Examples of Media Bias

The following images are of various magazine, or book, publications over the last several months. In just looking at them, one can easily determine by doing some simple comparison to what was put out over the last 8 years of the Obama Administration, that there is a clear bias against the policies and actions of a president who won the election. In fact, here's a video clip of Chris Matthews recently admitting their bias.

The First 100 Days Presidential Measuring Stick

So, what's the deal with this media obsession about what the new administration's accomplishments were during its first 100 days in office? They like to tell us that it usually is a sign of how effective the president will be over the rest of his term in office, but does their saying so make it true?

With the blatantly obvious bias against Pres. Trump by the mainstream media, they've begun using it as a cudgel to minimize his appearance to the public as an effective leader and their claim as illegitimate because their projected winner of the election lost. For the sake of review, let's take a quick look at what Trump's administration has done and then analyze why no significant legislation has not passed out of Congress.

Let's not forget that many have claimed Trump's negotiating skills as a business man, the fact that he's not a politician, and takes no crap from the media he clearly despises for their fake news about stupid, petty things, was a plus for him going into Washington, D.C. to "drain the swamp" as everyone was led to believe. Some believe he's a very cunning and clever individual who, while knowing what he's dealing with, keeps his true intentions and moves "close to the vest" as poker players like to say. However, one must admit, and many have commented on the fact, that Trump has done much during this period. Here's an example what he has done.

Of course, everyone has their personal explanation for why nothing significant has been done during this new administration's initial time period, but then, how many of them have actually gone to Washington, D.C. as part of the 500+ members of Congress to actually experience what really goes on there? Very few actually! But Ken Buck is one who has and he's written a very interesting book I would highly recommend reading if you want to get a more clear picture of the real reasons behind there's been little accomplished.

From what I've personally understood about what's been going on in the "swamp" is this...

Yes, both houses - Senate and House of Representatives - as well as the Executive branch of our federal government are dominated by Republicans. But, if anyone who's been paying attention to both the primary and general election events over the past year or more, they know that there have been several "RINOs" in Congress who've either said, or done, things which make it clear they do not support the elected President. (To understand this phenomenon more clearly, it's necessary to read the book I've mentioned above.) They're basically moderates who don't want to lose their status and power, for if they did go along with Trump's agenda of draining the swamp, they'd see it evaporate quickly. Thus, with a few key "RINOs" withholding their support, and the lobbyists from "K" street writing the revisions to the failed healthcare bill the Speaker Ryan spearheaded and "hoodwinked" Trump on, nothing's really been accomplished during this period. That doesn't mean things will be different over a longer period; time will tell.

Then too, there's the media who's played a key role in skewing the public's perception of things which have happened during this initial period of his administration. We need look no further than the bogus claim by the Democrats that there's been some sort of collusion with Putin and Russia to "rig" the election to explain why their candidate didn't win the election. 

Now, a recently released book that exposes all of what went on in the Democrat's campaign camp, titled "Shattered", has blown the lid off the real situations behind her loss. For a more comprehensive peak at how people around the country are viewing this event, I suggest checking this page about this topic. Here's a clip from Trump's interview with John Dickerson on Face the Nation this past weekend.

For a different perspective on this topic, let's look at what Doug Shoen of FOX News says about it:
================

WHITE HOUSE

Doug Schoen: What Democrats won't admit about Trump's first 100 days

By Douglas E. Schoen

 Published April 29, 2017

 Fox News

One hundred days into President Trump’s administration, it is becoming evident that when considering his base, the president has been more successful than many would like to give him credit for.

There have been clear shortcomings though, which many Democratic analysts like myself have been quick to address.

President Trump has accomplished many of the campaign promises he ran on in 2016, and is currently enjoying an 84 percent approval rating among Republicans in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll. More importantly, a full 98 percent of people who voted for him in November say that they are happy with their decision.

Maintaining this level of loyal Republican support has been critical to the president’s success as his approval rating among all Americans, including Democratic voters, hovers between 40 and 50 percent.

Let’s grade President Trump’s first 100 days, with specific attention to his ability to successfully meet his campaign promises:

Foreign Policy: A+

President Trump’s reassertion of U.S. leadership around the world was a foundational component of his campaign, and already his style of leadership has positively changed the way our global allies view the United States. In particular, the U.S. Navy’s Tomahawk missile strike on Syria’s Shayrat Airbase in response to the Assad regime’s horrific use of chemical weapons, made it clear that the president of the United States will not tolerate a red line being crossed or an appalling human rights violation to be committed on his watch.

Just one week later, President Trump authorized the use of the largest non-nuclear bomb in the US’s arsenal in Afghanistan to destroy a critical network of tunnels used by ISIS, as well as large caches of weapons.

Finally, the president has shifted U.S. foreign policy goals with China. Trump chose, instead of labeling China as a currency manipulator, to work on building a partnership with them in order to address the threat of North Korea.

 Trump made good on his promise that he would ensure the United States would negotiate better deals with our international partners, and both his willingness and ability to pivot on China’s currency practices to address the North Korean threat demonstrates the president’s negotiating abilities.

Domestic Policy Agenda: C

President Trump’s inability to follow through on a signature promise to immediately “repeal and replace” ObamaCare within the first 100 days now presents serious challenges for other aspects of the president’s policy agenda.

President Trump was unable to unite moderate Republicans and more the conservative House Freedom Caucus behind his proposed replacement plan. This plan should have been formed through bipartisan means, and instead of focusing on repeal and replace, President Trump could have put fixing ObamaCare on the table. As it stands, even with the new addition of the MacArthur amendment in the latest iteration of the American Health Care Act, it does not appear that President Trump will be able to pass an effective ObamaCare replacement in the near term.  

President Trump’s struggles with his domestic agenda will not end with healthcare. Democrats are not going to consider his tax plan, with the tax cuts too heavily weighted on cuts for the rich. His plan will hurt states disproportionally with high state and local taxes, and putting their social safety net at risk. 

President Trump’s tax plan is also indicative of how his policy prescriptions and rhetoric haven’t even hinted at a plan to reach out across the aisle. The upcoming infrastructure bill is an excellent opportunity for Trump to appeal to Democrats. That being said, the Democrats have to take the blame as well. Instead of constantly resisting his every move, Democrats need to article an agenda that could potentially win bipartisan support and help move this country forward.

The Supreme Court: B+ 

President Trump ran on the promise that if elected, he would appoint federal judges who uphold the constitution and support the Second Amendment. The nomination and appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch has accomplished just that, and will be one of President Trump’s lasting successes from his first 100 days.  

Regulations, Trade and Jobs: A-

Trump promised that he would renegotiate or cancel many the United States’ trade agreements. Just this week, Canada and Mexico have agreed to begin renegotiating NAFTA, which from the outset has largely occurred on President Trump’s terms.

Previously, President Trump also pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, enacted tougher enforcement of exporters who sell products below the cost of production, and requested a comprehensive report on “every possible cause of the U.S. trade deficit.”

Another key campaign promise was job creation. In particular, President Trump has begun the process of cutting federal regulations and expedited the construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines.

Additionally, President Trump also ran the plan to crack down on companies outsourcing jobs. The president has called out corporate leaders and companies to help ensure jobs do not go to Mexico, all while negotiating with corporations to invest in new facilitates and factories in America as a “vote of confidence” in his administration.

Immigration: B+

The president has done exactly as he said he would do with regards to immigration. Trump has proactively tried to enact a constitutionally acceptable version of the travel ban.

More importantly, however, President Trump has worked toward reforming the H1-B visa program in order to ensure that American workers will be a prioritized over foreign workers.

Finally, Trump has held steady on his promise for a wall along the U.S. Southern border, and has initiated funding talks, as well the possibility of public-private partnerships to ensure the wall’s completion.

Douglas E. Schoen is a Fox News contributor. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. His new book is "Putin's Master Plan". Follow him on Twitter @DouglasESchoen.

 ==================

It's clear to me that the media's "psy-ops" is effectively convincing those who don't do their research, or follow things more closely to get both sides of the story, to buy into the "conspiracy theory" which Maxine Waters is now promoting at full tilt to the windmills of the political landscape. The Democrats are clearly loosing it "big time". Watching Tucker Carlson corner some of these liberals on his show to answer a simple and obviously direct question is a lesson in how they've all been trained in how to obfuscate effectively and are indirectly admitting that they're losing so badly now after their solution to rascism in America has done so much damage. 

How North Korea Views the Situation on the Penninsula

Reality Check

By George Friedman 

How North Korea Views the Situation on the Peninsula

Pyongyang has been pursuing a consistent strategy for decades.

Conducting foreign policy or preparing for war requires the ability to put yourself in your adversary’s position. Unless you understand what he sees and how he thinks, his actions will make no sense to you. This will cause you to miscalculate because you will confuse a lack of understanding on your part with insanity or stupidity on your adversary’s part. If you dismiss your enemy as a clown or lunatic – when in reality he knows what he is doing and he understands what you are doing – his chances of succeeding soar, while your chances plummet. This is an important lesson to apply to the current situation on the Korean Peninsula.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was founded as a communist state and a client of the Soviet Union. The Soviets encouraged North Korea to invade South Korea to control the entire peninsula. North Korea’s founder, Kim Il Sung, saw his regime nearly destroyed when the United States, contrary to Soviet expectations or North Korean calculations, intervened and decimated the North Korean army. North Korea exists today only because the Chinese intervened as the Americans approached the Yalu River, which forms the border with China. The Chinese were not concerned about North Korea. They were concerned about their own national security.

Korean People’s Army tanks are displayed during a military parade marking the 105th anniversary of the birth of late North Korean leader Kim Il Sung in Pyongyang on April 15, 2017. ED JONES/AFP/Getty Images

China’s intervention led to a stalemate on the peninsula roughly where the current lines stand, which is not far from the original boundary between the North and the South. In other words, the North Koreans gained nothing from the war, and in surviving, they were dominated by the Chinese. Whatever economy North Korea had was shattered, and the regime was nearly destroyed.

The North Koreans drew some important conclusions from the war. First, communist ideology had little to do with their communist allies’ actions. The Soviets saw an opportunity to test the United States at little cost or risk to themselves. If North Korea had taken the peninsula, the Soviet position in the waters off the Asian mainland would have been strengthened. But if North Korea had been occupied, the Soviets would not have been worse off than they were. The Chinese were willing to supply troops only until they themselves were at risk and were also prepared to see North Korea destroyed or truncated. International socialist solidarity was secondary to national interests.

North Korea also learned that the United States was utterly unpredictable and dangerous. Although the U.S. indicated that the Korean Peninsula was not a central part of its policy in Asia, the U.S. entered the war, fighting capably and at times brilliantly, as with the landing at Inchon. While the U.S. remembers the fighting with the Chinese from the standpoint of the retreat at Chosin Reservoir, the U.S. killed around 180,000 Chinese troops. The U.S. stood its ground and gave better than it got.

The North Koreans learned that what the Americans said had little to do with what they did, and that the Americans, if they chose, could bring enormous forces to bear. North Korea also realized that the Soviets regarded North Korean interests as subsidiary to even secondary Soviet interests. As for the Chinese, they had a capable force but one that would be deployed only when Chinese interests were at stake.

Therefore, the North Koreans believed their position was strategically impossible. They faced three major powers, any one of which could annihilate North Korea. Their strategy was to avoid annihilation by proving it would not be worth anyone’s trouble. This did not mean being meek by any stretch. It required convincing other powers that they would incur a huge cost by absorbing or defeating North Korea. The country’s greatest strength was its relative unimportance. If it could also increase the dangers involved in being subdued, it could survive.

To do this, the North Koreans would have to build a military machine capable of deterrence. A country as poor as North Korea had to militarize the entire society. It had to produce the wherewithal to survive and field a military force capable of keeping all others at bay. North Korea is still poor, but despite that poverty it is too dangerous to deal with. Modern North Korea is a rational adjustment to its perceived reality. It might follow that the populace would be restive. But whether through intimidation or contentment, little evidence exists that they are. So the North Korean government operates from a stable platform.

The Sino-Soviet split of the 1960s brought about another dimension. North Korea learned to manipulate these countries and used their distrust of each other to extract support by shifting its weight from side to side. The North Koreans used the tensions on their border to increase their value to each country at different times and, therefore, to control their relationships. After 1991, this became even harder and in some ways more profitable as the residual ideological ties dropped away and all sides could pursue their national interests. But the fall of the Soviet Union and the emergence of China brought their own perils. China became the overwhelming force, and one that was difficult to manipulate. Therefore, North Korea’s core strategy had to be updated, and this involved a nuclear program with serious intentions.

North Korea sees itself as alone and isolated. Its history shows that attempting to cooperate with its neighbors can lead to catastrophe. It also believes that it can predict and control American behavior, but this could also end in catastrophe. It has survived since the Korean War by not being a significant strategic prize and by possessing a force that deters intervention. North Korea’s world consists of China, Russia and the United States. South Korea and Japan are not going to take any steps without the United States. Therefore, the U.S. is the permanent threat, while Russia and China (particularly China) are both dangers and possible allies depending on circumstances. North Korea must be helpful to China but never again become a pawn or a battlefield.

In a deterrence strategy, the method must always match the fear of the enemy. The United States fears terrorism and nuclear weapons. North Korea is unable to strike the U.S., so it is a secondary threat. But it believes that acquiring nuclear capability against the United States would protect it from American unpredictability.

However – and paradoxically – creating the deterrent leads to U.S. unpredictability temporarily surging. Between the time that it demonstrates the ability to create a nuclear deterrent and the time it achieves it, the United States becomes extremely dangerous. Therefore, to mitigate if not remove the danger – or at least to buy time – North Korea must use China and Russia as a counter. They may not want North Korea to have nuclear capability, but they have other issues with the United States, and they might see an advantage in the U.S. focusing on a minor country.

A safer course might be to abandon the nuclear program, but the North Koreans calculate that if they were to do this, they would be putting off the inevitable. Their deterrent power would decline, and their dependence on China and Russia would increase. That did not work well in the past. Therefore, the only prudent course is to hope that short-term considerations will force the Chinese and Russians to help them buy time to complete their nuclear deterrent.

It is an enormously risky path for the North Koreans, but ever since the Soviet Union collapsed and the Chinese focused on Walmart, they have been on a precipice. They have survived by cunning, bluffing and the indifference of others. That is hope, not a strategy. Their strategy is to become too dangerous to attack. The U.S. is unpredictable, but one thing is certain: It will not engage a nuclear state that can strike back. The North Koreans have drawn China into the game, buying them more time. It is the witching hour for them, but they expected this and will play it out.

The North Korean government does not consist of one man. It has been pursuing a consistent policy for over half a century. It is now in the end game, and we do not know the answer to the most important question: Have the North Koreans already built a nuclear weapon, and if not, how much time do they need? We also do not know if China wants North Korea to be a nuclear power to absorb U.S. attention, or if it would be afraid of a nuclear North Korea. The U.S. and North Korea likely don’t know the answer, and perhaps the Chinese haven’t yet decided. But the point here is that North Korea is not stupid nor crazy. Such powers do not create conundrums vastly beyond their apparent resources.
=============
Footnote: Here's Dick Morris's history review about who are to blame for why North Korea now has nuclear weapons capability. Watch this video clip about it here. He'd know, he was both Clinton's personal political advisor during the two term presidency.

Local News for the End of April, 2017

Yes folks, things in our state are just lookin' "peachy"!

Happening In Olympia

Advocates for a Seattle income tax are planning to take the city to state Supreme Court to overturn statewide income tax ban. If the group of people, brought together by the Transit Riders Union and more, are able to pass a Seattle income tax, they are hoping the tax will then be challenged and get taken up at the state Supreme Court. A decision there could overturn the ruling against income taxes that currently stands, opening the door for a statewide income tax to be introduced in the legislature.

Western Washington

West Point Treatment Plant is still emptying wastewater into the Puget Sound, won’t meet permit standards until mid-May. While mechanical failures have been mostly rectified, the plant is still sending 20 trucks a day – at $700 to $1,000 a trip – to deliver waste to a Renton treatment plant because the West Point Treatment plant has not fully recovered yet. Director of King County Natural Resources and Parks said, “We still have a lot of work to do. We are targeting mid-May, but remember we are relying on biology.” Tolls for the Highway 99 tunnel are no longer expected to be able to cover construction costs. The Washington State Department of Transportation analysis has determined that the estimated toll totals will fall $100 million short with the initial $1 and $1.50 (peak time) tolls the tunnel were supposed to charge. Should the toll rates increase to cover the extra $100 million needed to fund tunnel construction, WSDOT is worried people will use alternate routes – thus lowering toll revenue even more. Will construction on the Highway 99 tunnel ever run smoothly? Eastside commute traffic will increase as two transit centers close for light rail construction. “We know this is going to be a big change for people. This is going to be a difficult time as we make progress toward opening Eastlink. So, we’re just hoping people can find a good option for them before the lot closes,” Rachelle Cunningham of Sound Transit said. It is interesting that a project dedicated to reducing traffic will now be admittedly worsening commutes for Eastside commuters for the next five years. Sound Transit announces more details on ST3 expansions. They have reported they intend to reach Ballard in 2035, West Seattle in 2030 and Federal Way in 2024. The $54 billion package voters approved will take 25 years to complete and the agency is expected to have 24 different projects simultaneously in play by the end of this year. Seattle attorney, Mayor Ed Murray’s public safety advisor, Scott Lindsay will be challenging Pete Holmes for city attorney. Lindsay is running because he doesn’t think Homes has been involved in discussion for what is best for the city. He believes, “The vast majority of repeat defendants coming through the system for low-level property crimes like car prowls are suffering from addiction and very often homelessness. But the office and Pete Holmes have been absent from the discussion.” Seattle Mayor Ed Murray adds diet soda to his proposed soda tax, and lowered the proposed tax from 1.75 cents per ounce to 2 cents per ounce of a tax on sugary drinks. He believes, “we will raise the ongoing $18 million dollars for our education and health agenda,” with the tax.

Here's the Real Reason Why Several Republicans Do Not Want to Repeal Obamacare!

Patriot, A representative from the United Nations sent a letter to the Trump Administration warning that the repeal of Obamacare would be a violation of international law. No, this is not borrowed from The Onion... it comes straight from the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commission. We've included the memo below... but please keep reading. This formerly confidential notice claims that -- pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 33/9 -- the United States government is required to ensure "the rights to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and the right to social security of the people of the United States of America." (Emphasis ours.) It goes on to state that article 5 (e) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination -- ratified by the United States during the Clinton Administration -- requires the U.S. government to "guarantee the right of everyone to a number of economic, social, and cultural rights, without distinction as to race, colour, or national, or ethnic origin... [which include] the rights to public health, medical care, social security, social services, among others." As a "party" to the United Nations and its treaties, the United States is obligated to provide public healthcare to remain in compliance with international law... a mandate that is wholly repugnant to the American form of government which exists to defend the people's individual rights to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" under a federation of constitutionally limited governments. But according to the United Nations, if the United States fails to provide government-run healthcare we are "discriminating" and violating "human rights" as defined by an international organization unelected by the American People. If we are to retain our national sovereignty in this age of global governance, we must sever all ties with the United Nations. If you agree it's time to remove the United States from the United Nations -- and the United Nations from the United States (its New York headquarters) -- we're urging you right now to sign the petition to Congress and tell legislators to pass the American Sovereignty Restoration Act and place it on the President's desk in 2017. Defend American Sovereignty! Sign and send the no-cost petition to your U.S. Representative and Senators now! The good news is, President Trump has already slashed U.S. funding for some United Nations programs. But as we've seen, we can't stop there. With the latest memo in mind, its clear that there are decades worth of "agreements" the United States has made with the supranational overseers at the United Nations... and we need to opt-out while there is still time. The United Nations is positioning to be the Biggest of Big Governments -- and the furthest from the People. That's why it's so important that we demand members of Congress to end our membership in the United Nations by passing the American Sovereignty Restoration Act without delay. Specifically, this important legislation... REPEALS the United Nations Participation Act of 1945. REPEALS the United Nations Headquarter Agreement Act. TERMINATES financial contributions to the United Nations from the United States.  WITHDRAWS United Nations presence in United States government facilities and repeal diplomatic immunity. REPEALS United States membership and participation in the United Nations educational, scientific, and cultural organizations. REPEALS the United Nation Environment Program Participation Act of 1973. REPEALS United States participation in the World Health Organization.  REPEALS involvement in United Nations conventions and agreements. President Donald Trump has made it very clear that he is determined to serve "America First." That's why it's crucial that citizens demand members of the House and Senate to pass the American Sovereignty Restoration Act and place it on the President's desk. Defend American Sovereignty! Add your name to our urgent petition right away! Please help us spread this message far and wide -- Liberty First, Constitutional Rights PAC P.S. Here is the United Nations document that we told you we would share. Please spread the word about this so that other outraged patriots will take action in defense of our right to govern ourselves.

Why Good Economics Matters Now More Than Ever

Blogger's Note: As someone who's been following economics as a "side interest" over the years, I've learned enough to know that the following article from Sound Money Defense League contains very sound advice which seems to be falling out of acceptance more recently. Thus, the reason I share it here:

======================= 

by Jp Cortez

In a newsletter published in 1970, economist Murray Rothbard wrote, "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

This is an oft-quoted platitude within circles of libertarian philosophy and Austrian economics.

Today, we are seeing the embodiment of Rothbard's fears. The woeful state of economic understanding has reached a critical mass. Economics has taken a back seat to issues deemed more important. What's worse is that when economics is discussed, millennials tend to lean socialist.

I have a vested interest in seeing economics and sound money flourish as I work in the field. Yes, I believe that tying a nation's currency to gold keeps government spending in check. This is hardly professional bias though, as we all have a vested interest in seeing economics and sound money championed, many just don't recognize it.

This piece is aimed at anyone with a vested interest in maintaining a standard of living higher than that of the depression-era breadline vagabond. Economics transcends race, gender, and political identification.

Let's begin by examining the first of two reasons that good economics is paramount.

Good Economics Is Important Because We Are Seeing a Rise in Bad Economics

Despite the corruption and backhanded actions of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign to win the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders experienced a meteoric rise reminiscent to that of Ron Paul's, whose 2008 presidential campaign trained his supporters' focus on economics.

Paul championed policies in the spirit of economists that I personally revere: Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Nobel Prize Laureate Friedrich Hayek, among others. Bernie Sanders's 2016 campaign had an equal but opposite effect. From teenagers to senior citizens, many loved Sanders's critique of the broken system that favors the wealthy and stifles the poor.

His "solutions" are abysmal, yet despite the countless examples of current (and more importantly, collapsed) socialist-Marxist/Leninist calamities, a self-described socialist found a foothold in the United States. The revolution inspired by Sanders is anti-intellectual. The "economics" that stemmed out of the Sanders campaign was not economics at all. His school of economics was built on people shouting about their feelings and promoting egalitarianism for the sake of egalitarianism. Good economics is grounded in axiomatic truths and empirical facts about the world around us. Sound money keeps governments and central banks (called the Federal Reserve in the US) from endless money printing and devastating inflation. Yes, that means the government won't be able to provide every service that one desires. That is a good thing. Government is the bastion of inefficiency and the epitome of waste. Strictly from an economics standpoint, the market is far better suited at providing products and services. The espousal of socialist policies in economics is dangerous and irresponsible. Fortunately, it doesn't take much intellectual firepower to write off socialism as wildly inefficient. But it does take some. Socialism falls apart quickly when one understands the economic calculation problem, which explains the importance of prices based in subjective value in a free market system and explains how centrally planned economies, devoid of market prices, are doomed to suffer from inefficiencies in the form of widespread shortages and surpluses. Without these rudimentary economic blocks, "free college, health care for everyone, and massive taxation on the 1 percent to pay for these policies" sounds desirable. We must learn, though. We must strive for intellectual growth. We must take the lessons we've learned from history and apply them to the word we live in today: socialism does not work. Socialism kills. (Even Scandinavian socialism isn't as great as socialists say it is). Socialism has been proven to be a terrible economic policy repeatedly. At some point, the value of human lives outweighs the desire for a politician to conduct a social experiment on how quickly he or she can rid their country of any and all valuable resources. That point is now. We must understand that socialism is an exercise in futility and inefficiency. Understanding good economics kills off the allure of central planning that continues to be peddled by politicians on the left. In fairness, understanding good economics helps wade past the bad economics posited by the right as well. For a multitude of reasons, it's a good idea to take a politicians' statements with grains of salt. As far as economics goes, economist Thomas Sowell said it better than I ever could. The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. Sound economics based in sound money policies make it possible to eat reasonably priced meals because inflation tends to be lower in countries that practice these policies. Sound money policies make enacting socialist policies difficult. Understanding fundamental economics is the lynchpin to cultivating an environment conducive to having meaningful debate on other social issues. Which brings us to the second reason why economics is crucial.

Economics Is the Most Important Social Issue of Our Time

We should start by understanding that economics is a social issue. In fact, economics is the social issue. No issue influences individuals (read: all the individuals) within a society more than its economic practices. Living in the United States in 2017 means exposure to all sorts of social issues including – but not limited to – same sex marriage, police brutality, safe spaces, drug legalization, and firearms ownership. To be sure, these issues are important and should be examined with sober eyes. But the issue of economics supersedes this list and every other list. I believe consenting individuals should be allowed to do whatever their hearts desire so long as they aren't violating the rights of another. I stand in solidarity with those who favor legalized same-sex marriages. I stand with those who want to see marijuana legalized nationwide and those who want to own automatic weapons. But herein lies the danger of ignoring economics at the expense of other issues: Being "allowed" to smoke marijuana legally seems insignificant when a loaf of bread costs a month's salary and your loved ones are dying of starvation, doesn't it? I concede the subjective nature of this evaluation, but if I had to choose between the legality of same sex marriages and economic stability, I would choose economic stability without pause. Not because I don't value personal freedom to do as one wishes, but because I understand that with economic stability comes the ability to fight another day for other issues. Brazil, according to Bloomberg, was the second-worst economic performer of 2016. The other side of the coin is more uplifting: Brazil recognizes same-sex unions; allows same-sex marriages; allows adoptions by same-sex couples; allows individuals who identify as LGBT to serve in the military; and so on. Brazil's removal of the proverbial shackles on homosexuals to live as they see fit is a big win for personal liberty, undoubtedly. But one can't help but wonder if the married same-sex couple in Brazil suffering from the terrible economic policies enacted by their country thinks, "13.2 percent of our entire country's population is unemployed. That's close to what the US faced between 1930-1931 as the Great Depression destroyed their economy. We can't afford to feed ourselves or our family and we're subjected to danger and crime as others are desperate to obtain food and money. But hey, at least the government recognizes our marriage!"

Greece is another example of the result of poor economic policies. Riots and crippling tax hikes to pay for irresponsible economic policies are commonplace in Greece, but hey, at least small amounts of cannabis have been decriminalized, right?

I don't mean to belittle the importance of issues such as these. But as millennials, as members of the citizenry, and as people with a stake in the economic health of the nation we inhabit, our efforts are often misplaced. Sound economic policies should be pursued with at least the same fervor as the myriad issues that don't potentially end in economic collapse, death, crime, and general hysteria. America finds itself on the cusp of revolution, but not necessarily the kind you might imagine. The revolution we are headed towards is an intellectual one. Good economics lies at the heart of this revolution. Without good economics, we are powerless against the abuses of the Federal Reserve, the central bank that intentionally devalues the money in your bank account while it finances foreign wars and domestic programs that the government wouldn't have the means to pay for otherwise. Without good economics, we are defenseless against the bad economic policies that lead to extreme levels of pillaging that socialists lovingly refer to as taxation. Without good economics, we subject ourselves to tangible, real-life danger and lose the opportunity to bring about the changes we wish to see.