, it is only when a man is devout and does his will, that his prayer is answered. That a man should open the eyes of one born blind is something unheard of since the world began.” This was the response from the Jews to the blind man whom Jesus restored sight. The Jews thought the blind man’s blindness was the result of his personal sins or that of his parents. The Jews had forgiveness backwards.  They were sinners, everyone one, and the Jews could not recognize their sins because they supposedly lived in the “Law.”   They preached that one had to be righteous and sinless before his prayers could be answered.  Yet Paul proclaimed that it was the Law that blinded the Jews.  They thought they were righteous yet they had cold hearts.  The Law was not written on their hearts. The guilty are blind and cannot profess their guilt.  Only when the guilty can see their sin, can they profess it and become free from sin and be forgiven. We are all sinners. God answers prayers of forgiven sinners. The Jews thought they were sinless but were fools. Are you a fool?

​Trump said in the joint statement at the summit that he had complete confidence in his intelligence agencies and his NSA.  He also stated that he has no confidence in an investigation started by Peter Strzok under Obama, and run by Mueller, an Obama appointee, staffed by a team of lawyers with obvious political bias in favor of Clinton and the democrats.  Where are the DNC servers and Clinton's servers he asked and I ask again?  Mueller does not have the resources available to his team as are available to the U.S. intelligence agencies. Did the Mueller team just make up these indictments because they know that this case will never go to trial? Putin will never allow the extradition of his 12 intelligence officers to the United States.  Because of this fact, Mueller can make these allegations and he will never have to reveal this supposed electronic espionage by the Russians. Anyone can make allegations.  No trial will ever be had.   Rosenstein and Mueller know this.  Mueller is just furthering this collusion narrative without the necessity of ever having to show the proof.  Show us the evidence Mueller. Write a final report and shut down this charade. 

     Are U.S. tariffs on goods produced in other countries beneficial to the United States economy?  We need to look at what tariffs accomplish for the country who levies them.  Let’s say that an industry exists in the United States that produces widgets and our country wants to become the leading producer of widgets in the world.  To help accomplish this goal, the U.S. levies a 25% tariff on widgets produced in all other countries who want to send widgets into the United States.  Businesses in these other countries who produce widgets and attempt to sell them in the United States will have to raise their selling cost of the widget by 25% above production costs to break even.  So they will probably decide that they will not produce widgets or just produce enough for local consumption.  The widget industry remains relatively small in all other countries except the United States who has, in effect, cornered the market in widgets.  Old economic theories state that the United States widget market should reach economies of scale, that is, they produce so many widgets that they can lower their production costs so that widgets can be produced real cheap.  But economies of scale does not take into consideration demand for the widgets.  If widgets are in high demand, there is no guarantee that the U.S. companies will pass on production cost savings to the buyers.  In fact, these widget manufacturers may become greedy and increase the sale price of widgets in the United States and in other countries who decide not to produce them.
     Let’s look briefly at another example.  Let’s say that China wants to reach economies of scale in the computer chip industry and places a 50% tariff on computer chips produced in the United States and sold in China.  China gets the selling price of a chip to one dollar because they have cornered the market. The United States may continue to produce computer chips but it costs U.S. companies two dollars to produce the same chip because of limited market share. Companies who use chips determine that they will buy chips made in China for one dollar instead of two dollars in the United States.  The chip production industry in the United States slows and eventually dies out.  China realizes that it now can increase the price of the chip to two dollars or even more since chips are no longer produced in the United States.
     Having no tariffs by any country achieves the best result.  If tariffs did not exist at all in any country, the result will produce the lowest cost of production.  No tariffs create and even playing field.  If all countries produce widgets or chips within their own countries, each business has an incentive to produce the best chip or widget at the lowest cost.  Buyers may have many choices and will seek the best deal.  A large supply of widgets and chips will keep the price relatively low to satisfy the demand in the market.  A free market in the long run will actually lower costs of production for chips and widgets because supply will be regulated by demand and not by tariffs. Economies of scale is a fallacy.  It is a theory that holds true only if there was one buying market, i.e. not hundreds of different countries seeking to produce and sell its widgets or chips.  If the whole world, i.e., all the countries in the world, were one market and one giant country per say, then economies of scale would work.  One company would produce cars, and everyone in the world would buy cars from the car company who would sell cars at production costs.  One company would produce computer chips and would be required to sell the chips at production costs.  Companies would never have to show a profit, because they have no competitors.  In theory there would be only one company in each industry that would produce and supply the whole world with its product at cost. But the world is comprised of hundreds of nations and thousands of companies. Individual political states create competition and stock exchanges.  Competition causes price increase and fluctuation.  Tariffs have a negative drag on economies of scale.
     I propose an economic system wherein each country produces all of its products and services within its boundaries and trade among and between countries is eliminated. Trade would occur between nations only when a nation cannot or does not have the necessary resources to produce a particular product.  For example, Japan has no petroleum reserves.  The world would create a market for petroleum because Japan would seek to purchase oil at the cheapest price. Markets are created only for natural resources or products which cannot be found or produced in every country. The problem with such a system is that there are not many natural resources or products that are available within every country especially the smaller countries.  Production of goods and natural resources causes a vicious circle however.  Markets for most goods and natural resources must exist because there are very few countries who can produce all of their own goods and natural resources. The result is our current free market system. In any event, tariffs should be banned worldwide. In the meantime, tariffs are good because they may cause other countries to reduce or remove the tariffs they charge on United States products and natural resources. In time, we will reduce or remove U.S. tariffs when we are treated more fairly.  We must encourage free and reciprocal trade. China must stop its unfair trade practices.

​Today in the year 2018 a mass migration of people is taking place around the world.  Migrants are moving from so called third world countries to the more affluent industrialized countries.  This migration event has been taking place for some time now, maybe starting up to 20 years ago.  Why are people migrating?  Historically the main reason for migration had been religion.  People left their countries and moved to America because she offered the new comer freedom to practice their religious beliefs.  But today religion has become secularized and no one is really concerned about practicing religion must less migrating for that purpose. Some have argued that a silent jihad is taking place among the Muslims.  Emigrants from Muslim nations are overwhelming the European nations to the extent that the problem has now become a crisis.  The Muslims force cultural change on the hosts and their former Christian identity has become blurred. But the Central and South American migrants into the United States are mostly Christian, therefore their migration cannot be labeled a silent jihad.  If the reasons for migration are not religious, the only other explanation must me economic.  People move for financial reasons.  But why do so many people leave Africa for Europe.  One reason may be that jobs are more plentiful in Europe than Africa as well as in American than Central and South America.  But another reason is the free economic benefits the European countries provide to these migrants.  Many European countries provide monthly stipends and free medical insurance.  Why would people not migrate if such free giveaways are handed out without a reciprocal work requirement?  The United States incurs similar giveaways.  She provides food stamps, Medicaid, free schooling, housing assistance, utilities assistance, free daycare and earned income tax credits. Many citizens of these invaded countries have had enough. Voices are being raised.  Is it time for all of these migrants to go home and demand a better life from their leaders of their mother country?