Dr. Mark J. Perry and Mark Levin Discuss Tariffs

Mark Levin hosts Life, Liberty, & Levin and this week he is joined by American Enterprise Institute Scholar Mark J. Perry to discuss trade in America today. (Mark J. Perry is concurrently a scholar at AEI and a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus. He is best known as the creator and editor of the popular economics blog Carpe Diem. At AEI, Perry writes about economic and financial issues for American.com and the AEIdeas blog.) How tariff’s effects other countries and Americans as well, along with President Trumps strength against China, and where we may go wrong if we’re not careful.

Mark Levin gives us an Econ 101 class on tariffs and taxes. This is why the unions love this because it protects their jobs and not other businesses in the States.

An interesting part of the call which I stitched to before the other segment is an article in the Wall Street Journal which notes that the reason car manufacturers build in Mexico is due to free-trade agreements:

  • Audi says that an array of free trade agreements favors Mexico over U.S. sites. Its not just the price of skilled labor that is attractive to Audi. If you think about a $50,000 car made in the U.S. that is then exported to Europe there is a 10% duty on that car. So that’s $5000 in duties that Audi is paying. When that same car is made in Mexico there is no duty. This means with an already concentrated area of auto manufactures in Mexico, low cost skilled labor and free trade agreements it is a huge win for Audi and it will be easy to do business. No reinventing the wheel or stepping out alone as the only auto manufacture, Audi is simply following suit. (WSJ)

Not only will these Executive Orders (E.O.) worsen us in the long run (unless this administration has something else up their sleeve), it is the same thing we gripped about when Obama was President and Left leaning legal scholar, Jonathan Turley said was not what the office of President was intended for. I agree.

What is interesting is the juxtaposition the Dems find themselves in regarding the E.O.’s. You see, you had many challenges to Obama’s E.O.’s and he holds the record for the most overturned by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in our history as a country. But they were brought to the court mainly by Republican Attorney Generals in a state or a group — or a combination thereof. AND YES, many of these actions Trump is taking with his pen and paper are just as unconstitutional. However, in 2018 we find this:

The GOP will be defending just eight seats, while Democrats must fight for 23 — plus another two held by independents who caucus with Democrats.

This means that since the Democrats know their constituents are already upset enough at them to switch parties… why would you rock the boat on some of these executive orders that they know their constituents like. Like the car manufactures/unions. What Democrat in their right mind would bring a case to SCOTUS to overturn something they wish they had did?

Or how bout’ the growing concern in the black community about jobs and the influx of illegal immigrants? You see, they type of people Trump is putting on the Court would vote AGAINST what Trump is doing. They are originalists, and so, the Democrats would certainly win these cases if brought before the conservative Court.

  • But they also have to win in 2018. They are essentially protecting 25-seats.

So many of these E.O.’s Trump is writing could easily be overturned if moved forward by the Democrats. Right now however, doing so would be politically dangerous for them. For now at least.

Earth Day Failures (AEI Edition)

(Above audio) Dennis Prager comments on and reads from an AEI’s report about past failed predictions of Earth Day type “scientists” and environmentalists:

See my previous critique of PRINCE EA’s propaganda video (2015): EARTH-DAY FAILS! PRINCE EA’S VIDEO IS FULL OF HOT AIR

The following comes from BREITBART’S article entitled, “5 Scientific Facts The ‘Science March’ Has Yet to Acknowledge


This fact is particularly popular amongst people who question the “science march’s” commitment to, well, science.

The idea that there are only two genders, male or female, and that you have to be born either one or the other is a basic truth acknowledged by most people. Biologically, it is irrefutable: humans are a sexually dimorphic species. The only exceptions are the tiny minority of intersex people, who in very rare cases are born with chromosomal types that do not align with regular male-female patterns.

That’s the only exception. If you are not intersex, you are a man or a woman. You certainly aren’t one of Facebook’s 58 gender options, which extend to “lesboflexible,” “agender” and “pansexual.”


[Editor’s note for #2: we are one race, the human race. “Ethnicity” is a better word to use rather than race.]


Sorry Rachel Dolezal, you’re white. The case for a biological basis for race, and all the differences of skin color, height, weight and physical characteristics that come with it, is overwhelming. Indeed, the biology of race is so real that you can trace it with a DNA test. 



Climate change and renewable energy is one of the chief causes of the Science March, championed by Bill Nye and others. The march was deliberately scheduled to take place on Earth Day, when people are supposed to demonstrate their support for the environment by turning all their lights on (MILO recognizes Earth Day by turning all his electronic devices up to max).

Yet many of the fossil fuel alternatives championed by the eco-warriors are woefully inefficient. Wind farms in particular are a poster child for wastefulness, operating at 90 percent capacity or above for just 17 hours a year. Solar energy is another shocker – according to electrical engineering professor Petr Beckmann, it would take 1,000 hours of pure sunshine for a 15-square inch solar panel to generate the same amount of energy as a single lump of coal.

In the U.K., vast sums of money have been poured into green energy schemes, only to disappear after the companies that took advantage of government spending either went into administration or failed to deliver.



One of the most troubling scientific facts for the left concerns the heritability of intelligence and behaviour. In the 1960s and 70s, the consensus in the fields of psychology and sociology argued that both intelligence and behaviour are wholly or mostly shaped by our external environment. In other words, if we grow up surrounded by books, with smart parents and good teachers, we become smart ourselves. Alternatively, if we grow up surrounded by poverty and crime, we’re more likely to fall into poverty and crime ourselves. Unequal environment, unequal outcomes.

This theory is central to the thinking of the left. It’s also long past its sell-by date. Known as the “Standard Social Science Model,” it has been undermined by a growing body of research which highlights the innate, genetic factors that drive human behaviour and achievement.

The research from geneticist Robert Plomin is particularly difficult to argue with. Plomin has used studies of twins raised in separate households to determine the heritability of character traits. He has found that even when a twin is raised in isolation from their biological parents, they still end up far more similar to their sibling – and to their biological parents – than they do to their foster parents. Plomin has estimated that 58 percent of variation in school test scores can be accounted for by inherited ability.



The Science March has made a big deal out of the lack of diversity in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math). “The lack of inclusivity and diversity in STEM thwarts scientific advancements,” says an official statement on the march’s website.

But diversity in STEM, particularly gender diversity, is not something that can be solved by policy. Feminists insist that the lack of women in some STEM fields, like physics, is caused by entrenched sexism. However, these accounts consistently fail to explain why this alleged sexism is nowhere to be found in biology, where 58 percent of doctorates, bachelor’s, and master’s degrees are awarded to women. Or in zoology, psychology, and veterinary science — all scientific fields, all dominated by women. So why do women choose the latter, but not the former? It it just sexism?

The answer can again be found by looking at studies that trace the innate differences, and preferences, of men and women. Autism expert Simon Baron-Cohen has been studying the differences between men and women for over a decade, ever since he discovered that boys were far more likely than girls to develop autism. His research has found that boys (on average) are born with brains oriented towards understanding systems rather than people, emotions, and living things.

This is backed up by research on newborns, which show clear differences between male and female newborns in their preferences. Before they are nine months old, infants show gendered preferences with regards to toys, with male infants gravitating towards trucks and mechanical objects, and girls gravitating towards dolls. The study on newborns in particular helps rule out the the theory that sexist influences from a child’s social environment are the cause of gender differences.


#1 – Transgender
#2 – Transracial
#3 – Climate Links (Various Topics)
#4 – Wealth Inequality in America ~ Critiques On Inequality
#5 – Male/Female Differences