Sounds dramatic and scary, I know, but Debbie and I witness this riding our Harleys around the country, especially in liberal New York and New England. We are aware of two culprits: one, the Internet; and two, political fair trade delusions. The bought-and-paid-for politicians in Washington apparently believe that passing fair trade laws leads to fair trade. And Washington-style fair trade implies a better economic environment for Americans. Neither is true, and it’s hard to believe that politicians don’t know this. Trade can be fair when all players are operating on a level playing field and are playing by the same rules. But a quick spin of the globe will find that neither required condition exists.

The American dollar is the world’s reserve currency. As such, countries have the option to devalue their currency against the dollar, which immediately makes a devaluing country’s exports cheaper for Americans to buy and retards import growth in the devaluing country. In a similar vein, a country, like China, can sit on its currency and refuse to let it seek normalized purchasing power parity against the dollar. Then there is the ongoing issue of massive wage differentials and nationally subsidized industries. China is the big kahuna in both instances.

So no, fair trade laws do not mean fair trade, not by a long shot. America has lost millions of good paying jobs over the presidential tenures of George Bush and Barack Obama. As Debbie and I ride our Harleys through one small town after another, we are shocked by the shuttered factories, empty storefronts, and for sale signs that from season to season never seem to go down. It is truly depressing. As a country, we have the Washington politicians and the socialist-oriented state governors (especially in New York and New England) to blame. And until such time as Americans decide to return to the federal republic small government model clearly outlined in the Constitution, America’s small towns will continue to shrivel and die. Here Pat Buchanan elaborates in detail.

Related video:

Julia Child would have told you absolutely eat butter. I agree with Julia and here give you the inside track on butter from my highly favored Food Babe. And Debbie and I buy the same organic butter the Food Babe features in her cogent analysis. Enjoy.

Growing up, butter was an absolute staple in my household. We thankfully never got into the margarine craze because my mother believed that butter was good for the brain. Turns out, she was right about that and scientists have now concluded that butter is actually good for you in other areas too. It’s high in a compound call CLA that protects you from tumor growth and cancer, is not inflammatory like man-made oils from corn, canola or soy, and provides a nice dose of Omega 3 fatty acids, if you get it from the right source. But finding the right source can be tricky given all the buzz words and fancy marketing these days. Choosing the wrong type of butter can secretly ruin your health without you even knowing it! Here’s a look at what’s really going on and how to choose the healthiest butter for you and your family.

Related video:

In 2012 variable annuity cases were the only class of security where arbitration cases increased. Recently, Diane Nygaard, a Kansas City, MO based lawyer said she has been “besieged” by investors claims, as reported in The WSJ. “[Brokers] will stand up in front of a room and sell what they tell people are tax free, high income, you-can’t-lose-your-money investments…That’s the shtick.”

Investors in variable annuities are at the mercy of the issuing insurance company. Take a look at the chart below. It’s an ETF of insurance companies. It gives you a snapshot of how they performed when times were tough. Variable annuities are only as good as the issuing insurance company’s ability to pay. Variable annuity investors were sweating it big time as their insurers’ stock prices cratered. Next time, the government may not be there with a bailout.

The post “Besieged” by Variable Annuity Cases appeared first on RichardCYoung.com.

Where to start? Ask the question: Did American intervention in Korea, South Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya make America safer? My answer to all five is absolutely not. Tally up the deaths, life-altering injuries, and mental anguish from these military miss-adventures and the correct answer comes into clearer focus. Here Pat Buchanan offers some compelling wisdom.

Can we not see that Bashar Assad’s worst enemies are ours as well?

Syria’s civil war, which has cost 100,000 dead, with millions uprooted and a million in exile, has spilled over into Lebanon, where Hezbollah backs Assad and the Sunnis back the rebels.

The neoconservatives say much of this might have been averted, had we left a stronger contingent of U.S. troops in Iraq and supported the Syrian uprising before the jihadists took control.

They were for attacking Assad last summer, are for more severe sanctions on Iran now, and are for war if Iran does not give up all enrichment of uranium.

But the neocons have broken their pick with the people. For they have been wrong about just about everything.

Related video:

You are no doubt aware that O’Care does not work and that you have been lied to and head faked by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al. Here, courtesy Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer, are some frightful details that will make you certain that O’Care is heading for the bone yard and fast.

From Rove:

Crowding-out seems to have started earlier than anticipated. This is probably because the study (a) did not consider ObamaCare’s impact in causing the cancellation of many policies in the individual and small-group markets, or (b) its incentives for companies to drop employer-provided coverage, especially businesses with fewer than 50 workers. Whatever the explanation, most people getting private insurance under ObamaCare already had it, probably with lower premiums and deductibles.

There are also questions about Mr. Obama’s Twitter claim on Jan. 10 that “6 million Americans have already signed up for coverage thanks to health reform.” That figure was calculated by adding the 2.1 million who selected a plan through the federal or state insurance exchanges in October and November with the 3.9 million who signed up for Medicaid during the same period.

But according to a Dec. 20 report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 911,277 of the 1,650,231 people found eligible for Medicaid in November live in states that did not expand Medicaid as allowed under ObamaCare. The total in states that participated in ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion was 738,954.

Why does this matter? Because fully 55% of the people who signed up for Medicaid live in states where they were eligible before the Affordable Care Act. It’s also likely that many in the states that expanded Medicaid would also have qualified under the previous, lower threshold in place before ObamaCare.

From Krauthammer:

Accenture, the new company in charge of finishing the federal health-care exchange’s website, has said that if the back end of HealthCare.gov isn’t fixed by mid March, the entire health-care law will be jeopardized.

The back end of the website “is the essence of the system,” Charles Krauthammer said on Special Report tonight. “The HealthCare.gov, the signup, communicates with the insurers, and right now what that document was saying in alarming tones is because the back-end wasn’t constructed, there’s no way to communicate either accurate or any information about who the person is and if that person is insured.”

Because that information can’t be communicated, there is no way to determine what subsidy should be paid for any one individual. Wrongly guessing the subsidy could potentially leave insurers in the lurch or stick the government with a hefty bill, Krauthammer said.

“The deadline is mid March,” Krauthammer added. “If they don’t have this in place in mid March then all hell’s going to break loose on this.”

Related video:

The post The Loud Flushing Noises of Obamacare appeared first on RichardCYoung.com.

The next time you travel to Paris make sure your credit card has an embedded SmartChip. I called American Express yesterday to have our Platinum cards re-issued with them. Apparently it’s not standard procedure to re-issue so make the call. With a SmartChip embedded the card works seamlessly for “chip and pin” style transactions favored in Europe. Also, there are no foreign exchange charges when using the Platinum card—make sure you confirm this with your credit card company. The 40 million debit and credit card breach at Target stores reveals that the U.S. is prime hunting ground for credit card fraud. It’s time we became more like Europe and move to SmartChips. Magnetic Strip technology is from the dark ages.

Attention globetrotters and gadabouts! Vagabonds and voyagers! Wanderers and wayfarers! Don’t let your incompatible, incompetent, and all around inferior American magstripe credit card hinder your international travels. For purchases outside the States, you’ll often need an EMV chip-with-signature credit card to make purchases and pay for services. EMV (Europay, MasterCard and Visa) cards are nearly identical to the typical American credit card, but they contain a secure microchip for transmitting data. EMV cards offer a higher level of security and have become the standard in many parts of Western Europe – to the point where some merchants don’t accept our antiquated magnetic stripe technology. Here are the current American chip-with-signature EMV cards along with a few tips for making the right selection. Be sure to check out our list of no foreign transaction fee credit cards to save big on international travel.

Related video:

Are you aware that under ObamaCare more than $1 trillion of taxpayer funds go to insurance companies? For what?

Why subsidies for insurance companies to help people sign up to buy their products—products that by law citizens and companies are required to purchase. Here Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner explains the ugly meltdown of O’Care.

To avoid the death spiral, the Obama team estimated that it needs roughly 38 percent of people buying coverage via the exchanges to be under age 35. But data the administration released this month suggest that it’s turning out to be just 24 percent so far.

Data from individual states appears equally troubling. In New York, only 27 percent of exchange enrollees are 35 or younger, while 53 percent are over age 45. In New Jersey, 35-and-unders made up only 23 percent of enrollees; in Connecticut, less than 20 percent.

Oh, and a Reuters survey finds that new enrollees are also less healthy than ObamaCare’s designers hoped, too. Humana, one of the nation’s largest insurers, reports that so far enrollment in its exchange-based plans has been far “more adverse than previously expected.”

Worried about the insurance companies taking a bath on this? Don’t: ObamaCare’s designers set up a $25 billion reinsurance fund to protect insurers from losses due to adverse selection, funded by a $63-a-year tax . . . er, fee on all health policies.

So the “death spiral” may well leave ObamaCare exchanges covering far fewer Americans than planned, but the insurance industry will be OK because we’ll essentially be bailing it out.

This on top of the fact that ObamaCare already directs more than $1 trillion of taxpayer funds to insurance companies in the form of subsidies to help people buy their products — products that the law mandates that people and companies purchase. You can’t say that ObamaCare has no winners.

But those winners won’t include most of the rest of us, who’ll end up paying higher taxes and higher premiums, while getting less health care.

Listen as closely as you like on Tuesday, but I suspect the president won’t be saying much about this. And, really, can you blame him?

Related video:

The post “You Can’t Say that ObamaCare Has no Winners.” appeared first on RichardCYoung.com.

In his first book of all new, previously unpublished material since 2007, best-selling humorist P. J. O’Rourke turns his lens on his fellow post-war babies. In The Baby Boom: How It Got That Way … And It Wasn’t My Fault … And I’ll Never Do It Again, O’Rourke draws on his own experiences and leads readers on a candid, laugh-out-loud journey through the circumstances and events that shaped a generation. “We’re often silly, and we’re spoiled by any measure of history,” writes O’Rourke. “At the same time we made the world a better place — just not necessarily in the ways we set out to.”

O’Rourke has reported on the inner workings of the U.S. government, explained the global economy, and written on the American automobile industry. At this Cato Book Forum, he will tackle the big, broad problems stemming from the generation that, for better or worse, changed everything.

The post The Baby Boom appeared first on RichardCYoung.com.