Global Economic Warfare (by Secret Weapon Author Kevin D. Freeman) Risks & Responses Tue, 01 Oct 2019 02:28:29 -0600 en-US hourly 1 31378361 An Interesting Theory: Could China Be Involved in the Impeachment Push? Tue, 01 Oct 2019 02:28:29 +0000












Infrastructure Now Thu, 19 Sep 2019 18:50:02 +0000

There are two “big picture” trends underway in America. Each presents a challenge. Combined, however, they may offer a solution.

Interest Rates

The first trend is low interest rates. In many cases, around the world, the interest rate has turned negative. That means that there are lenders who pay borrowers to borrow from them. It sounds crazy. But some $17 trillion has been loaned at negative interest rates. Most of this money has been borrowed by governments. In theory, people are paying for the safety of a government bond. In reality, there is so much money in the world and such lenient Central Bank policies that negative rates are a reality. This does not seem all that temporary. At least this trend will stay in place until something dramatic changes. When it does, however, things may get ugly.

Bank of America published a chart (shared by Business Insider) that shows long-term interest rates at their lowest level in 5,000 years. That is about the entirety of recorded human history. And, that chart is now two years old and rates have fallen since then. The problem here is that all the liquidity has been looking for a safe haven.

We’ve seen short-term rates come up a bit since late 2017 but long rates kept falling. When long rates are this low, it only makes sense to borrow less short term and borrow more for the long term. The reason is that if short term rates rise, you have to refinance at much higher rates. But if you have most of your debt long term, you worry a lot less about a rate rise because you have “locked in” the low rates.


The second issue has to do with our ailing infrastructure. The reality is that most of the nation’s infrastructure (such as roads, bridges, water supply, electric grid, ports and airports) is old and in worsening shape. This takes a serious economic toll. For example, an antiquated flight-control system can result in plane delays, cancelled flights, and other travel interruptions. When you add up all the lost productivity from travel problems, the lost productivity and cost to society is huge. No add in the costs of power outages and other infrastructure failures.

According to the Infrastructure Report Card (on which we are currently earning a D-) from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the cost to society as a whole is huge. Maybe $4 trillion and 2.5 million jobs over the next decade. But that cost hits families individually:

“The cost of deteriorating infrastructure takes a toll on families’ disposable household income and impacts the quality and quantity of jobs in the U.S. economy…. each household will lose $3,400 each year in disposable income (till 2026) due to infrastructure deficiencies.”
Over the longer term, the situation gets even worse. By the year 2040, each family is projected to lose $110,000. That’s money that could be used to educate the next generation, make investments, pay down debt, or provide for a more comfortable life.
Even more important than the annual cost, however, is the need to shore up our national security. Our electric grid is patchwork at best. Remaking it with modern features could mitigate the risk of an EMP or other long-term outages.

The Big Idea Worth Considering

So, what if we borrowed a lot of very long-term money at really low rates and dedicated it solely for infrastructure? Many people believe we could issue 50-year or even 100-year bonds. With near zero rates locked in; the annual debt service would be very small. And the payback would exceed the cost! The gains from additional growth plus simply reducing the burden should more than compensate with additional tax revenue. By the time we would pay off the debt, the burden would be minimal.
The key is to make certain that the money is solely used for infrastructure. And the investments need to be wise and economic. We shouldn’t trust government bureaucrats. This should be a national priority, drawing on the best and brightest to make it work. And, the pitfall is that the government would borrow for pet projects or boondoggles that fail to provide a real return. We already have a massive debt from foolish efforts, government waste, the failed war on poverty, wealth transfers, and entitlements. We need less of that and more of true investment that promotes our economic growth.
If done properly, there can be extremely positive second order effects. A solid public infrastructure plan would lead to enormous private sector opportunities as well. This would create a virtuous circle and have the opposite effect of failed wealth transfer strategies that tend to trap people into dependency. There will be plenty of good, high-paying jobs created and great places to invest capital.
Overall, this is a plan with the potential to earn bi-partisan support. The alternative, of a failing and aging infrastructure that is vulnerable to foreign attack, is not good. But a well-designed, national infrastructure investment plan funded by 50- or 100-year bonds at absurdly low interest rates does appear to make sense. Hats off to my friend Joel Lewis who suggested it.
Of course, the real risk is that we borrow lots more money and foolishly spend it as we have been doing. At some point, the sheer magnitude of the debt will overwhelm any hope for growing our way out of it. This is offered as a potentially better approach to spending as well as funding projects in a unique window of extraordinarily low interest rates. We must make wiser choices now if we plan to compete in the global economic war.


If Your Denials Are Genuine, Why China Would You Risk a Trade and Currency War? Thu, 08 Aug 2019 05:18:24 +0000

The Chinese government is working overtime to make a case that they are doing nothing wrong and that this is all Donald Trump’s fault. They have been out in force to say that they don’t hack or steal intellectual property. They “USED TO” take human organs from living victims and sell them, but they want to assure us that this no longer happens. In short, they are doing everything they can to say that they are now the good guys.

As Gordon Chang shared in the Economic War Room, however, they are not the good guys. They are our greatest external threat and if you listen more closely, they have admitted this.

Funny, but there are some who will take their word that they are the “good guys” over the truly woke concerns of trading partners, former corporate partners, and human rights advocates. I suspect that some do so because they have been compromised, bribed, or threatened.

Today, a former Department of Homeland Security cyber official made the rounds explaining that Huawei is not a threat or even a risk, at least he claims, “not any greater than any other foreign telecom company.” Could he be compromised by his highly-compensated position as Huawei’s security chief? Probably no more so than Joe Biden is compromised by the $1.5 billion contract the Chinese provided to his son Hunter Biden.

Remember that Huawei claims to be employee owned, but press reports show employees may own 1% and the Chinese government controls 99%.

Here is my question. Why is China so desperate to force Huawei on the world that they are willing to risk a trade war, currency war, and economic isolation? If one of our telecoms or equipment suppliers were shut out over credible claims of spying by Australia, Russia, or Germany, would our government go to the mat on their behalf and risk disrupting the global economy? I don’t think they would. Needn’t worry. According to our top General, companies like Google don’t want to work for our government. But sadly, they seem more than willing to work for China.

The Chinese can claim that they aren’t a security risk. The problem for China, however, is that the evidence of their economic warfare is overwhelming and very well documented. If there is any risk from every foreign telecom company, as this Huawei executive seems to imply, then you absolutely should not want a Chinese-controlled company in your network. With the coming of 5G, the threat becomes existential.

The very fact that China is so insistent that we adopt Huawei equipment is strong evidence that there is something truly amiss here. This is not a purely economic effort. If it were, they would not offer predatory pricing around the world with such eager abandon. Their entire Belt and Road program seems to be built on debt traps and economic cooption.

Remember, the African Union chose Chinese contractors to build their new headquarters based on good prices and financing. Then, they reported that the communications were entirely compromised by the Chinese. China is a nation intent on spying on its own people with an extensive domestic surveillance network and punishment for any violations. Are we to believe they aren’t intent on monitoring communications wherever and whenever they are able? We have other examples where the Chinese belt and road is de facto colonization with the ports bankrupted and ending up under Chinese ownership. The dangerous Chinese objective seems to be to subjugate the rest of the world by displacing American leadership.

So, here’s an offer. China, why don’t you agree to stop stealing IP, and then really stop. Give us a reasonable way to verify that you kept your word (cause last time you promised, a large percentage of American companies clearly said you broke that promise). Then, immediately end the forced-technology transfers. We will know. Open your markets and stop all unfair trade practices. Actually end the human rights’ violations, including fully rescinding the tragic one- or two-child policy and ending organ harvesting from dissidents in a verifiable way. Pull back your troops from the Hong Kong border and fully abide by your “one country, two systems” promise. Instead of pushing Huawei and ZTE, why not make purely financial investments and allow other nations to select any telecom equipment supplier they would like?

All we are really asking is that you keep your promises. And if you were to genuinely do that in a verifiable way, you could be warmly welcomed back into the community of nations and trading partners. The fact that you are unwilling to do these things creates great concern that your motives are much, much worse than you claim. Your history, the evidence and the best judgment of multiple intelligence agencies around the world all point to the truth. So does the fact that a huge percentage of Hong Kong citizens are putting themselves in harm’s way to protest.

President Trump is NOT the problem. In fact, he’s boldly and properly standing for the security and economy of the free world. No matter what you might think of him otherwise, he is providing genuine leadership in this critical issue of our day.


The Greatest External Threat is China Sat, 20 Jul 2019 23:35:48 +0000

The recent Democrat debate displayed the bipolar nature of politics (like where all Democrats were against illegal immigration until they were for it). In the most recent case, the Democratic Party candidates for the White House say ignore China and focus on Russia. Why do they always seem focused on the wrong threat?

From The Epoch Times (Steven Rogers, updated July 17, 2019):

Remarkably, when the moderators of the second night of the first Democratic primary debate asked the participants to identify what they consider to be America’s greatest foreign threat today, several of the candidates insisted that Russia’s efforts to influence U.S. elections represent a greater danger to our country than China’s rapidly expanding power, wealth, and influence, which Beijing expects will one day allow it to eclipse the United States at the top of the international order.

“[T]he biggest threat to our national security right now is Russia, not China,” said Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), insisting that Moscow poses a bigger foreign policy challenge “because of what they’ve done with our election.”

“Russia is our greatest geopolitical threat, because they have been hacking our democracy successfully and they’ve been laughing … about it for the last couple of years,” agreed entrepreneur Andrew Yang, arguing that “we should focus on that before we start worrying about other threats.”

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) also weighed in on the issue, stating that his first foreign policy objective will consist of “breaking up with Russia and making up with NATO.”

Now, we are not saying that the Russian threat should be ignored. In fact, we’ve written extensively on why Russia remains a serious threat, engaging in ongoing economic and cultural warfare, building their military, and working with China to “de-Americanize the world.” But our strategy should be to focus first on China, exactly the opposite of what the Democrats are saying. In fact, there may be good reason to reach out to Russia as part of our China strategy. Of course, the Democrats continuing effort to undermine President Trump with false claims of Russian collusion are actually hindering such a process.

Again from Steven Rogers in The Epoch Times:

Former Vice President Joe Biden didn’t address China during the debate, but he has previously scoffed at the notion that China poses a threat to U.S. interests, even claiming that “they’re not competition for us.” It may come as a surprise to the Democrats, most of whom spent the Cold War as dupes and apologists for the Soviet Union, but Russian Facebook ads aren’t exactly the greatest contemporary threat to America. China, with its hostile efforts to weaponize international trade and undisguised desire to supplant the United States as the preeminent power in Asia, is a far more capable and ambitious adversary.

In recent years, China has dramatically escalated its spying activities in the United States, recruiting U.S. intelligence analysts to help it steal not just government secrets, but also intellectual property and academic research. Russia, conversely, can’t even manage to purloin emails from a laughably naive Democrat political operative without being caught red-handed.

The main reason for this imbalance is that China’s economy dwarfs Russia’s. In 2018, China’s GDP totaled an impressive $13.6 trillion, while Russia’s economic output was less than $1.7 trillion—slightly weaker than the GDP of Texas. The economies of both countries have also been growing at drastically different rates—in 2018, China’s GDP grew 6.6 percent, while Russia’s economy grew at just 2.3 percent.

China’s growing wealth has enabled it to snap up billions of dollars worth of U.S. farmland, compel U.S. companies to hand over sensitive technology as a condition of doing business in China, and enlist its multinational corporations—such as telecom giant Huawei—to serve as quasi-official agents of the state. While China aims to eventually surpass the size of the U.S. economy, Russia’s economy keeps falling further and further behind, with South Korea, Australia, and even lowly Spain now nipping at its heels.

One thing that has been little noticed in the news but is really quite monumental is that the Mueller investigation was slammed recently by a Federal Judge regarding the handling of evidence and commentary about Russian hacking and election efforts. Some observers believe that the charges were highly politicized but with limited merit. Only time will tell as to whether the Mueller indictments carried any real weight.

Again, we are not soft on Russia. We have pointed out the dangers of Russian cyber activity for quite some time. But we have to be realistic. Trump haters have been willing to accept very limited and often flawed evidence and analysis from questionable sources if that enables them to hold hope of a case against the President.

Perhaps the current crop of White House contenders should be reminded about what the prior Administration said about Russia. Remember? President Obama chastised Mit Romney for saying essentially what the Democratic Party is saying today:

The bottom line is that our foreign policy should not be shaped by political expediency. It should be shaped by protecting American interests. China is clearly the greater existential threat. They are challenging us via economic warfare, cultural warfare, military expansion, spying, intellectual property theft, cyber warfare, space warfare, electronic warfare, trade warfare, and efforts to undermine us with our allies. They have even weaponized our capital markets against us. That is why I testified in Congress. That is why the modern Committee on the Present Danger is focused on China. That is why the President is focused on China. We cannot and should not allow domestic politics to prevent us from addressing this serious threat.

One piece of very recent possible good news can be seen in the media reports that our friend Fred Fleitz is under consideration to become the next Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Fred understands the China threat in detail. He has served in the CIA, in Congressional committees, the State Department, and recently as Chief of Staff for the National Security Council. And, he’s a friend of The Economic War Room as shown in this clip from a recent show

We heartily endorse Fred Fleitz for DNI.


When You Abandon Objective Truth Mon, 08 Jul 2019 02:29:12 +0000

Maybe the greatest threat to our economy and way of life is the fact that so many people have agreed to abandon objective truth and embrace feelings and what they want to be real. The consequences of such are severe even if not initially realized. Like the fable of the Emperor’s New Clothes, a society can delude itself for a while. But then all of a sudden, objective truth bursts through and everyone realize just how naked the Emperor really was. Only in reality, reality is often vengeful.

One of the great ironies of political correctness is that extreme tolerance lacking objectivity leads to intolerance. Extreme anti-hate leads to hate.

Case in point, a year ago incident in Palm Beach, Florida showed that a High School Principal was so caught up in PC culture that he basically denied the Holocaust. He was attempting to be tolerant. But in so doing, he was denying objective truth and whitewashing the worst kind of intolerance.

According to The Palm Beach Post (July 5, 2019):





Obviously, the attempt to be hyper sensitive produced the worst form of insensitivity. Holocaust denial is actually a crime in many places because it is so essential we never forget. General Eisenhower ordered that many photographs and much film be taken of the concentration camps, and the ovens, and the torture, and the horror specifically because he did not want the truth denied or forgotten. He personally appeared in many photos just to prove their validity.

General Eisenhower was right. It is essential that we remember. Sadly, recently Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez flippantly called our border detention facilities “concentration camps.” That lacked objectivity and it has consequences. No wonder Holocaust survivors were deeply offended. Why did she do it? Clearly, she was not being objective. Rather, she was using false imagery to score political points.


Clifford Humphrey penned an important essay in The Epoch Times that explains just how dangerous it can be to ignore objective truth in favor of feelings. Every thinking person should read this essay in its entirety.

Here are some excerpts:

What is two plus two? Well, as it turns out, it depends.

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” This statement was the “thoughtcrime” of Winston Smith, the protagonist in George Orwell’s novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” Though not yet a thoughtcrime in the real world, this statement is increasingly suspect.

Politics is the conversation a whole people has about what is good and bad, and just and unjust regarding their common life and common nature as human beings . . .

Language itself, though, is only possible if reason is possible. The law of noncontradiction holds that two plus two can’t be four and not-four at the same time. The whole potential for politics depends on that law, because by it people can use their reason to arrive at and assent to a conclusion, and by it, people can deliberate together and consent to government.

If one denies the law of noncontradiction, however, all that remains is the tyrannical rule of force, one party foisting its will on the rest. A tyrant, after all, doesn’t bother asking for the opinion of his slaves.

Increasingly, progressives are using perplexing language that subtly denies the law of noncontradiction and hence reason, language, and politics. These progressives imagine that they are merely resorting to unconventional terms in order to avoid acquiescing to modes of thinking they believe support unjust power structures.

What they are really doing, however, is collapsing the only possible means of condemning injustice that isn’t itself a form of injustice. Tyranny can’t be made legitimate by making the tyrant and slave switch positions . . .

In Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” there is a disturbing resemblance between this rhetoric and that of the novel’s antagonist, O’Brien. “Two and two are four,” insisted Winston. “Sometimes, Winston,” corrected O’Brien. “Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once.”

You can claim that two plus two equals whatever your truth or lived experience says it is, but if that is granted, only tyranny follows.

Doesn’t this provide a basic explanation of what we are seeing with Antifa? Objective truth says that you can’t act as a fascist and truly be anti-fascist. Those who use fascist tactics to fight fascism are, in reality, fascists. But the media and the progressive politicians seem afraid to acknowledge this. Take a look at this montage from the media.

Scared to Tell the Truth, Rewarded for Denying It

There’s good reason for the fear. Some PC concepts are so ingrained that people are unwilling to even broach them. For example, when Martina Navratilova, once considered a feminist and gay-rights icon, spoke out about the unfairness of biological males competing as trans-women in women’s sports, she was attacked. Yet, she made an objective point. The physical biology of men is different from that of women and even surgery and hormonal treatments will not change that basic fact. Despite this, every Democrat candidate for president has gone on record in favor of forcing  women’s sports to accept trans-women athletes. So, if you speak the objective truth as Martina did, you can be condemned.

On the other hand, those who deny the objective and make feelings-based observations are often applauded. Witness the boldness of former Cabinet Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Julian Castro on the campaign trail for President. He proudly stated that biological males who are trans-females have the right to have an abortion. He said it is only “reproductive justice.” Never mind the fact that they can’t get pregnant. He wants them to have access to taxpayer-funded abortions:

“I don’t believe only in reproductive freedom. I believe in reproductive justice,” Castro declared. “Just because a woman, or let’s also not forget someone in the trans community, a trans female, is poor doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise this right to choose.”

You know what makes all of this so sad is that there are real world consequences. Not long ago, a trans-male went to the hospital and the doctors were extremely perplexed. Only when they realized that “he” was actually a biological female and very pregnant were they able to properly diagnose and treat the patient. Unfortunately, the baby was stillborn. The consequences can be severe.

From USA Today (May 16, 2019):


The tragic case, described in Wednesday’s New England Journal of Medicine, points to larger issues about assigning labels or making assumptions in a society increasingly confronting gender variations in sports, entertainment and government. In medicine, there’s a similar danger of missing diseases such as sickle cell and cystic fibrosis that largely affect specific racial groups, the authors write.

“The point is not what’s happened to this particular individual but this is an example of what happens to transgender people interacting with the health care system,” said the lead author, Dr. Daphna Stroumsa of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“He was rightly classified as a man” in the medical records and appears masculine, Stroumsa said. “But that classification threw us off from considering his actual medical needs.”

This is just one example. A myriad of other complications that can arise. We know that different medicines affect biological males and biological females differently. And, it’s not because the chemical compounds in them are “transphobic.” Chemicals don’t care what gender you feel you are.

The bottom line is this. When we deny objective truth in favor of feelings, we enter an Orwellian world that will lead to tyranny and great harm. Can you imagine if we allowed people to believe that 2+2 might equal 5? Would you want to drive over a bridge built following that delusion? Or get on an airplane built by a feelings-based engineer? 

Or, we could lack objectivity in regard to the possible threats of radiation if we do 5G the wrong way. Take a look at this clip from The Economic War Room with Dr. Gil Amelio, former Chairman and CEO at Apple, inventor of the sensors that made digital cameras possible, and lead director for AT&T for nearly two decades.

It’s important to note that this is not the same concern as raised by Russian propaganda to hinder American technological progress. It is objective information about cell towers and the radiation they emit from a PhD in physics who was a true pioneer in the mobile phone industry. We know the Russians used propaganda to attack our domestic energy industry. Now, they are using it to try and stop us from reasonable 5G development. But just because we can objectively say the Russians are wrong about 5G does not mean we can ignore the truth about the  potential dangers of 5G base stations. Truth is truth (even if it seems inconvenient). And our policy must be based on truth to be effective.

Remember the dire warnings of Vice President Al Gore that have hardly come to pass? Just because you sound scientific does not mean that you are actually objective. If we adopted the Green New Deal without an objective, factual basis, we would be committing economic suicide. The Paris climate accords may have “felt” good, but they really were never going to make a difference. One reason is that developing nations were largely exempt. So, had we stayed in the accords, the net result would have been an economic shift favoring developing nations at the expense of developed ones.

I call all this out because objective truth is essential for a successful society. It’s ok to have feelings. But there are certain decisions that cannot be made based upon feelings alone. The world is what it is, not what we wish it to be.

This is a critical issue in regard to Economic Warfare. For example, the Chinese company Huawei as gone out of its way to deny any real involvement of the Chinese government or military. They talk a good story and lobby effectively. It even “feels” like the nice thing to do would be to believe them. If you look for the truth, however, you can find it. For example, every Chinese company by law has to spy for China if asked. Even U.S. based companies that operate in China have been required to conform, so why would we expect Huawei to be exempt? And there is plenty of documentation that demonstrates strong ties between Huawei and the Chinese military and spy agencies. Our challenge is to accept the objective truth.

Our challenge is to push back on the extreme political correctness that is spreading like a cancer through society. We must not deny the Holocaust or water-down its horror from our memory. We should not let feelings override objective truth. If we do, we will be at the mercy of our adversaries. The challenges we face globally don’t care about our “feelings.”


Defending the First Liberty of the First Amendment Thu, 27 Jun 2019 20:22:52 +0000

When we think of the First Amendment, we typically think about Freedom of Speech. But the First Amendment actually begins with Freedom of Religion:


Lots of people focus on what is known as the establishment clause, which prohibits the Federal Government from establishing a national religion. This is important because in a free society, no one should be coerced by the force of government to believe a certain way. Unfortunately, too often the government takes this to the extreme and attempts to drive faith out of any aspect of public life. That is clearly NOT what the Founders intended. And proof of that comes in the very next phrase:  “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This suggest that the government should not be hostile to religious expression. The fact is that the Founders did not want the government to be so large that this would ever be an issue. The Constitution was written to limit the Federal Government. Unfortunately, against their better plans, government compromises about 40% of our economy according to some estimates.

It is certain that the Founders never intended to exclude religion from 40% of our lives. And they certainly did not intend for the government to be hostile to religious expression. Thus, the idea of preventing Christmas parties, menorahs, or crosses was never a part of the original intent. And, it should not be a problem today. Yet, a recent Supreme Court case held the fate of a 100-year old World War One veteran’s monument. There were some arguing that the Bladensburg Peace Cross, erected to honor the memory of fallen soldiers, had to be removed from public view. One judge suggested “cutting the arms of the cross” so, he said, no one would be offended. [Wow! I’d be offended and so would millions of other Christians.]

All of this argument is based on the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Past rulings that prohibit religious symbols have followed a very flawed legal theory known as the Lemon Test. And what the Lemon Test allowed was an economic war on faith. The Lemon Test has been used repeatedly over the past 50 years against religion:

Since 1971 – for almost half a century – courts have used the “Lemon,” or “endorsement” test, to determine whether the government has endorsed or established a religion by allowing public displays that may have some religious imagery. And that test is precisely what’s put many of our nation’s war memorials in the cross-hairs and under impending threat of desecration or destruction.

Why exactly is this test so bad?

For one, it leaves it up to a so-called “reasonable observer” to decide if the state is endorsing a religion. And almost routinely, this “reasonable observer” is offended by anything religious that shows up on public property.

In short, the Lemon test essentially gives the upper hand to feelings, rather than solid legal argument.

That kind of legal doctrine is what prompts people to flood the system with lawsuits simply because a monument or display personally offends someone’s “feelings.” Of course, what’s not taken into consideration is the heartbreak of the people who built the memorials in the first place – like the Gold Star Mothers and The American Legion, who built the Bladensburg Memorial in honor of their fallen sons and brethren.

Beyond that, the Lemon test has also caused so much confusion that government officials – especially local officials – are left unsure about what the law is when it comes to displays with religious imagery. So, by default, the government ends up shutting down displays with religious imagery altogether – the kind of thing that the Founders would be appalled by.

If followed as many believed it should be, over time a growing government would literally push faith out of the public square. That is because government touches everything. There’s a push for the government to provide free college. If that became the case, under Lemon the government might exclude any religious expression in higher education. There’s a push for the government to take over health care. In that case, Lemon might have forced faith from our medical system. There’s a push for the government to provide a Universal Basic Income. Would the government preclude any private religious expression if you received tax dollars? You can see where this would be going.

The truth is:  If we let Lemon stand and adopted Socialism, government would be in 100% of the economy and God would be excluded from our daily lives.

This is exactly opposite of the Founder’s intentions. In fact, the purpose of going to America in the first place was to find and found a place where religious freedom was guaranteed. But in recent years, the State has become hostile to religion. Why? Because a growing government finds it hard to accept a power greater than itself. The State must be “god.” This isn’t anything new. It was true with Communist Russia. And it was true in the time of Daniel, something like 2,600 years ago.

From Daniel 6 (KJV):



Notice how the Government demanded the highest allegiance? The good news, of course, is that Daniel violated the King’s law but was rescued from the lions by God Almighty!



It was true 2,600 years ago and it’s true today. Secular governments become hostile to God. Fortunately, we have a few Daniels willing to stand today.

The second phrase of the First Amendment essentially says that our government should in no wise prevent the free exercise of religion. That is a foundational truth too often ignored by modern politicians. In fact, it is not only ignored, but regularly violated. One of the Daniels willing to stand against the force of government is Coach Joe Kennedy. He was quietly exercising his religion by privately praying after football games. The government slapped him down and fired him. They said he was not allowed to be seen when he prayed. Sure sounds like Daniel. Read about his case to understand how this is economic warfare. He was told that if he exercised his religious beliefs that he would be fired and lose his income.

Fortunately, another group of Daniels can be found at First Liberty Institute (full disclosure, I’ve been an advisory board member there for almost 20 years). First Liberty won a big victory at the Supreme Court last week that pushed Lemon to the side in favor of religious liberty! See what Kelly Shackelford said about the Establishment Clause in Episode 41 of the Economic War Room. Here’s a clip.

What is important to understand is that this is an Economic War being waged against our culture and heritage. There are some who believe it no longer acceptable to express faith in the marketplace. This has certainly been the case for Christian cake bakers such as Aaron and Melissa Klein. The good news is that First Liberty also got a victory for the Kleins at the Supreme Court in a recently announced judgment! They had been fined $135,000; an amount sufficient to put them out of business if upheld. but the Supreme Court rejected the fine. This one battle in an ongoing economic war against people of faith was won!

It’s not just an attack on Christians. There are also many examples where government has been marshalled to prevent the practice of Judaism. There are cases targeting Jews such as when the government was petitioned by animal rights advocates to prevent a tradition Yom Kippur ceremony. Never mind that there was a KFC down the street. These activists wanted to prevent a ceremony central to the faith of Jews for thousands of years. In another sad example, the city of Dallas has tried to shut down an Orthodox synagogue due to inadequate parking despite the fact that Orthodox Jews only walk to Sabbath services. In that case, if the ruling were to stand, the congregation would have been forced to sell their homes and move out of the neighborhood. If that is not economic warfare, it is hard to imagine what is. Fortunately, First Liberty has been there to stand!

There is another great piece of news from First Liberty. They have been instrumental in placing quality, freedom loving judges on the bench. In fact, one of their attorneys was nominated by President Trump and approved by the Senate just last week. This is a part of the reform of the judiciary that is taking us back to the original intent of the Founders.

Overall, First Liberty scored three major wins in June, two at the Supreme Court and one with a new Federal Judge. Here is another clip where Kelly Shackelford explains the great progress overall that is being made.

All of this is the subject of Episode 40 of Economic War Room with Kevin Freeman on BlazeTV. If you are a BlazeTV subscriber, be certain to watch Episode 40 (June Court Opinion: More Religious Freedom Than Ever in USA?). If you are not yet a subscriber, get a FREE TRIAL at You should also download the FREE Economic Battle Plan™ that goes with this episode.

The bottom line is this:  There is an Economic War underway targeting our Judeo-Christian heritage. The secular state has a need to replace God with their own authority. Socialism really only works if the State is considered the highest authority. Our solution is to “weaponize your money” and stand for freedom. We have to fight this battle if we want to pass along freedom to our children and our children’s children. And we must start with the First Amendment.

How (and Why) to Weaponize Your Money Wed, 26 Jun 2019 23:30:27 +0000


Are you tired of voting right but seeing the change you hoped for being stalled or sidelined? Have you been giving to worthwhile projects but feel like you are not making a dent? The reality is that most Americans have weaponized less than 10% of their money toward preserving our culture and defending our nation.

Our foreign adversaries have fully integrated national priorities with their economy. Thus, when China acts, it is in the interest of and for the benefit of the Chinese Communist Party or the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). There is a 2015 Chinese national security law that essentially mandates that. Thus, it is very hard to tell what the motive is behind the actions of any Chinese company.

Here are some excerpts from a article that highlight the concern:

We Can’t Tell if Chinese Firms Work for the Party

Huawei claims to be an independent firm, but China’s own laws mandate a different reality.

… Western governments should not automatically conclude that Chinese companies are acting as agents of the party because such firms are ultimately still in charge of their own business decisions. But the lines have been dangerously blurred. Chinese domestic laws and administrative guidelines, as well as unspoken regulations and internal party committees, make it quite difficult to distinguish between what is private and what is state-owned.

Foreign companies and governments began paying closer attention to China’s domestic regulations on the relationship between the company and the state in 2015, when China’s National Security Law came into effect, and the next year, when a Cybersecurity Law was enacted. The National Security Law requires all parties, including citizens, state authorities, public institutions, social organizations, and enterprises, “to maintain national security.” More specifically, and worryingly for the telecommunications industry, Article 28 of the Cybersecurity Law states that network operators, which include telecommunications companies such as Huawei, have to provide “technical support and assistance” to government offices involved in protecting national security. U.S. government officials, including at the FBI, interpreted this vague language to mean that all Chinese companies, including Huawei, are subject to the direct orders of the Chinese government …


In other words, in China, the State can weaponize any investment or company as they decide for National Security purposes. Of course, this raises a serious problem for American shareholders of Chinese companies. Are we funding our enemies? This is the subject of the next Episode of Economic War Room with Kevin Freeman on BlazeTV. If you are a BlazeTV subscriber, be certain to watch Episode 41 (Underwriting our Enemies). If you are not yet a subscriber, get a FREE TRIAL at You should also download the FREE Economic Battle Plan™ that goes with this episode. Here is a short video clip from the show.


We should all agree that it makes no sense to fund those who seek to destroy us or at least supplant our way of life. And it should be pretty clear when we are dealing with foreign adversaries. In the old days, you would show your patriotic spirit with the purchase of War Bonds. We would never have funded our enemies. Now, however, most Americans view the world as an investment opportunity, national security be damned. That is very short-sighted thinking!

“What we see as a marketplace, our enemies view as a Battlespace.”™

Fortunately, the Trump Administration is the first in my lifetime to recognize the China threat. They recently placed some export controls and other restrictions on some Chinese firms (especially those regarding supercomputers) in order to protect us. This is significant because China has clearly weaponized their IT infrastructure and used the marketplace to infiltrate our nation and our allies. We absolutely must recognize that how we spend money and with whom we do business is a matter of national security.

We must also recognize why the Oath of Office requires that we defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This is because we not only have foreign enemies but also domestic ones. In some obvious cases, these enemies are actually subversives placed here or funded by foreign enemies. This may mean outright espionage, or it could be a more subtle cultural or educational influence. Sometimes, our enemies simply look to provide economic incentives for their views.

What is Particularly Hard to Accept is When Americans Naively Adopt Our Enemy’s Platforms

Many people don’t realize or understand that there were widespread efforts in the 1930s from Hitler’s Nazis to undermine our culture using education and media. Naive Americans willingly accepted Nazi propaganda. More recently, it has been shown that Facebook was used by Russia to undermine our harmony as a nation before the last election. Sadly, these efforts have consequences.

A very sad example came out today where American labor has been weaponized ideologically against the interests of American national security and humanity. There is this massive debate and the Administration is seeking bi-partisan support for funds to better protect our border and better care for those who illegally cross it. But many on the left refuse. Why? I suspect their political agenda is heavily influenced by foreign enemies, whether they know it or not.

It is very disheartening to see a worker walkout at Wayfair because employees don’t like the idea that the company would sell furniture for migrant detention facilities. Presumably, these would be the same people who are upset that migrant children don’t have enough proper beds. Talk about hypocrisy.

Of course, when the Trump Administration first warned of a crisis, Democrats ignored the reality and ridiculed him. They refused any border funding. Now that the crisis is too obvious to ignore, they blame him. Even worse, they protest his efforts to fix the problem and try to stop American companies like Wayfair from being part of a solution. they even falsely showed photos as proof that Trump doesn’t care. The fact is that the photos were from the Obama era, not Trump. And the “cages” were Obama’s idea.

The main point, however, is that Wayfair employees do not want their economic effort benefitting the policies of a duly-elected President, even if that effort also would clearly provide decent bedding to illegal immigrants. Apparently, though, these same employees have no problem with selling Chinese-made goods. That seems pretty much upside down.

The Progressive Left

You are no doubt aware that the Progressive Left is all about weaponizing their money as well as the force of government to stifle free speech and economic activity. They have, for example, called for boycotts of Chick-fil-A and worked to get Chick-fil-A banned even from airports. They worked to fine and bankrupt Sweetcakes by Melissa because the bakers would not sacrifice their personal faith on the LGBTQ altar. According to recently released videos from Project Veritas, we know that Google employees are secretly intent on pushing their political agenda and prevent President Trump’s reelection. And, we have the socially driven coffee companies.

So, here’s the question. Are your coffee and social media habits funding the other side politically? Is your money being weaponized by those who oppose your personal values?

The reality is that most Americans align less than 10% of their discretionary money with their values. This is usually their tithe or personal giving. The other 90% is used solely for economic purposes, whether necessity spending, whims, or investments. This means that we are missing 90% of the impact we could be making. For example, your spending should align with your values. And your investing should also.

The Wayfair employees are clear in using their personal economics to reflect their values. While I disagree with them politically and think they are very misguided, I do respect their willingness to stand for what they believe. There’s a whole industry being built of so-called socially responsible investing (SRI) that supports sustainability and environmental causes. Total assets are reported as high as $12 trillion. But where are the funds to preserve the Constitution and defend Western Civilization? To preserve free speech, freedom of religion, and the 2nd Amendment?

Sadly, most on the conservative side blindly go along with the flow, unaware of how to stand for what they believe. Voting is good but insufficient. Giving is good, but not enough. We must learn the lesson from World War II and Defend Our Country with Our Dollars as well, both in spending and investing.

The hard part is determining how to weaponize your money to align with your values. People need help in this regard. That’s why the Economic War Room is developing a training program for financial advisors (visit to nominate your advisor for training). We believe that with training, your personal advisor will be better able to help you weaponize your money. You can learn how to spend and invest your money to help preserve your values and America’s security for future generations. This is our duty. remember what President Reagan famously said. Freedom is only one generation away from extinction. It’s up to us to preserve it and pass it along.



The Need for Democratic Capitalism and What I Learned from Phil Robertson Tue, 25 Jun 2019 01:48:06 +0000

Last week I had the opportunity to visit with Phil Robertson at his West Monroe home. Phil, as you likely know, is the multimillionaire duck call entrepreneur who gained international fame with the hit TV show, Duck Dynasty. He now is a host on BlazeTV, the same network that houses Economic War Room with Kevin Freeman. If you are a subscriber to BlazeTV, you’ll get to see the full interview. If not, go to where you can get a FREE TRIAL to see all the BlazeTV shows, including mine and Phil’s. Phil and I had a wonderful conversation about our mutual Christian faith, the Bible, and politics. We also spoke about economics and which system works best. Phil is living proof that you can start with nothing and build something great. I’ll share my thoughts on Democratic Capitalism and wrap with Phil’s success secrets–four simple bullet points that really sum everything up rather nicely.

First, there has been a frightening massive media and political promotion of so-called “Democratic Socialism.” This modern movement ignores the reality of history and attempts to promote “fairness” while playing up class warfare. The stated goal is to provide “free college,” “Medicare for all,” and to generally share the wealth. It promotes a “green new deal” that would certainly bankrupt our nation. The promises sound good and fair, but the reality would be disaster. And, it can get ugly where people want to see others hurt just to make things “fair.” This can degenerate quickly as it did in the French Revolution (and the Bolshevik revolution, the Nazi takeover, and countless other socialist efforts).




Dalio goes on to provide a cogent recap of wealth disparity and then proffers a solution that our friend John Mauldin rips apart in his Thoughts From the Frontline. While I agree with John that Dalio’s solution of “Modern Monetary Theory” (which basically involves ignoring restraint on money creation) has some pretty big flaws (especially when other nations reject your currency), we all agree that the current economic disparity is problematic. But we cannot ignore the reality that free-market capitalism has made tremendous strides in reducing global poverty. The American Enterprise Institute published an important chart proving that point:deirdre





What, then, caused this Great Enrichment?


Here is a chart that Bill Gates has referenced and tweeted:







But the solution to any of these problems is not to redistribute wealth. Rather, the solution is to redistribute opportunity. We don’t need Democratic Socialism. We need Democratic Capitalism.


It is no coincidence that the freest economies tend to be the best performing. Freedom begets opportunity and opportunity creates prosperity. This is seen over and over throughout history. The problem is that the wealthy class tend to create a “nanny state” that sounds good but stifles opportunity. Witness Michael Bloomberg and his desire to limit soda sizes for the masses. In addition, the “haves” tend to create regulatory and licensing barriers that block access to those outside their club. This is how crony capitalism works and what I believe is the greatest contributor to the wealth disparity.

Even the so-called “progressive tax system” is rigged to the extent that the wealthy can hire high-end accountants and lawyers to minimize taxation while the rest of America essentially pays retail. Let’s not kid ourselves, though. The wealthy do pay a very large percentage of the overall tax pie. The problem is that too few people pay any real amount other than payroll taxes. The goal should be for average Americans to pay more but only because they are making much, much more.

I find it very offensive when wealthy people get together and demand greater taxation on the wealthy. That’s because they know that even aggressive tax proposals will do little to diminish their position. What will happen instead is that they will feel good about themselves while erecting barriers that keep the rest of us from similar success. Here’s my answer:



A Real Problem and a Real Solution



One of the simplest and best illustrations of our nanny-state approach is the radical war on kid’s lemonade stands. We must not want children to learn the principles of free-market capitalism and entrepreneurship. Hiding behind the excuse of public safety and business licenses, we’ve taken away perhaps the best object lesson of free markets. Let’s be honest. There are a lot of regulations that have been put in place to prevent others from becoming competition. A solid example is hair braiding. No chemicals are used. Any 11-year old can do it. Yet, many states overly regulate something this simple as explained in Reason Magazine:







Case in point, Uber


What I’m really saying is that we have erected a “safe space” and “nanny state” that reduces risk for Americans but as a result also shuts out opportunity and thus rewards. Free college for all won’t solve the problem and would likely bankrupt our nation, especially if we have open borders. But less regulation combined with opportunity for both entrepreneurs and investors would greatly level the playing field. Supporting emerging businesses among the middle and lower classes would be far better than redistributing wealth. The solution to the inequities of capitalism is not socialism but rather more opportunity for capitalism.

Just think about it for a moment. Imagine foreign policy. Is it better for America to give foreign aid to other nations or would it be better to help those nations develop their economies? So why isn’t the same solution better for less affluent communities?


There is also some potential good news on the investor front. The SEC has floated a proposal that would allow regular investors, working alongside a qualified advisor, to invest in deals previously limited to those deemed “accredited.” This would be huge as it would allow average investors to join with others and invest in emerging companies. Reducing the regulatory red tape would open opportunities for both investors and entrepreneurs.





One More Thing



File:John Adams, Gilbert Stuart, c1800 1815.jpg



–John Adams, 2nd President of the United States


I was with Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame recently. He shared with me four principles for success. When applied, they pretty much sum up a plan for a nation’s success as well:

  1. Hard work.
  2. Apply free-market capitalism.
  3. Love God.
  4. Be generous.



C’mon Man; Why is Biden So Wrong About China? Sat, 01 Jun 2019 22:50:08 +0000



“China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man,” the former vice president said.

“I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not competition for us,” he added.






Zheng Qiaozhi — we will call him George — still has nightmares. He was interning at China’s Shenyang Army General Hospital when he was drafted to be part of an organ-harvesting team.

The prisoner was brought in, tied hand and foot, but very much alive. The army doctor in charge sliced him open from chest to belly button and exposed his two kidneys. “Cut the veins and arteries,” he told his shocked intern. George did as he was told. Blood spurted everywhere.

The kidneys were placed in an organ-transplant container.

Then the doctor ordered George to remove the man’s eyeballs. Hearing that, the dying prisoner gave him a look of sheer terror, and George froze. “I can’t do it,” he told the doctor, who then quickly scooped out the man’s eyeballs himself.

George was so unnerved by what he had seen that he soon quit his job at the hospital and returned home. Later, afraid that he might be the next victim of China’s forced organ-transplant business, he fled to Canada and assumed a new identity….


And where do these hundreds of thousands of organs come from? George was told nothing about the background of the young man whose kidneys he fatally removed except that he was “under 18 and in good health.”



One particularly rich source of fresh organs for China’s transplant industry in recent years has been the Falun Gong, which was declared a heretical Buddhist sect in 1999 by then-Party Secretary Jiang Zemin. Hundreds of thousands — perhaps millions — of the group’s followers have been arrested and disappeared into a vast network of secret prisons, many never to reemerge — at least in one piece.

The Muslim minorities of China’s far west are apparently next in line….



It is shameful that so many companies and people who claim to love freedom are excusing China for truly irksome behavior. The so-called “always free traders” have called out President Trump for using economic weapons against an inhumane regime. They say that we should allow free trade no matter what.




Celebrating American Exceptionalism Tue, 28 May 2019 02:02:51 +0000

In honor of the men and women who sacrificed so much to make America the amazing country that it is, we celebrate Memorial Day. Unfortunately, too many people look at this wonderful country and focus on the problems rather than the big picture. Yet, those who would otherwise be considered among the most oppressed, including black Americans, native peoples, and women are all counted among America’s greatest heroes. They fought, and bled, and died because they knew first hand the hope of our nation and also the risks of its failure. They knew that other nations simply cannot compare. That is American Exceptionalism.

This week’s episode of Economic War Room features Australian Nick Adams who knows first hand the miracle of America. Sometimes it takes an outside perspective to truly understand the potential and promise of our nation.

I remember meeting Eldridge Cleaver, one of the original Black Panthers, in the early 1980s. Here is a man who dedicated his early years to destroying what he viewed as a racist nation that was a blight on the world. He saw only problems and no opportunity. He spent time in prison where he was radicalized. He fled to Cuba to celebrate communism. While there, and also traveling to North Korea, North Vietnam, the Soviet Union, China, and Algeria, Cleaver saw first hand the failures of communism. From the Daily Beast:

Cleaver denounced the anti-Semitism of the Left and the Third World, racism in the Arab world, the hypocrisy of those who rob humans of their freedom in the name of a higher humanity, but mostly for their own power. He told interviewers his new views “would wreak havoc among my old ‘new left’ friends and among a formidable array of blacks who are imbued with a knee-jerk, Third World, skin-game ideology.” But he concluded with insights still relevant today, rejecting “The whole idea of settling political problems and arguments by terrorist activities.” In the process, Cleaver was born again religiously, just as the Religious Right was starting to (re)gain traction as an American political movement.

Eldridge Cleaver, who once opposed Christian religion and America, turned 180 degrees on both. He made it clear that while there are problems everywhere, when you step back and look at the big picture, America was a great place, a unique experiment in liberty, and truly exceptional. When I met him, he even endorsed Ronald Reagan for President.

Nick Adams also has a global perspective from which to view America. He was the youngest Deputy Mayor in Sydney’s history. He moved to America because he so firmly believes in the potential we have. But he also warns that all could slip away if we stay on the path of socialism and tyranny from an elevation of the state over the individual. To view the entire episode, log on through You can also download our free Economic Battle Plan ™.

You can view a FREE YouTube clip of my interview with Nick Adams.

The truth is that America is exceptional. And we have the sacrifice of many American heroes to thank for it. Lets fight to keep what they fought to give us. Happy Memorial Day!