Ideas Have Consequences

 

Ideas Have Consequences

by Mustang

Many people think of the American Revolution as a war.  It was that, but it was much more than that.  There would not have been a war, with all of its associated risks and penalties, were it not for the ideas that preceded it.

What ideas?

Actually, there were more than just a few.  They came to our forefathers from three sources: (1) European Enlightenment, (2) Traditional British legal and political values, and (3) A unique “American experience.”  It was from these sources that we arrived at a distinctly American worldview, a unique American philosophy, and an exceptional set of values.  As an off-shoot of the European enlightenment, our founding fathers also incorporated a careful study of human history, from the ancient Greek through the Roman Republic and Imperial period, and finally pre-colonial British history.

Issaac Newton

The Enlightenment was an intellectual movement that began in the 1600’s.  It involved the greatest thinkers, such as Isaac Newton, who became key figures in modern history.  It also included the so-called Renaissance period, which evolved at different places, at different times, and in diverse ways.  The thinkers of the Enlightenment challenged old views, values, and traditions.  In particular, these men believed that in order for something to be factually valid, it must be rational, logical, debated, and carefully examined; it must not depend on superstition, or dogma, or simply matter of what has long been accepted.  Who were they, these thinkers?

 

 

They were, in addition to Newton, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Francois-Marie Arouet (who was known as Voltaire), Denis Diderot (co-founder of the Encyclopedia), and Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de la Brede et de Montesquieu.  They questioned such things as the divine right of kings.  They championed humanity by developing such notions that mankind is essentially of good character and intelligence; they believed that such men (and women) were capable of self-government.

Were all the revolutionary ideas new?

King George III

Not all revolutionary ideas were new, however.  Some of our founding fathers believed that traditional British customs had value, as well.  These were values that our founding fathers believed had been ignored or corrupted by King George III and his parliament in the 1770s.  So that rather than introducing new ideas, some of our ancestors thought it might be worthy to reintroduce values and traditions that they knew had worked previously.  The First Continental Congress produced their Declaration and Resolves, which offered a discussion about the rights of colonists as “freeborn Englishmen.”  In particular, that they should be entitled to equality before the law and parliament, that they deserved protection from unfair taxation, and the absolute right not to be confronted by tyranny, misuse of standing armies, or any denial of their God-given right to liberty.

The people who occupied the British colonies in North America for 160 years prior to the American Revolution also developed a unique set of attitudes, gained from living in America.  From our frontier experiences, these Americans became fiercely independent, in thought and in deed.  It made the self-sufficient.  It made them capable of governing themselves; it taught them that they need not rely upon Parliament (or any other government body) for sustenance or survival.

They learned that the British government may not be able to protect them from the depredations of Indians or French troublemakers, but they could band together when necessary and protect themselves and the things they valued and cherished most.  The American experience came from people taking on a vast wilderness, one fraught with danger from natives, wild animals, natural storms, and frigid climates.  In that America, there were more landowners than there were tenants.  This gave people confidence in themselves, and it made them resistant to British (government) interference.

 

 

 

Boston Tea Party

 

Most of the early Americans were resistant to taxation without adequate representation in the United Kingdom.  Now, ordinarily, I might argue that if the British sent soldiers to protect the colonists from the French and their Indian allies, it makes sense that the people who received this protection ought to be willing to help pay for that protection.  This was certainly the view of the British parliament, but as the French and Indians burned their homes, raped their women, murdered the men, and kidnapped the children, Americans might have wondered, “What protection.”  These notions would lead citizens to imagine that they might just as well form their own American government—for certainly, these frontiersmen were capable of forming organizations for the common good (militias).

The Americans developed their own representative bodies where each voting citizen could see that his particular view could be channeled to the executive.  In the pre-Revolutionary period, the chief executive was a governor, the representative of the King.  Yet few of the resolutions passed by colonial legislatures were ever approved by the British Parliament.  In the absence of true representation, then how could there be a robust debate about anything?  By the way, this wasn’t unique to the American colonies.  The city of Manchester, England had no representation in Parliament, either.

Thomas Paine

Americans wanted sovereignty, particularly after 1774.  One may recall how eloquent Thomas Paine was about pressing the need for independence.  The American colonies had grown through trade and commerce, and the Americans owed much of this to England’s imperial protection, but with growth and economic strength, Americans realized that they no longer needed to depend on England.  Slowly, but steadily, Americans gained personal wealth through the effective use of America’s vast resources.  These were men who were politically mature and intellectually engaged.

Another unique American idea was a genuine concern about military rule and tyranny.  Great Britain hosted the world’s strongest military and naval force.  This army and navy were greatly feared by England’s enemies, and by the people who populated British colonies.  Since most American cities didn’t have a visible police force, what most people saw on any given day, was a military garrison and patrolling soldiers.  Americans came to view this situation as an imposition on “our” homeland.  The British Army oppressed Americans; it was the use of threats of violence to make the colonies obey British authority.

And then there was this notion of “natural rights.”  The ideas of John Locke became an integral part of the American revolutionary ideology.  We agreed with Locke: We are born with rights that no government, no king, no potentate, could ever take away—and these included the right to life, liberty, and property.  Americans came to believe that it was the duty of a responsible government to protect these rights—to guarantee their continuance to the people.

And so, the American Revolution was not a cause of, but the consequence of enlightened ideas that incorporated British traditions and our own unique experiences.  Today, there are other ideas floating around—ideas foreign to the American experience.  They are the so-called progressive ideas of the Democratic Party.  We should be willing to listen to these ideas, provide a platform or an environment whereby the people can debate their ideas, and we ought to consider them carefully —but we must at the same time understand that there are significant consequences to adopting Marxist ideas.

The question before the bar of the American people today is this: Do we change for the sake of change, or do we reject Marxism’s obsession with identity politics and cling to our God-given natural rights to remain a free and independent people?

Advertisements

Top Dem Lawmaker: Democrats Will Not Pass USMCA Trade Agreement

 

It didn’t take a crystal ball to figure out the intentions of the Democrats who soon will control the House. Always interesting for them now that they are showing their hand and how wise they are.. Mind you, not one former President in decades has attempted to right the ship regarding our trade relations.

But now, these House members, many of whom we have never heard of before, will make sure the brakes are applied to our economy. I am sure our new  “Valley Girl” Cortez will be right on board with this concept.

Otherwise filibustering Maria, he is clueless. But then, Trump does have his magic wand!

Rep. Matt Cartwright, the newly elected co-chair of the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee (DPCC) joined Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures this morning.

 

Cartwright told Maria Bartiromo Democrats will not sign President Trump’s USMCA trade agreement to replace the ruinous Nafta trade agreement.

Maria Bartiromo: Just to close the loop on the USMCA, am I right to assume you will not vote for this deal as it is written right now?

Rep. Cartwright (D-PA): No, unless it is made clear somehow that this is only a temporary position, that we are going to move on to broadening its effect to the entire manufacturing sector in this country.

UPDATE: Our man on the beat, Mustang added this comment –

I love the fact that this congressman, who’s job it is to know the US Constitution, doesn’t know that the Senate, not the House, consents to treaties.

President Trump told reporters on Sunday morning he will end Nafta and give Congress the choice between his USMCA or nothing.

Democrats would rather kill the US economy and have nothing.

 

 

H/T: Gateway Pundit

Here is Trump’s Magic Wand!

 

 

China’s real national debt: $46 trillion, 330% of GDP

 

While we are concerned with our mounting debt, apparently China is having its own financial issues. Recall how President Reagan outspent the Soviet Union in defense spending to their detriment as they attempted to keep up with us. It looks like things are not so swell over China way. With China, they have a population of over one billion. Should we be concerned about a restless unhappy population? I am no expert on China by a long shot. Will it end like the Soviet Union if the Chinese can’t get their financial ship in order? Will they become more aggressive if there is a financial crisis? Zero Hedge goes on in the link below regarding the censorship China is implementing concerning the bad financial news.

 

 

China’s Shadow-banking system is collapsing (and with its China’s economic-fuel – the credit impulse), it’s equity market has become a slow-motion train-wreck, its economic data has been serially disappointing for two years, and its bond market is starting to show signs of serious systemic risk as corporate defaults in 2018 hit a record high.

But, if you were to read the Chinese press, none of that would be evident, as The New York Times reports a government directive sent to journalists in China on Friday named six economic topics to be “managed,” as the long hand of China’s ‘Ministry of Truth’ have now reached the business media in an effort to censor negative news about the economy.

The New York Times lists the topics that are to be “managed” as:

  • Worse-than-expected data that could show the economy is slowing.
  • Local government debt risks.
  • The impact of the trade war with the United States.
  • Signs of declining consumer confidence
  • The risks of stagflation, or rising prices coupled with slowing economic growth
  • “Hot-button issues to show the difficulties of people’s lives.”

The government’s new directive betrays a mounting anxiety among Chinese leaders that the country could be heading into a growing economic slump. Even before the trade war between the United States and China, residents of the world’s second-largest economy were showing signs of keeping a tight grip on their wallets. Industrial profit growth has slowed for four consecutive months, and China’s stock market is near its lowest level in four years.

“It’s possible that the situation is more serious than previously thought or that they want to prevent a panic,” said Zhang Ming, a retired political science professor from Renmin University in Beijing.

Mr. Zhang said the effect of the expanded censorship strategy could more readily cause people to believe rumors about the economy. “They are worried about chaos,” he added. “But in barring the media from reporting, things may get more chaotic.”

More at Zero Hedge

Welfare? because it pays….

 

Because it pays … By Mustang

 

Considering the total amount of welfare spending, welfare fraud is but a small percentage. This, at least, is the argument posed by the defenders of state welfare. On the other hand, interviews with welfare recipients where the questioner has gained a high level of trust with his subject illustrates that most welfare recipients fail to report their total income and that just over 80% of these recipients are willing to cheat because there is only a 16% chance that their dishonesty will be discovered. It’s a game —and one that pays good dividends.

Welfare fraud, while widespread, is mostly committed by people who struggle financially. In a study conducted in 2012, 88% of welfare recipients admitted that they regularly cheat, either to maintain their benefit, or toward increasing it. The 2012 study was remarkably consistent with one conducted in 1988, where 80% of Chicago blacks worked either full or part time but failed to report their income to the welfare office. In 1974, a study of 450 welfare recipients in Orange County, California discovered a 45% fraud rate; in less than ten years, this number increased by 729%.

In 2016, investigators in the Social Security Administration received 143,385 allegations of fraud. They opened 8,048 cases; 1,162 people were eventually convicted of fraud. This was a small percentage of individuals ever going into court, but the government claims to have recovered $52.6 million while imposing $4.5 million in fines.

Note: I’m not sure how the government “recovers” stolen benefits. What I do know is that fraud perpetrated against the Social Security Administration Trust Fund threatens the integrity of the fund and blocks access to needy applicants with legitimate claims for benefits

By 2017, resulting from advances in medicine, safety devises, and an overall decrease in positions demanding manual labor, the numbers of people unable to work actually decreased since 1960 … but the percentage of people qualifying for federal benefits because they are unable to work actually increased. The only explanation, given that the legal definition of physical disability hasn’t changed since1960, is an increase in fraud.

In addition to the Social Security Administration, fraud also exists within the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Labor, and the Department of Veteran’s Affairs. In the first half of FY- 2012, the IG of the SSA detected frauds amounting to more than $253 million. If we extrapolate this through the entire fiscal year, over $500 million dollars of public assistance money was stolen by recipients of welfare or assistance.

Some examples:

  • In 1977, Linda Taylor from Chicago used 14 aliases to obtain $150,000 in medical assistance. Within 18 months, hundreds of others in Chicago developed equally outrageous schemes to steal millions from the welfare state.
  • In 1978, Dorothy Woods claimed 38 non-existent children.
  • In 1979, Esther Johnson in California was sentenced for collecting $240,000 for more than60 fictitious children. When she was released from prison four years later, she had acollege degree in social welfare administration, paid for by the American taxpayer.
  • In 1979, Arlene Otis of Cook County Illinois was indicted on 613 charges of illegally receiving $150,839.Welfare fraud aren’t the only costs. The cost of policing and prosecuting welfare fraud is high (although largely unmeasured). These costs involve labor costs of investigators, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, probation officers, and the administration costs of welfare diversion programs.

There are also prison costs, and the cost of foster care when single mothers are incarcerated. In 2008, California spent three times as much in policing welfare fraud as its cost of welfare fraud overpayments. Now of course, state comptrollers have concluded not to prosecute fraud —it is cheaper to just turn a blind eye.Why do they do it? Because it pays.

Welfare fraud more often than not reflects the idea that
citizens have a moral right to proper financial support from county, state, and federal governments. They think this because politicians continually reinforce this kind of thinking. The fact is, more than one-half of adultAmericans receive more money in government payments than they pay in federal taxes —this according to the Congressional Budget Office. The lower one’s income, the more benefits they receive, and the wider the disparity between benefits received and taxes paid.

CBO tells us that the lowest income earners pay only $400.00 in taxes yet receive $16,000.00 in benefits. They receive more income after taxes than they do before taxes. So, the question is, who is paying for this disparity?

American taxpayers, of course.

This is not a problem if one happens to be a Democrat. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a popular refrain among Marxists. Still, the sentiment does provide an effective strategy for recruiting political support. Ludwig von Mises instructed us that once we reach the point where a majority of voters receive more in benefits than it pays in taxes, they will demand even more from the government and be politically positioned to demand it. The more this political majority demands fromgovernment, the greater the government’s assault on a diminishing number of middle and higher-income people taxed to support welfare programs.

According to the Cato Institute, the federal government in 2014 spent $688 billion on 126 separate welfare programs. Spending by state and local governments pushed this figure well over $1 trillion. Leftists like to quibble over these figures, though. They’ll argue that $55 billion is refundable as part of the Earned Income Tax Credit, $21 billion to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (which, given the history of welfare payments in the United States, isn’t temporary at all). $44 billion is the figure attached to Supplemental Security Income; $75 billion for food stamps, $18 billion for housing vouchers. Medicaid spends $228 billion on the non-elderly population, with children’s health claiming $13.5 billion. Added to this are Title 1 grants of $14 billion and Head Start programs of $10 billion.

If the Cato figures tell us anything at all, it is that the United States and its so-called Great Society lost the war on poverty … a presumption on my part based on the fact that such programs haven’t accomplished raising the poor up into the middle class. All it ever did was increase the rolls of voting Democrats. Given the fact that registered voters have an iron in the welfare fire, it makes one wonder if these people shouldn’t recuse themselves from voting. After all, it isn’t as if they’re giving much thought about who to vote for.

There is no civic virtue on the American left.

I do believe that each of us has a duty to help our neighbors in need. Giving to the poor is laudable act when private citizens make those kinds of decisions. This isn’t what happens in Marxist run countries, however: private citizens don’t decide —the government makes that decision for them. The government decides how much the wage earner will “donate.” Government decides how we define poor, and who qualifies for taxpayer-funded assistance. Government even decides how this money will be extorted and the penalty for withholding it.

This is the Democratic (communist) political platform. We now live in a society where the political majority consist of those who benefit most from government largesse. Who are they —these leftist voters? They are people who do not, and will not work for a living. They are people who feign illness or injury so that the government will pay them to stay home and watch television.

They are the millions of illegal aliens here now (and those who are in the way — the communist left’s future voters). They are the literally millions of people who refused to stay in school, people who’ve made a mess of their lives, who produce more children than they can afford, and now expect the American taxpayer to bail them out. These numbers, by the way, far exceed the numbers of our truly-needy elderly and disabled citizens —and they too are loyal Democrats, because this is the party that consistently frightens into thinking that the other party may cause them to lose their benefits.

If these genuine recipients ever do lose their benefits, it will be because the communists have squandered precious monetary resources recruiting young voters into the Democratic machine.

A Self-Reliant America

 

A Self-reliant America

By Mustang

Are Americans self-reliant? My guess is that no more than half of our population think of themselves as such; the rest have given themselves up to the good graces of the government. But of those who think that they are self-reliant, how many actually are? A self-reliant American might look something like this:

  • One who rejects conformity in favor of individuality
  • One who believes that he or she alone controls his/her own destiny
  • One who understands his or her civic duty and can be trusted to do it
  • One who understands that he or she bears responsibility for government
  • One who realizes that personal enlightenment is achieved only through individual effort
  • One who reasons that our only source of truth is our morality
  • One who will pursue right because it is rightThe notion of self-reliance has been predominant in American social development from our colonial period —until only recently, when politicians realized that self-reliance hindered the success of politicians. Upon this realization, beginning after the Civil War, politicians began to formulate programs that were designed to transform self-reliant individuals into government dependencies. Some examples:
  • Enslaving Americans to government entitlement programs: individual welfare, farming subsidies, small business loans, and tax breaks for small-to-medium sized corporations of every description (banking, finance, industry, agriculture, and services) (Politicians maintained control over the largest corporations for their own benefit)
  • Creating educational programs guaranteed to destroy a person’s ability to think for themselves
  • Formulating and instituting policies certain to stifle individuality by rewarding group-think
  • Creating environments guaranteed to prevent individuals from reaching their full potential
  • Convincing an entire class of citizens that they could never succeed without government help and guidance; institutionalizing the bigotry of low-expectations.There are two sources of citizenship: natural birth or naturalization. No matter how one becomes a citizen, he or she becomes entitled to certain rights, but also incurs certain obligations. We call these two things the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. What rights? We find these within the Constitution of the United States and its amendments. The duties of American citizenship are these:
  • Understand one’s rights, take advantage of them with wisdom, forbearance, and an analytical mind.
  • Demonstrate good faith and loyalty to one’s family, community, state, and the nation. Obey the law, peacefully participate in the political process, respect the rights of neighbors by granting to them the same amity we seek for ourselves.
  • Strive to live honorably; cheerfully serve on juries, satisfy tax obligations.
  • Work toward self-improvement, be a good steward of the environment, participate in community affairsWe all read the news; we are all aware that if you believe the news reports, the numbers of self-reliant citizens, which is to say good citizens, is in steep decline. On the other hand, can we really believe what the news agencies tell us? And could it be that if Americans are no longer self-reliant good citizens that news agencies are partly responsible? Do they not constantly remind us that we are not an exceptional people, that we are incapable of goodness without a strong (government) hand to keep us on the straight and narrow path?The population of the United States (and all of its communities) is growing at a rapid rate. Within large populations we (always) find an increase in crime, even if the percentage of crime per capita remains constant. To err is human … we will never end crimes against persons or property. No matter, we should still attempt to understand why people ignore their duties as citizens.

    For myself, I believe that part of this is that too many people are no longer “self-reliant.” They allow others to control their thoughts and ultimately, their bad deeds. Government, in seeking to sustain itself, allows bad behavior by contriving ad nauseam excuses for unacceptable conduct. Why should anyone hold him or herself responsible if,as the government elitists argue,it was all the fault of their parents? Or society? Or rich people?

    To this end, we should consider government’s role in such areas as substance abuse. If government was all-knowing and all-seeing, wouldn’t our drug abuse problem be already solved? How many murders, rapes, kidnappings, assaults, and robberies could the all-knowing government have prevented had it solved the drug problem in America?

    Self-reliant men do not abandon their wives and children; self-reliant women do not abandon their husbands or children. Self-reliant men and women do not intentionally put themselves in harm’s way; they avoid such things as sexual assault by refusing to put themselves into unenviable positions; they are watchful and aware of their surroundings.

    Self-reliant men and women are prepared and willing to defend themselves and their loved ones. Self-reliant men and women do not abuse one another, or their children. Everyone has problems, but self-reliant men and women find ways to solve their problems without causing disruption to their neighbors or communities. Self-reliant men and women in committed relationships always look out for one another.

    Suddenly, then, we find self-reliance, more than being some ambiguous or fictional notion of Americana, has a practical application to our ever-increasingly complex society.

Are Americans self-reliant? If not, can we ever get it back?

The Goal of Socialism is……..?

 

The Goal of Socialism…..

 

by Mustang

… is communism.  We know this because Vladimir Lenin told us so.  After all, if anyone should know, it would be the man who first implemented the inane notions of Karl Marx and Frederick Ingles.  If we fast forward through the next 100 years, we’ll find the result of communism has been somewhere on the order of one-hundred-million deaths.  I suspect that a socialist might argue, “Well, if you wanted to avoid 100-million deaths, all you had to do was sit down, shut up, and do what you’re told.”

The facts about socialism and communism are sufficiently dismal to make me wonder why any American would wish to pursue a socialist agenda.

I was reading a commentary at AOW’s blog the other day.  Writer “Silverfiddle” reminded us that the Democratic Party is home to leftwing mob violence.  He’s right about that, and so too is a commenter named Sam, who wrote:

Marxist/leftist theory is only the tip of the iceberg.  What follows theory is the leftist program, which defines the aims of the movement, provides a strategy to implement the program, and offers the tactics to set civil unrest and discord into motion.  This is not something new, and it is not new inside the borders of the United States.  It’s been going on for quite a while.

It is also quite complex, involving main and auxiliary organizations.  If we pull back the cover of leftist activism, we will find that there are differences in tactics that depend upon the social group that is intended to implement them: one set for disaffected blacks, another for illegal aliens, another for slow-thinking college students, another for unions, and so on.

Tactics may also include regional differences.  But we can say for certain there is a method to the leftist madness—and there are no shortages of examples where the communist left has provoked civil unrest all the way back to the late 19th Century.

In the modern sense, the underlying strategy is one of terror, which places the American communist left in the same camp as Islamic radicals.  As Silverfiddle has said, disagree with any mind-numbing leftist contention and you run the risk of being assaulted.

I’ve asked this question before (admittedly a rhetorical one): why would any thinking American EVER vote for a Democrat?  The answer is that a thinking American wouldn’t —but we don’t have a plethora of these sitting around waiting to vote patriotism, do we?

I have no crystal ball, so I think the upcoming mid-term elections will be instructive to all of us.  The worst thing that could happen is that conservatives will stay home on election day.  If that happens, the communists will reclaim the House of Representatives.  I wish I had more confidence in the American electorate, but I don’t.  What is it?  Only 42% of registered voters even bother to vote?  If the statistic is true, we should worry about the upcoming election.  Maybe I will develop more confidence if conservative Americans are able to maintain its control of the Congress.

Will you vote in the mid-terms?

California Parents Lose One More Right As State Limits Kids’ Menu Drinks To Water Or Milk

 

This story is not big as the lightbulb, shower head or toilet water restrictions the government has imposed. Maybe not as big a story on a ban on plastic straws. Just a reminder on a Saturday that the march on our liberties moves forward unabated. Just an update for my Saturday Flashback

Remember Mooch Obama bans fried foods and Frosted Flakes at Daycare Centers

Centers will be allowed to serve cheese, cottage cheese, and yogurt, as long as it has fewer than 23 grams of sugar per 6 ounces. The first version of the regulation would have banned cheese, cottage cheese, and “cheese food, or spread.”

The government said it will allow daycare centers to break the rules for special occasions like birthdays, but urged centers to “use discretion.”

Back to the latest control:

Yes, the rumors are true. California lawmakers passed a state law that forces restaurants within the state to offer only select beverages on children’s menus. Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 1192 into law in late September and it easily passed in both the State and the Assembly. Support for the nanny state law flew under the guise of what’s healthiest for the children.

The default options for beverages on children’s menus have been forced to change to unflavored milk and water.

Snip..

Should the government dictate what drinks a restaurant can serve to patrons? Do you want the government to decide what is healthiest for your children? When you go to McDonald’s, are you there for a fat-free kale smoothie? Is this giving you flashbacks to Nanny Bloomberg’s large drink ban in New York? (Which, I might add, was finally struck down in court as unconstitutional.)

That is precisely what is happening in California right as we speak. You are probably not surprised, but at the same time, when will the insanity stop?

Nothing against dairy on this site, but it does cause some problems for a lot of people. So who is to say that prompting the parent to “choose” milk is automatically healthier than the occasional soda drink? One could surmise that orange juice is healthier than soda until you see how it’s made and realize that it’s not the wholesome fruit-based drink we think it is.

Previously, California banned the sale of soda pop in schools. But, teens then apparently took to sports drinks.

Intellectual Takeout says:

As a 2013 study on the effects of soda bans published in the International Journal of Behavior Nutrition and Physical Activity warned, “State laws that ban soda but allow other SSBs [sugar-sweetened beverages] may lead students to substitute other non-soda SSBs.” (Unsurprisingly, California lawmakers also tried to ban sports drinks in schools in 2010. They failed, but the USDA passed a nationwide ban in 2013).

[…]A 2018 UCLA study found that while adolescent soda consumption was down in California, sugar consumption overall was still on the rise.

 

H/T full story Zero Hedge

Welcome all the readers from  Pirates Cove

Thanks for stopping by.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: