Down through the ages, there have always been events which changed the course of history.  The coronavirus may well turn out to be such an event. Here’s why.

Because of the coronavirus, people everywhere will have to rethink what it really means to be a sovereign nation. It will become a necessity for nations to be as self-sufficient as possible, which will produce a massive shift from a centralized/free trade model to decentralized supply chains. National security interests will require the protection of a nation’s borders which will be a necessity to manage future world pandemics.  Immigration, naturally, will have to be restricted.  If you want to know what that model somewhat looks like, just go to Russia, Israel or Saudi Arabia. With the shift in world trade, and an emphasis on national security issues, will come an even bigger rush to nationalism. With that, the world’s finance system will have to totally change as the central banks model (globalism) will not be able to co-exist with nationalism. 

In the future, the impact from the coronavirus will cause business to be conducted differently. Previously, economists have always espoused a healthy, positive growth rate which would provide for ever increasing living standards. Yet, they worried about maturing populations, like in Japan and the United States, and recommended that migrants fill the gap in the worker shortages. Now, progress will have to be thought of in terms of a possible global pandemic. So, the term sustainable living is going to have to be redefined to allow for aging populations in some countries and, therefore, negative growth rates.  After all, countries don’t have to always grow, they simply need to be efficient.

Part of the changes brought on by the coronavirus may well involve reverting back to a simpler way of life.  Large cities do not work near as well as rural populations when it comes to infectious diseases and environmental concerns like pollution. Technology, for all of its advantages, creates a myriad of social problems not to mention serious health issues.  Things like 5G and wi-fi technology may have to be rethought and/or replaced by safer technologies.

In the U.S., the political landscape is in for some real changes. Borders will have to be closely monitored for national security reasons, including keeping out infectious disease. Immigration-related issues will rival the economy for the top spot on the list of most important election issues. This will be especially true in the 2020 elections as it will be difficult for a candidate to get elected if they are for “open borders.” That’s because illegal aliens, including Chinese immigrants, are entering the country every day and bringing in the coronavirus as well as other serious diseases.

That’s what I see are the obvious after-effects of the coronavirus. I’m sure that there will be others as well. Man can go to the moon, perhaps, but he still can’t tame an itsy, bitsy virus. That’s why I refer to it as The Corona Effect.


 “It takes but one person, one moment, one conviction, to start a ripple of change.” – Donna Brazile 

P.S. (or a coronavirus) 


As the political season rolls on, one thing hasn’t changed at all. Democrats are still calling for no borders, no ICE and no DHS. One has to ask the question why. Even if they believed strongly in that position, why are they staking their election chances on a loser, something that a large majority of voters strongly oppose?

Bill Maher, although a TV personality, is very politically astute. On his show, he cautioned Michael Moore that radical positions like open borders risk alienating voters, thereby handing the 2020 election to Trump. Eric Holder, AG under Obama, agreed saying, ”Democrats need to understand that borders mean something.” With respect to open borders, the really basic level of understanding that’s necessary is quite simply this:

No borders = no country

As Ronald Reagan said, “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” 

All the countries of the world have borders, without exception. On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most restrictive in terms of immigration, China and Saudi Arabia would be a 10 and the United States would be a 4. Yet, Democrats want to reduce the 4 to a zero! Why? 

Well, there can really be only one plausible explanation.  They don’t want America to continue to exist as a sovereign country. 



The problem is that the Democrats actually want all those immigrants to come here; all those immigrants from failing countries with failing cultures, bringing their diseases and their criminality with them. With open borders comes other serious issues too, like drug smuggling and human trafficking.

These immigrants, of course, are not educated and speak very little English. So, exactly what do you do with them? Here’s what you would have to do: house them, feed them, provide them with healthcare and educate their children (just for starters). By the way, how many of the 1.3 billion people who live in Third World countries do you think would want to come here if we extended such an open invitation to them? Maybe, all of them?

              “Europe belongs to the Europeans.” – the Dalai Lama


I’ve seen a number of people on both sides of the political aisle comment about a negative change in American cultural values.  Since both sides can’t be right about the cause, perhaps we’re talking about a difference in definitions. So, here’s my definition of American cultural values.


American cultural values

Traditional American cultural values refers to values that the country was founded on, cultural values that the founding fathers incorporated into things like the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.


Freedom in America

We owe our very freedom to certain inalienable rights and the laws which are embedded in the country’s founding documents. What distinguishes America from other free countries is that it’s a “republic” as opposed to a “democracy.” Because we are a republic, we’re a nation of laws as set out in the Constitution.  Furthermore, citizens have rights, (e.g. as set out in the Bill of Rights) that were not given to them by the State. These are rights are inalienable (i.e. they can not be taken away by the State).


Core values

The details of what those cultural values are varies from person to person. The definition that I like the best comes from Vintage American Here’s what they said:

“Historically, the United States has been viewed as ‘the land of opportunity,’ a place where immigrants could have individual freedom, an equal chance for success, and the ability to have a better standard of living.”

Based on this concept, they identified three core values as follows:

  • Individual freedom
  • Equality of opportunity
  • The American Dream



The Declaration of Independence begins this way, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness….” That’s what the founding fathers intended when they first created the American Republic, a country where people could be free and pursue their dreams.  It’s what makes America great and what is the driving force behind immigrants who still flock to our shores.


“We all share a common set of values that make us American… We are defined by the rights we have. . . Our rights are our history, why the first European settlers came here and why millions more have come here since.”  – John Zogby






No one wants to immigrate to a socialist country according to Rachel Campos-Duffy.  So, why is what Duffy says important?  Perhaps, here’s why.

Duffy is Hispanic. Her grandparents immigrated from Mexico. She has a degree in Economics and a masters degree in International Affairs.  Further, she understands what any student of economics understands, that true capitalism is the driver of world prosperity.  Everyone understands, except AOC that is.

More from Duffy:

 “The desperate people of Central America who come to our border are not actually refugees. They are economic migrants. They are lining up to come to our country because of our free enterprise system…They come here for capitalism.  They are fleeing socialism…It is purely ironic that AOC, a Latina, is the leader of America’s socialist movement because no one knows better than Hispanics that these ideas do not work…Socialism leads to desperation.  It leads to indignities.  It leads to hunger and it leads to death.  You would know that if there wasn’t a blackout in your textbooks about all the atrocities done in the name of socialism.” – from a speech before Young America’s Foundation

Aye, the textbooks. There’s the rub. One need only read the writings of Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin to understand where socialism leads.  However, you will never read about those things in a textbook and you will almost never hear a professor talk about such things in any college, unless, of course, they want to be fired.

So, why is AOC promoting the Green New Deal when she has a degree in economics and why can’t she explain to those who are asking how this program works, economically speaking. The answer is really quite simple: because AOC knows that this program would be an economic disaster for the country (and she doesn’t care because she is a socialist).

Yet, AOC and most of the Democratic candidates for the 2020 Democratic nomination tout this program. Why?  Again, the answer is really simple.  It’s all about politics.  Saikat Chakrabarti, AOC’s former Chief of Staff and one of the purported authors of the Green New Deal, told us all as to “the why.” In an interview with the Washington Post he said,“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all… we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

Yes, a change-the-entire-economy thing. Christiana Figueres, of the United Nations global warming agency, put it slightly differently when she publicly admitted that the U.N. goal was not that of environmental activists to save the world from ecological calamity, but rather to destroy capitalism. If you read Karl Marx, you’ll understand why that is absolutely true.

Socialism is a means to an end.  Get rid of capitalism and replace it with socialism, where all power rests with the State.  Once you have the power, getting rid of freedom is a mere formality….and that’s what Duffy knows and what you should also be aware of. It’s the socialists dirty little secret that you were not supposed to know about, but, of course, now you know.


“The goal of socialism is communism.”  – Vladimir Lenin





Politicians make the six-o-clock news for what they say, but it’s what they don’t say that’s more important. Here’s a few recent examples:

What they said: AOC wants to give more rights to non-citizens than citizens.  This time it is free lifetime mental healthcare for the children of illegal immigrants.

What they didn’t say: I am going to solve the problem of America’s homelessness first because American citizens are more important than illegal immigrants.

Why they didn’t say it: Of course, she didn’t say it because she views illegal immigrants’ rights as being more important than the rights of citizens.


What they said: AOC wants a 9/11-type commission to find out why the children of illegal immigrants are separated from their families at the border.

What they didn’t say: I know that the immigration laws were written by Congress and since Congress created the problem, it’s their responsibility to solve this problem. Therefore, I’m going to introduce such new legislation into Congress.

Why they didn’t say it: They like blaming others, especially for things that they’re responsible for. Besides, they obviously don’t care about these children or they would pass such legislation.

Comment: President Barack Obama enforced the current immigration rules (and no one said a peep) and President Trump has done the same. How could they have acted otherwise? Of course, this would never be an issue if we had immigration laws like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Japan or Mexico, to name just a few.  Real countries require tough immigration laws.  Then again, some people don’t want borders because they would prefer that America, in its present form, didn’t exist.


What they said: Rashida Tlaib said that we should take money from the rich and give it back to the people who earned it.

What they didn’t say: That the rich actually earned it whereas the recipients, themselves, never earned it since they generally don’t pay income taxes.

Why they didn’t say it: She was speaking to the NAACP.

Comment: While I’m all for taxing the rich to support social programs for the poor, one has to be a bit jaded over a politician’s call to tax the rich.  They usually are simply pandering to get votes.  After all, notwithstanding what anyone says, the elites effectively write the tax laws.


If you have something that a politician said that you would like me to comment on, please let me know. Remember, though, it’s not what they say but what they don’t say that matters.


It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

                 – Mark Twain

The Deep State, the Illuminati, the elites and the 1%.  Different faces of the same Hydra.  They infect all social institutions in search of more power, although I’m not sure that there’s much more for them to possess.  In this vein, you might enjoy an article by Charles Hugh Smith posted on Of Two  Here’s the link to the full article:

In this country, the elites control both political parties.  These days, when they pose as Democrats they generally pretend to be socialists and when they pose as Republicans they generally pretend to be capitalists.  The result is an ideological food fight which is meant to distract as well as divide and conquer.

As we choose sides during this process of polarization, we actually hasten our own demise. Case-in-point is all the name calling over perceived racism.  I can tell you from my own experience that, while racism is a problem, there is actually less racism in this country than in any other country that I know of (and I’ve lived in or visited quite a few).

For example, Japan, a country which I generally admire, is terribly racist.  One of the more interesting side-effects of their racism has been their ability to maintain their ancient traditions (which are better than a vast majority of countries around the world).  They value their traditions above diversity. In fact, they abhor diversity because, by its very nature, it undermines traditions.  So, I give the Japanese a pass on their racism because I feel that they have a right to decide what kind of society that they want to have, even if it excludes me (which it did).

There’s value in maintaining one’s traditions ala the Japanese. In a country like ours (a nation of immigrants), you can’t be all things to all people.  That’s why, in the past, it was so important for new immigrants to quickly assimilate.  Today, however, everyone wants to live in their own ethnic communities and keep their ethnic cultural values.  That quickly becomes a problem with respect to languages taught in school and spoken in the community.  For example, I went into a McDonald’s Restaurant near downtown Los Angeles and the menu was in a variety of languages, although English wasn’t one of them. Worse, nobody spoke English either. I might as well have been in a foreign country.  Actually, in many foreign countries, you can generally find people who speak English although that wasn’t the case right here in America.

When immigrants isolate themselves by not assimilating, the inevitable result is that the country is no longer identifiable by its culture. When you have separate borders within a country (e.g. sanctuary cities), the country no longer has one common border. Bottom line: When you do not have one tradition that everyone observes and when you don’t have one common border you cease to function as a country…but, of course, that was the general idea all along, now wasn’t it?


 “We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”  – President Barack Obama

P.S. If only that were true.


There’s a new breed of politicians loose in the country.  They are hell-bent on making America poor again (MAPA).  MAPA has overnight become the new MAGA.  Go figure.

When I was growing up, my parents (and their generation) were driven by the idea of the American Dream. The American Dream was sometimes represented by the picture of a house with a white picket fence around it. In front of the house was pictured a father, a mother, and two kids, a boy and a girl. Oh yeah, and a dog. That, for them, was the embodiment of the American Dream.  They simply wanted to work hard so as to provide for their families, and the government was there to provide an infrastructure of jobs and security towards that end.

Now, the world is headed in a totally different direction. MAPA has a radically new agenda. Some of the losers in this new paradigm are the very people that we should be caring for the most, veterans and the homeless.  In my day, veterans were treated more like heroes and the homeless…well, there weren’t hardly any. Certainly, there were no tent cities.

Under the banner of socialism, and social justice, the government will no longer represent its current citizens.  By that, I mean that priority will now to be given to new immigrants. No longer will there be a designation of “illegal immigrant” because the borders will be open and virtually everyone will be allowed in.

Oddly enough, another group of losers under MAPA are minorities and those people who had immigrated in the past. I know that may sound counterintuitive to some but the jobs that go to the new immigrants will have to come from somewhere (unless the new immigrants are going to go on the welfare rolls).  Not only will there be a loss of jobs for minorities, but the hourly wages paid for other jobs will be lower because of the competition from the new immigrants. That’s basic economics.  Of course, the new social programs will be funded by higher taxes, Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have already said so.  Ocasio-Cortez is currently promoting an increase in the top individual income tax rate to 70%.

Ultimately, what will all this look like?  For starters, population of the U. S. will soar. It could well double in just five years. Birth rates will go up sharply causing another upward spike in population. Will there be jobs for another 300-400 million people? Of course, not. Even a relatively healthy growth rate in the economy would add no more than 3 million jobs per year and certainly there will be down years and even recessions, or worse yet a depression.  And forget about how we’re going to house such a big influx of people. Tent cities will sprout up everywhere, including across the street from you. On the other side of the coin, businesses will move their operations to other countries as this will no longer be a healthy environment for them.  As a result, significant jobs will actually be lost.

There will be a resulting disparity between the number of people working and the number of people not working which will make it necessary to raise taxes even higher. In addition, high-income people will also leave the country causing a brain drain and capital outflows and there will be a complete collapse of the middle class.  The gap between the haves and the have-nots will widen even further, actually a lot further.

Welcome to the world of MAPA.



In the end, America will become not much better than a third-world nation.  Of course,without borders, there will be no nation because sovereignty is the result of having real borders.  Inevitably, ultimate authority will rest with the United Nations.  Hope you’re ready for Agenda 21.



“Ocasio-Cortez is a socialist, and she’s determined to give the voters exactly what they’ve asked for.  Free school.  Free drugs.  Free retirement.  And a guaranteed income for showing up to pretend jobs that are little more than adult daycare.”  – Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge


So, the United Nations has now formally passed the U.N. migration pact.  That is, 164 countries have signed up to allow the United Nations to, in effect, run the world.  Not surprisingly, the United States is not one of them.  Simply put, the countries who did not vote for the pact have simply decided not to sacrifice their sovereignty.

Immigration is a very divisive issue, even in this country where Nancy Pelosi says that building a wall to keep out migrants is morally wrong.  Never mind that we already have a border wall along some portions of the U.S. southern border and Nancy Pelosi voted for the funding of those walls. Further, Nancy didn’t mention that many countries already have such walls and she didn’t accuse them of being morally wrong, now did she? Maybe, Nancy should even ask the President of Mexico not to build a wall on its southern border as they have decided to do.  Better yet, maybe she should ask China to allow Muslim immigration from the Middle East instead of genociding the Muslims (Uyghurs) that they already have in their country.  Come to think of it, why shouldn’t Muslim countries in the Middle East (like Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Iran and Saudi Arabia) be required to take care of the Arab immigration problem?

The funny thing is – most of the countries who voted for the pact don’t want immigrants in their own country, only in someone else’s country.  For example, Saudi Arabia doesn’t want to take any responsibility for solving the Palestinian issue.  Not that I blame them, but if Saudi Arabia is not going to be responsible for other Arabs why should the rest of the world?

Of course, there will be political fallout over governments voting for the pact. For example in Belgium, Prime Minister Michel may resign due to a possible “no confidence vote” triggered by his support for the U.N pact.  Likewise in France, a group of military generals have accused President Macron of treason for signing the pact. That’s, in part, what led to the Yellow Vest protest which has now spread to other countries.

One of the arguments that keeps getting repeated over and over again is that there is a humanitarian reason for allowing such immigration. Of course, that’s based on the assumption that others have the wherewithal to finance significant amounts of immigration.  The elephant in the room, though, is that the world is broke. Flat broke, even the industrialized nations.  Even the United States.

Yes, unbeknownst to most, we are broke, our federal budget is seriously in the red and our federal debt has so many zeros in it that most people couldn’t read the number. Globally, there isn’t one country where their money is even worth the paper that it is printed on. The global markets and the world economy are in the process of collapsing and we will soon, therefore, have much bigger problems to worry about than immigration. Buckle up folks, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.


“A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” – Ronald Reagan

Economic Armageddon


If you’re living in a little bubble somewhere in the middle of nowhere, U.S.A., you, no doubt, have little to no idea what is going on in the outside world.  Therefore, let’s take a brief look outside the cocoon, as painful though as it may be:

  • Venezuela – Third world nation status. Economy and socialistic system has totally disintegrated.
  • Greece – Worst economy in the Eurozone. Leftist government has the country in ruins.
  • Russia – Falling oil prices a disaster for Putin.
  • Iran – The mullahs struggling to survive. U.S. has terminated the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions.
  • South Africa – Everything that could go wrong…pretty much has.

Then, of course, there’s Spain, Argentina and Turkey – turkeys, one and all (no pun intended).

Politically, Brexit is a disaster for both the U.K. and the E.U.  Merkel’s party is on the outs in Germany as the immigration issue comes front and center in EU politics. Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria, and to some extent Italy, have already said no to more immigration.  Never mind that Sweden and France are essentially lost causes as immigration has already overwhelmed those countries since there isn’t enough money in the government coffers to pay for it all.  As Margaret Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

For those of you who think the U.S. is safe, not so fast.  The recent stock market correction should have sobered up a lot of people, although memories tend to be awfully short. Not only is the stock market still overpriced, so is housing which is due any day now for a down cycle.  True, the stats out of D.C. are relatively better than at any time in the last decade but keep in mind that the numbers game is rigged.  Yes, fake government statistics to go hand-in-hand with fake news.  As for the dollar, it will die eventually as all fiat currencies do, now that the dollar has pretty much lost its reserve currency status.

What the upcoming mid-term elections reflect is that there is a wide chasm between the left and right when it comes to economic policy.  If in power, Democrats will increase social spending programs, especially those tied to immigration, and will want to pay for it through huge increases in taxes.  We’re talking about going down the same road as the E.U.  Maybe, the fact that some Europeans are beginning to reverse course will be a wake-up call to America.  The mid-term elections may offer a clue as to what direction the country will ultimately go in.


“In a society in which nearly everybody is dominated by somebody else’s mind or by a disembodied mind, it becomes increasingly difficult to learn the truth about the activities of governments and corporations, about the quality or value of products, or about the health of one’s own place and economy.”  – Wendell Berry


Just Like Germany


In sports, they used to say, “Just like Mike.” In politics it’s about to become, “Just like Germany.” That is, politically, America is about to go down the same road as Germany.  Recent elections in Germany reflect a growing disenchantment of the German people with their government, especially when it comes to the immigration issue.  Angela Merkel may soon have to give way to a new government, one which may have a mandate to address Germany’s ever-growing immigration issue.

Similarly, here in this country, one of the major issues for the mid-term elections is immigration, especially in light of the hype surrounding the migrant-caravan crisis. The stage has been set for a showdown on this issue.

However, the immigration issue goes beyond the polarization of politics as highlighted by the deepening chasm between left-wing and right-wing ideologies. Much more is at stake. The conflict is an extension of what is playing out in Germany and across the globe, a conflict between globalism and populism.

In this country, the conflict can best be described as between those espousing “open borders” and those who support the MAGA movement.  There are a number of arguments for and against “open borders”, but there is one argument that I think overrides all others and yet almost never gets mentioned. That is, “open borders” requires that we ultimately get rid of our nation-state.  It would be the end of the Republic as we know it.

If you want to know how other countries feel about “open borders” just go ask China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia.  They all have much stricter immigration policies than we do.  And why is that, exactly?  It’s simple.  Their nations would cease to exist without borders.


All Americans…are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.  The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants.  The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.  That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders….”  – President Bill Clinton