Photo of a couple holding the feet of their baby in an article about life and the Virgina late-term abortion debacle on African American Conservatives written by DK.

Dems Speak Honestly About Abortion

I shall be long grateful to Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran for her part in exposing “the unfruitful works of darkness” that is abortion.

For decades we have been told a lie about abortion. We were told that those who supported it were not actually in favor of killing babies — no one would ever support such a horrid thing, of course — instead, they merely supported the right of women to remove an unwanted mass of tissue from their bodies.  Rather than killing an unborn child, they say, think of it as “a crappy dentist appointment or something.”

Politifact, a supposedly nonpartisan “fact-checking website,” even labeled the comments of a Texas state representative that abortion “kills as many as 1,000 black children every day” as “mostly false,” largely because of his “characterization of abortions as killing babies is disputed.”
However, most of those who put forth this argument were lying the entire time.

How can they pretend to believe that the baby isn’t a baby when they are introducing “legislation [that] would allow a woman to receive an abortion even while she was going into labor”?

Are we to believe that even when a mother is dilating and the baby is crowning in the vaginal opening that the child still isn’t a living being?

It was a lie all along, and not one held by all of those in favor of abortion. For example, Barack Obama, as an Illinois state senator, opposed a bill that would have essentially criminalized the killing of children who have been delivered and who are living independently of their mother’s body.

As FactCheck put it:

As originally proposed, the 2003 state bill, SB 1082, sought to define the term ‘born-alive infant’ as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from its mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

Barack Obama was able to successfully lie about his opposition to protections for born alive children.  However, few can lie as frequently and as successfully as the future 44th President.

Some even see no need to lie. Salon’s Mary Elizabeth Williams is such a  person. In her infamous essay “So what if abortion ends life?”   she admits that life begins at conception and that abortion is the taking of that life, but those admissions do not matter to her:

When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late-term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb? 

Yet most on the left are as hesitant (albeit increasingly less so) to admit they favor infanticide as they are to admit that they favor open borders or socialism.

Take Governor Northam of Virginia remarkably callus recent remarks. As described by ABC News:

The Democratic governor and pediatric neurologist was defending efforts to loosen abortion restrictions during a radio interview on WTOP-FM Wednesday when described a hypothetical situation where a severely deformed newborn infant could be left to die.

Northam said that if a woman were to desire an abortion as she’s going into labor, the baby would be “resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue” between doctors and the mother. 

Yet the next day Governor Northam claimed, incredibly, that “Republicans were mischaracterizing his statement for political gain.”

Perhaps it is science that is forcing abortion supporters to increasingly abandon the premise that abortion is not the killing of an unborn child.  It becomes harder to dismiss the notion that life exists inside of a pregnant womb as the fantasy of a bunch of MAGA-hat wearing Bible-clingers who prefer watching football to MSNBC.

According to Emma Green of The Atlantic:

New technology makes it easier to apprehend the humanity of a growing child and imagine a fetus as a creature with moral status. Over the last several decades, pro-life leaders have increasingly recognized this and rallied the power of scientific evidence to promote their cause.

They have built new institutions to produce, track, and distribute scientifically crafted information on abortion. They hungrily follow new research in embryology. They celebrate progress in neonatology as a means to save young lives.

New science is “instilling a sense of awe that we never really had before at any point in human history,” [pro-life activist Ashley] McGuire said. “We didn’t know any of this.” 

However, regardless of the reason, it is important to be grateful to Ms. Tran for introducing legislation that would, by her own admission, allow abortion to occur even as the woman is in labor, even as she almost simultaneously introduced a bill to protect the “fall cankerworm.”

It is important because many of the proponents of abortion — even of what I call “fourth-trimester abortions” —  tend to be the same who want to be part of the federal government as it grabs control of our healthcare.

Not all of us will ever be pregnant, but we are all getting older. Many of us are or will become senior citizens, requiring a great deal of healthcare. We must ask ourselves: how comfortable should we be in allowing those who would defend cankerworms, but call for allowing the killing of a child — even as this child is emerging from the birth canal — to care for us?


Photo of Novalog insulin as part of an article about insulin prices and FDA announcement to reclassify it by Marie Stroughter for African-American Conservatives (AACONS)

The Politics of Insulin

Several years ago, while traveling to visit my mother-in-law in the Sierras, I heard about the Obama administration’s medical device tax. I had a mini-meltdown because I am the mother of a child with Type 1 diabetes. 

Type 1 diabetes (formerly Juvenile Diabetes) is an autoimmune illness wherein something in the body is triggered to consider the pancreas as an “invader” and destroys it, rendering the person incapable of producing the insulin needed to sustain life. It’s a little more complicated than that, but for the purposes of this post, and in consideration for laymen’s terminology, let that suffice.

Upon hearing about the device tax, and my subsequent meltdown, I wrote out a doozy of a rant on my mobile phone, writing down all our out-of-pocket costs for dealing with this chronic, life-threatening condition. But, due to intermittent internet connectivity, I lost the post somehow. 

I just chalked it up as a cathartic exercise in getting my feelings out as a mother of three children (one biological, two adoptive, all of whom have some sort of challenge).  I feel like I am always juggling, unsure if I am ever getting it all right, something I know many mothers struggle with, but especially those of us mamas with kids who have additional challenges. Always doubting myself, feeling horrible because I don’t get to all the things I want to do with my kids, dashing from appointment to appointment, and, as a homeschooling mom, we sacrifice one income . . . so the financial concerns that come with medications, supplies, doctor’s visits, etc., especially at the beginning of a new year when there’s a high deductible.

So there I was with this huge list of the costs just for this one condition (as I mention, there are many in my family). The two biggest costs were (and are) insulin, and his insulin pump (a medical device) and its supplies (tubing, reservoirs, etc). These two alone range into the thousands per year, and when you add on a blood glucose meter and strips, lancing supplies, prep pads, adhesives, continuous glucose monitoring device (CGMS) — yes, another device — with all its supplies, you can see why I had the meltdown.

Every four years, we have to purchase a new insulin pump, and CGMS system. One, because they go out of warranty, and two, because there are always new and innovative changes in technology, necessitating upgrades to improve the quality of life and medical outcomes, such as A1C numbers (the holy grail of diabetes management). Thus, this device tax had me angry and upset for the many families it would affect.

Insulin alone has been increasing in price for years. Depending upon insurance and where we are in the health care year (before deductible is met, or after), insulin can range from $0-900+ per month. It’s only been over the last couple of years where we’ve seen the $0 copay at various times. These are the insulin costs to me . . . insulin makers see profits in the billions of dollars — per year — while many families struggle with these costs, even with subsidies, co-insurance, etc.

How horrible, as a mother, to dread the new year because I know for the first six months or so, we are looking at at least $1k per month for the insulin . . . then the other supplies . . . and that’s for one condition, for one child . . . on one income, or was, before my husband lost his job earlier this year. Anyone who has ever utilized COBRA knows it’s more expensive, and with less income coming in — go figure.

But these are medications my child depends upon for his life. And, the insulin pump was a game-changer. Not only for his A1C numbers, but for his quality of life overall. Not being tied to rigid mealtimes because injection meds (longer acting insulin) wore off at specific times, being able to sleep in, and not being up all night trying to help him control highs and lows because pumps can give micro-doses that injections cannot . . .  

Insulin pump therapy is set to be revolutionized shortly with the advent of the “bionic pancreas,” a device that will be a sort of artificial pancreas, via a closed-loop insulin pump system. That device is in clinical trial, set to be released in the next year or so. We have a hybrid system, which is a step down from that. Currently, there is no cure for Type 1 diabetes.

So, today, when I saw that Republican doctor, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, currently Commissioner of the FDA, put insulin makers on notice regarding their costs, it was music to this free-market lovin’ mama’s ears!

Additionally, after years of political castigation, hearing that the right hates grannies and “wants people to die,” it was glorious to see this administration — the first to tackle the ongoing outcry regarding the spiking cost of insulin — take such a stance. This administration is letting the free-market and competition bring prices down, with the additional reclassification of insulin as a “biologic.”

Conservatives don’t want to withhold care, we want to use free-market principles, such as these, to be the agents of change. As with our public school system, we have thrown money at a problem for decades with little to no change. We want the market, competition, and solid reforms — such as the re-characterization of insulin — to invigorate our system. Additionally, not penalizing innovation, such as taxes on devices — our technology — is key. This administration is apparently pushing for repeal of this tax, with the House having voted for it, and the Senate voting on some provisions, but not a full repeal . . . yet.

I am prayerful the device tax repeal will go through, and that the FDA will prevail in bringing insulin prices down. I’m also glad to see it is this administration leading the way, helping to show that conservative principles do work to effect needed change.

— Marie

Marie Stroughter Speaks at #ProtestPP Rally

On Saturday, April 24, 2016, thousands of activists across the country spoke out against Planned Parenthood and its insidious practices. African-American Conservatives (AACONS) Co-Founder, Marie Stroughter, was one such speaker.

[youtube Z1IlWY7bp5A]


We’ve heard the stories, time and again, on the news: A vibrant, pregnant woman, ripe with new life, only to be cut down, child ripped from her womb. And when we hear such stories, we utter a collective gasp because of the brutality, inhumanity, and the savage disregard for human life.

We don’t understand the depravity that would cause a mind to commit such a heinous atrocity. Yet, when the child is willingly sacrificed – when the mother opts to allow someone to use tools that kill – and end that unborn child’s life . . . well, this is called “choice,” and this was merely a “clump of cells,” “products of conception,” or a “fetus.” We have to use these euphemistic terms, because the reality is brutal. It is ugly, and it is savage.

Similar to our inability to figure out which bathroom to use, we are perplexed by basic biological science: two simple concepts: 1) a living cell, fertilized by another living cell, produces something that is . . . living. And if those two cells are human, what they have created is also human. 2) If there is a body inside of my body, and further, this body moves of it’s own volition, eats of its own volition, creates waste matter and does so in a way that I have no control over . . . how can I say, “My body, my choice?” One body is mine, for sure, but the other body is a separate, distinct entity with its own brain, heartbeat and organs.

If I offer you a drink of this, but, there’s a drop of poison in it . . . will you drink it? But most of it is clean, healthy, good for you, even . . . why wouldn’t you drink it? Because of the poison? But it’s just one drop. We all understand this. So why don’t we understand this with Planned Parenthood? “Oh, but we offer health services . . . screenings . . . contraception . . . “ Really? Because Planned Parenthood is deceptive in its statistical practices, engaging in something known as “unbundling” wherein each “encounter” can – and is – recorded multiple times depending on the reason for the visit. In other words, I may come in for a pap smear, and yet receive contraceptives. Thus, my visit is counted as two separate units. However, one thing is certain according to, Heritage and other outlets: the claim that Planned Parenthood makes about its abortion services is false. They state their abortion services account for only 3% . . . but when adjusted for their “unbundling” fudging, it’s more like 12%. And, in recent years, fewer are seeking these ancillary services, available elsewhere in the community – yet their rate of performing abortions is increasing. Why do they “unbundle?” To make it appear that these services other than abortion are being sought moreso, and to make the abortion number appear smaller, because they know it is unpalatable to the taxpayers they seek funding from. According to Gallup, the majority of Americans still disfavor abortion.

Another frequently heard cry is “what about cases of rape or incest?” My response is, what about adoption? An innocent person is victimized through no fault of their own — This applies to the person raped, as well as to the child conceived and aborted through this crime. One argument offered is why make the victim “bear the burden” of this brutal act against them? One, will aborting the child, rather than placing him or her for adoption erase the thought of the crime? Just because there is no “tangible” reminder in the form of a child, will the nightmares cease? Will the person never again think of the rape? Secondly, why is the innocent punished for the crimes of the guilty? If I am mad at my boss, is it right or fair that I come home and beat my kids or kick the dog? And, assuming I do . . . does that fix things with my boss?

As with much of human nature, greed and other elements of a very sick underbelly come to the fore. As we have recently seen, from the grisly Gosnell debacle, to the undercover videos that have surfaced indicting Planned Parenthood, abortion is ugly business, but make no mistake . . . it is business. From the unsanitary practices revealed in the Gosnell scandal, to his brutal participation in partial birth abortions and late term abortions – his love of money was at the root of his evil. No less is the case for the so-called “non-profit,” Planned Parenthood with its sales of harvested organs and tissues. Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood admitted under oath that, in 2014, her organization had $127 million dollars in excess revenue after expenses. editorialized and stated that this “is what normal people call a ‘profit.’” Further, Ms. Richards also admitted that Planned Parenthood spent $40 million dollars per year, on travel and parties, which translates to $13,000 dollars per day. In these undercover videos, Planned Parenthood executives are seen dining in upscale venues with chianti and laughing about Lamborghinis – a car with a base price in the neighborhood of $200,000.

Let’s not forget Planned Parenthood’s humble beginnings as The Negro Project, headed by racist eugenicist, Margaret Sanger. Going back to that cup with the drop of poison in it: some may see the “other services” provided by Planned Parenthood, and totally overlook the “poison” that it was founded upon: to reduce “undesirable” populations.

Margaret Sanger is quoted as saying the United States should adopt “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”

Another eye opening quote: “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.” And, while we are parked here, let us note that Ms. Sanger gave a speech to the Ku Klux Klan, and stated she received many such invitations from them to speak. Further, she was a member of the American Eugenics Society and was involved with the Euthanasia Society. She praised Nazi Germany’s sterilization policies — policies based on her work.

Further, she asked, “What is social planning without a quota?” Margaret Sanger is further quoted as saying, “Eugenists emphasize the mating of healthy couples for the conscious purpose of producing healthy children, the sterilization of the unfit to prevent their populating the world with their kind and they may, perhaps, agree with us that contraception is a necessary measure among the masses of the workers . . ..”

Ms. Sanger advanced something called The American Baby Code, in which she wrote, “The results desired are obviously selective births.” Additionally, this “code” would, “protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.” She also said, “Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.”

Since Planned Parenthood clinics are disproportionately located in low-income and/or minority communities . . . to whom do you think she refers to as “unfit,” “undesirable,” “defective,” and other such pejorative and derogatory terms?

Unconvinced? Let this quote from Ms. Sanger seal the deal: “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Planned Parenthood was founded upon a racial discrimination and prejudice that continues to this day, evidenced by the fact that they prey on minorities and the low-income. Unfit. Defective. Undesirable. That’s what they think of people who look like me, people who look like some of you, and our children that they so desperately not only want to kill, but to profit from doing so.

Planned Parenthood, we reject your racist, eugenicist roots. We reject your “help” in controlling “our” population, and we reject your blood-thirst for our children.

I leave you with the words of Proverbs 6:16-19, words that eerily echo all that Planned Parenthood is and stands for:

16 There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to Him:

17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18 a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil,

19 a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

Thank you and may God bless our children, including those in our wombs.

Watch all of the Concord, CA speakers here.

Why Obama Doesn’t Love America

The Left hates to have their patriotism questioned, regardless of how much contempt they openly display of it. They can call it “a congenitally racist country,” as The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates did; or say that “We began America with genocide, then built it with slaves”, as Michael Moore did; or “The U.S. is the world’s leading terrorist state,” as Noam Chomsky declared it to be – but if you respond by asking if they love this racist, genocidal, and terrorist state, they inevitably take great offense at the suggestion that they may not.

This is especially true of President Obama. His allies in politics and in the press reacted to Rudy Giuliani questioning his love of country as if the Mayor had commented blasphemy against the Lord Himself (which, I suspect, in many of their eyes, is precisely what Giuliani had done).

“Thou Shalt Not Question Another’s Patriotism” is then a new commandment. Such questioning is “racist,” according to a number of observers. It was a “ghoulish, repulsive, race-baiting assertion,” said US News & World Report. He has fallen from his role as America’s Mayor, laments CNN. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said he felt sorry for Giuliani, “It’s sad to see when somebody who’s attained a certain level of public stature and even admiration tarnishes that legacy so thoroughly.”

Of course this commandment is a very specific one. It only applies to Democrats whose patriotism is challenged by Republicans. How else can one explain the lack of outrage elicited from Senator Harry Reid calling the Koch Brothers “un-American,” or Democratic Congresswoman Linda Sanchez accusing Tea Partiers of being “unpatriotic,” or Bill Nye “The Science Guy” calling those who don’t accept his views on climate change as gospel “unpatriotic?”

Senator Obama called President Bush’s deficit spending “unpatriotic.” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews called both President Bush’s and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s actions regarding the Iraqi War “unpatriotic.” Yet, neither has been called “racist” for their opinions. Josh Earnest isn’t weeping over their tarnished legacies, as far as I can tell.

Yet more than just calling out Giuliani’s critics for their hypocrisy, it is also important to acknowledge the accuracy — even the ordinariness — of his remarks.

To speculate that anyone with mentors like terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dorhn, communist Frank Marshall Davis, or firebrand Jeremiah Wright; or has a wife who was not “really proud” of her country until she was in her mid-40s, is not patriotic hardly qualifies as a leap of reasoning. Obama was, after all, the Presidential candidate, who, in 2008, initially refused even such perfunctory displays of patriotism such as wearing a flag pin, or placing hand over heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. But, what provides best evidence to support Giuliani’s remark is not so much Obama’s associations, but rather who he is.

Who he is is a Progressive. Progressivism is an anti-Western philosophy. The United States is a Western nation. It only follows that Obama would not love America.

America’s political philosophy is marked by a belief in a government limited by federalism, the separation of powers, a constitution, and a foundation of Judeo-Christian values. It is a belief in free markets and the right to private property. Perhaps most of all America’s Western view is rooted in the belief in the natural and God-given rights of the individual.

America’s political philosophy is marked by a belief in a government limited by federalism, the separation of powers, a constitution, and a foundation of Judeo-Christian values. It is a belief in free markets and the right to private property. Perhaps most of all America’s Western view is rooted in the belief in the natural and God-given rights of the individual.

This has been so since the publication of a number of enormously influential works, especially that from St. Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Sowell, Edward Coke, Frédéric Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Douglass, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and many others. It was these men and women who helped shape Western civilization – from the writing of the Magna Carta to the formation of the U.S. Constitution to even the civil rights movement of the 1960s, as expressed by Dr. Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”.

Progressivism is a rejection of these views. Instead of this Western tradition, Progressives favor the more Eastern approach to government, which is – though this may be an oversimplification – that of a political and economic collectivism under the guidance of a Benevolent Dictator.

Rather than a central government with limited powers, Benevolent Dictatorships takes power from the individual, the states, and the legislative and judicial branch as well, all for (and they never seem to feel they’ve emphasized this point heavily enough) the greater good. As President 0bama says, “We are not just going to be waiting for legislation to in order to make sure that we are providing Americans with the kind of help that they need. I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone.”

We see America’s shift towards Benevolent Dictatorship exhibited in a myriad of forms almost daily; including Obamacare, Common Core, Net Neutrality, Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and minimum wage laws. All of these concentrate power in the hands of the executive. But we see it particularly in the rise of what is often called ‘the fourth branch of government’. These are the government agencies such as the EPA and the FCC that have been increasing in strength since the Franklin Roosevelt administration which now seem unaccountable to anyone except for the will of the President.

As law professor Jonathan Turley argued, “the rise of this fourth branch represents perhaps the single greatest change in our system of government since the founding. We cannot long protect liberty if our leaders continue to act like mere bystanders to the work of government.” (A good discussion on administrative law can be found here).

Progressivism also largely rejects religion, especially Western religion. Although Obama himself is Islamophilic, rejection of Western religious values – such as the sacredness of the life of the unborn – is commonplace among the Left.

In fact, according to Gallup faith in God is significantly lower among Liberals than Conservatives. Jews, one of America’s most reliable Progressive voting blocs, is — again according to Gallup — the least theistic of all religious groups, with 54% of Jews describing themselves as non-religious.

Western faith is an object of scorn to most of the intelligentsia of the Progressive movement. Saul Alinsky, for example, who is yet another of Obama’s mentors, was an agnostic who described the Catholic Inquisitions as one of ‘the greatest crimes in history perpetrated by religious fanatics.’ Socialist Noam Chomsky describes “the God of the Bible” as a genocidal “creature” who was “ready to destroy every living creature on Earth because some humans irritated Him.” Frank Marshall Davis, according to his biographer Paul Kengor, disdained both God and Christianity.

So it is no surprise to hear President Obama display such open contempt for Christianity, the primary faith of the West, as he did when he compared the Crusades to Islamic terrorism, while he promotes the ‘religion of peace,’ Islamism, – the faith of the East.

Biblical faith is antithetical to Progressivism because the Benevolent Dictatorship cannot tolerate fealty to anything other to itself. If “the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God,” as President Kennedy argued in 1961, what role is left for the Benevolent Dictator? He becomes the mere protector of those rights, rather than the benefactor of them.

More than his educational background, it is Obama’s Progressivism that made Giuliani’s comment resonate so loudly. Many Progressives do love an America – but they love the America they are fundamentally transforming America into rather than the America of Western values that presently exists.
— DK

The Forgotten Man

Forgotten ManThe Forgotten Man, Amity Shlaes’ famous history of the Great Depression, actually takes its title from another book, which was written by libertarian philosopher, William Graham Sumner, and titled What Social Classes Owe To Each Other.

Published in 1883, Sumner used the term “The Forgotten Man” to distinguish the men who are the creators of government’s massive social welfare programs, and those who chiefly benefited from them, from the forgotten, or the men and women who with their taxes and labor bore the price of these programs.

As Sumner writes, “The State cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man.”

Today Sumner would see that the Forgotten Man may not be the same man he was in the 19th century, but he has not disappeared, nor have the demands placed upon him been made any less cumbersome.  As our progressive state continues to demand sacrifice for an increasing stream of social policies and programs that will not benefit him, he continues to be the one who must bear the weight.

He is the inner city teenager who searches, perhaps, for a fast-food job to supplement his family’s income, but finds many of those jobs being given to illegals.

He is the worker who is seeking a high paying energy job, only to find politicians — in the name of the deception that these jobs will cause kitchen faucets to become flame throwers — have prevented their creation, though he will still find that he must pay his share of the three billion dollar tab left from heavily taxpayer subsidized “green companies” going bankrupt.

He is the senior who wants to supplement his retirement income by working at a retail job but finds that because employers must reduce hiring to avoid Obamacare penalties and to offset a higher minimum wage, those jobs have become increasingly scarce.

He is the taxpayer who must pay $50,000 per Obamacare enrollee, according to the Congressional Budget Office and his own premiums increasing.

Or he is the STEM worker whose wages have remained frozen for decades, but is grateful for the opportunity to work in his field as the government and Big Business interests continue to lobby to have him replaced with less expensive foreign workers with H1-B visas

Clearly Obama, despite his State of the Union shout-out to his political operative Rebecca, has put in place that have made it harder for these men. But unfortunately, their problems can not be blamed solely on the Left.  Numerous Republicans, such as Senator Bob Corker, who ran for office with tax pledges to lower taxes, now line up to impose a gas tax that will not only be massive but regressive as well. Another 10 cents a gallon will be very little to the man who is getting a $7500 tax rebate for buying a new $130,000 Tesla, but it means a great deal to the Forgotten Man.

Furthermore, examine the argument put forth by Bryan Caplan, noted libertarian economist and open border advocate. In his paper Why Should We Restrict Immigration? Professor Caplan actually concedes that “Under open borders, low-skilled wages are indeed likely to fall.”  However, this is fine, because as Caplan adds “most Americans are not low-skilled.” Open borders will not affect the salary Caplan makes as a professor, nor will it affect the salary of his friends and neighbors.  But it will affect the salary of the forgotten.

The Forgotten Man, as I am defining him, is the man who finds his taxes higher, and his employment opportunities limited, by the State. Often he is the man who can not find employment at all.

As economic professor (and AACON guest) Peter Morici wrote “The [December 2014] unemployment rate fell to 5.6%, but that may only be because so many working age Americans quit looking for work and are no longer counted in the official jobless tally. If the same percentage of adults were in the labor force today as when Presidents Obama took office, the jobless rate would be about 9.9%.”

As The New York Times put it: “Working, in America, is in decline. The share of prime-age men — those 25 to 54 years old — who are not working has more than tripled since the late 1960s, to 16 percent. More recently, since the turn of the century, the share of women without paying jobs has been rising, too. The United States, which had one of the highest employment rates among developed nations as recently as 2000, has fallen toward the bottom of the list.”

He is made more expendable by technology. Companies like Amazon are building robots which can eliminate the need for thousands of warehouse workers at companies, and the computer screens will eventually replace cashiers at McDonald’s the way ATMS have replaced bank tellers. Financial Advisor quotes a study that claims 47 percent of workers could be put out of work by robotics. “If you have self-driving automobiles, will you need cab drivers, truck drivers, auto insurers and chiropractors?”

However, the consequences of such a large segment of society not working has not yet been fully seen, although we have seen glimpses of what that would portend. The Heritage Foundation, in their most recent Index of Dependence on Government, writes “America is increasingly moving away from a nation of self-reliant individuals, where civil society flourishes, toward a nation of individuals less inclined to practicing self-reliance and personal responsibility. Government programs not only crowd out civil society, but too frequently trap individuals and families in long-term dependence, leaving them incapable of escaping their condition for generations to come. Rebuilding civil society can rescue these individuals from the government dependence trap.”

Perhaps it will be more than increased government dependency. At the economic summit in Davos, the experts bemoaned the youth unemployment in nations like Italy of more than 50%, and reminded that high unemployment rate in Greece were partially responsible for their 2008 riots. In the US, there are counties in which the non-employment of men ages 25-54 is as high at 74%.  And many of the counties with high employment are so because of drilling jobs which are disappearing now that oil is selling for less than $45 a barrel.

Liberal economists and politicians are fond of obsessing over the income gap, but ironically they continue to favor the Quantitative Easing and low-interest rates remedies that have exasperated the gap. Perhaps their proclamations of social unrest caused by the income gap are not as sincere as they pretend. If they were, they would warn less about the societal effect of having a working class of CEOs who can earn more in a day than his employees can earn in a year, and more on the societal effect of having a working class that is no longer working.