Free Markets, Free People


1 2 3 84

Political charlatans and the damage they’ve done – is it reversible?

Thomas Sowell discusses the rash of political charlatans we’ve been plagued by over the recent decades.

He blames them for the condition we’re in, policy-wise.  But he puts equal blame on “we the people” for continuing to support them and their policies:

Political charlatans are not the whole story of our social degeneracy on many fronts. “We the people” must accept our own share of the blame because we voted these charlatans into office, and went along with their ever-increasing power over our lives.

When it came to charlatans taking ever larger amounts of our own money to finance ever more big government programs, we stood still like sheep waiting to be sheared. We remained as meek as sheep when they turned schools into places to propagandize our children to grow up accepting more of the same.

All the while we had the power to vote them out. But we couldn’t be bothered to look beyond their magic words. Even now, many are too absorbed in their electronic devices to know or care.

Most voters, it seems to me, are like magpies – distracted by shiny things and never able to see the danger that exists in reality.  Sowell uses “the legacy of slavery” as one of his points of discussion.  I’m going to add a lengthy quote that pretty succinctly tells the story of how we allowed political charlatans to distract us with a problem that seems to not have existed and used it to gain greater control over our lives while, in fact, making the “problem” worse”

Here again, rhetoric distracts attention from questions about logic or evidence. The “legacy of slavery” argument is not just a convenient excuse for bad behavior, it allows politicians to escape responsibility for the consequences of the government policies they imposed.

Although the left likes to argue as if there was a stagnant world to which they added the magic ingredient of “change” in the 1960s, in reality there were many positive trends in the 1950s, which reversed and became negative trends in the 1960s.

Not only was the poverty rate going down, so was the rate of dependence on government to stay out of poverty. Teenage pregnancy rates were falling, and so were rates of venereal diseases like syphilis and gonorrhea. Homicide rates among non-white males fell 22 percent in the 1950s.

In the wake of the massive expansion of the welfare state in the 1960s “war on poverty” program — with the repeatedly announced goal of enabling people to become self-supporting and end their dependence on government — in fact dependence on government increased and is today far higher than when the 1960s began.

The declining rates of teenage pregnancy and venereal diseases in the 1950s both reversed and rose sharply in the wake of the 1960s “sexual revolution” ideas, introduced into schools under the guise of “sex education,” which claimed to be able to reduce teenage pregnancy and venereal diseases.

Black labor force participation rates, which had been higher than white labor force participation rates in every census from 1890 to 1960, fell below white labor force participation rates by 1972 and the gap has widened since then. Homicide rates among non-white males reversed their decline in the 1950s and soared by 75 percent during the 1960s.

None of this was a “legacy of slavery,” which ended a century earlier. But slavery became the rhetorical distraction for the political magicians’ trick of making their own responsibility for social degeneration vanish into thin air by sleight of hand.

Now you can point to many negatives the “War on Poverty” brought us … Sowell highlights the big ones.  But the most important changes were two-fold.  One: it created more dependency on government (and it helped tear the nuclear family apart among the poor) and it created an illusion that government (which mostly meant “Democrats”) cared more than any other institution.

The political charlatans had created a false problem and a false narrative which has had disastrous results in the long run.  But those changes it created were manifestly worth it according to certain of the political class, because it increased their power.  And the narrative that has been built about this program (and the “legacy of slavery”), along with the narrative that has created the “cult of the victim”, has hidden the huge problems created by government intrusion and instead has created a myth which says “more government is good government”.

So you end up with an entire segment of the voting public duped by this “shiny” narrative and either too lazy or too incurious to look below its surface.  That’s the formula for political success on one side and national decline on the other.

The question, then, is how do the defenders of liberty catch the attention of the voting magpies and help them catch a clue? Facts apparently don’t matter.  And alternate narratives don’t seem to stick.

If you can answer that question, you’ve hit upon a way to help save this country.  I’ve been trying to come up with a way for 40 years.

I wish you luck.


Jeb Bush’s problem with first impressions

The base doesn’t like him, he’s in favor of Common Core and amnesty, no one outside the Donor Class wants a Bush v. Clinton race, there’s still bad feeling from his brother’s presidency – all of those are problems for Jeb Bush.

But I think another big problem is just how the guy looks. Trump keyed in on this with his “low energy” comments. His overall demeanor doesn’t communicate that he can get anything done.

Human beings are driven by first impressions. They are formed within seconds, or even a fraction of a second. Realize that most people are not like us. Many have never seen an image of Jeb Bush before this campaign. So they form a first impression of him when they see him on the news or in a debate.

I think that first impression is that he’s just old and tired. In fact, I think, for some of them, he reminds them of a movie character that is the epitome of old and tired: Norman Thayer, Jr, from On Golden Pond.

See what you think. See if, at first glance, the gallery below just looks like four pictures of the same guy:


I think anyone who looks this much like an 80 year old actor portraying an 80 year old curmudgeon is going to have some serious problems getting anyone excited about his candidacy.


What happens when you let in the barbarians

The whole society felt that it was open-minded and objective. The mantra was “Diversity is good!”, and so they were diverse. They were tolerant. They were open-minded, even to concepts and philosophies that they felt were self-evidently false and dangerous. Marketplace of ideas, and all that.

So they accepted that the society had to admit barbarians – those whose ideas were contrary to the founding principles set down for the running of the society.

But then they encountered a problem. The barbarians agitated for more barbarians in the society. They pointed to how many barbarians there were in other parts of the world, and demanded more voice for barbarians.

No matter how many barbarians were let in, and no matter what accommodation was made for them, the barbarians always wanted more.

Eventually, inevitably, some parts of the society were controlled by barbarians. And, wherever that happened, the only new people admitted to that part of the society – were more barbarians. They excluded the original members. They didn’t care about tolerance or open-mindedness. All that mattered to them was promotion of their philosophy, their influence, their control.

The barbarians thought they were upstanding moral people, doing the right thing. It was obvious to them that their worldview was *right*, and those fuddy-duddies they replaced were wrong. So they had no doubts about their mission.

At times, they pretended to respect the older ways. They still didn’t control everything, and they didn’t want to arouse sufficient animosity to threaten their control. So they lied about their motives and their own tolerance. They carried out symbolic actions to reassure the gullible that they were just part of the vigorous back and forth of a free society.

But, whenever they had enough control, or whenever the stakes were high enough, they viciously enforced promotion of their own agenda. Accusations of partisanship, unfairness, or rule-breaking were brushed off, laughed off, or, if necessary, viciously counter-attacked to send a message to those who would threaten their dominance over the society.

Eventually, they wormed their way into the most important institutions of the society. Parts of it that had been founded on tolerance and openness were taken over, and transformed into citadels of rigid dogmatism. No one was admitted to thoses institutions unless they swore fealty to the fundamental rightness of the barbarians’ creed.

To ensure this end, one of the first parts of society taken over by the barbarians was the educational institutions that trained young people in becoming part of the society. They indoctrinated them all into accepting the tenets of barbarian thought with unquestioning faith.

It took a century, but at the end, only a few redoubts of the old open, tolerant society remained. The society was run by barbarians, for the promotion and benefit of barbarians in and outside the society. Anyone who didn’t accept the barbarian faith was ruthlessly attacked.

And that’s my recounting of how the society we call “the press” was taken over by the barbarian left.*

(*) This rambling was prompted by an article on the Wall Street Journal’s editoral page this morning. A barbarian, partisan leftist named William A. Galston blithely asserted that limited government types in the GOP “…want to get their own way without yielding an inch…”. This is a bald-faced lie. His entire column is a typical attempt to sound reasonable and moderate to gullible people while spewing unadulterated propaganda for the left. He is using the same techniques discussed in my post on “compromise” from a few years ago, so there’s no need for me to recount the details. He’s nothing more than a barbarian leftist pretending to be a tolerant, objective guy, carefully avoiding letting the readers know that he worked for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Walter Mondale, that he is a member of the academic left teaching “public policy” and is associated with the left-leaning Brookings Institute. He’s a dishonest shill, and it says a lot about the Journal that they even gave him a platform.

I’ve watched one media entity after another sucked into the barbaric left – US News and World Report, the Economist, and the WSJ have all moved left over the years I’ve been reading them. The only silver lining is that, when the barbarians take over, eventually the society is destroyed, and the legacy media is well into self-immolation.

“They can’t get to yes” = “They won’t give the Democrats everything they want”

In case you had not yet heard, Speaker Boehner is resigning.

As we say in the South, that’s fine and all, but it won’t really change anything. He will likely be replaced by Kevin McCarthy, who has been Boehner’s lieutenant for a long time. McCarthy is apparently better at soft-soaping the limited government Republicans in Congress, so it looks like they will go along with his election. They might even think he’ll make a difference, though I hope most of them are not that naive.

When I was reading the NYT article linked above, however, one sentence by Representative Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania stood out to me:

Mr. Dent said there was “a lot of sadness in the room” when Mr. Boehner made his announcement to colleagues. He blamed the hard-right members, who he said were unwilling to govern. “It’s clear to me that the rejectionist members of our conference clearly had an influence on his decision,” Mr. Dent said. “That’s why I’m not happy about what happened today. We still have important issues to deal with, and this will not be easier for the next guy.”

“The fundamental dynamics don’t change,” Mr. Dent said. “The dynamics are this: There are anywhere from two to four dozen members who don’t have an affirmative sense of governance. They can’t get to yes. [Emphasis mine] They just can’t get to yes, and so they undermine the ability of the speaker to lead. And not only do they undermine the ability of the speaker to lead, but they undermine the entire Republican conference and also help to weaken the institution of Congress itself.

This is a consummate member of the political class spinning excuses for why nothing ever changes, and we get ever-increasing government. It’s the “dynamics”. Opposing more government “undermines the ability of the speaker to lead”. Those who do so are “rejectionist”.

I’m not surprised the Times sought out such a pathetic specimen of the Political Class (GOP Kabuki Failure Theater Division). They’re totally in on the gag. They know that the easiest way to get big government is to make it look inevitable, and to paint anyone who opposes it as one step short of ready for commitment to an insane asylum.

“They can’t get to yes.” Meaning they won’t cave. They won’t give Democrats yet another round of big spending, more regulation, more debt, more secrecy, and more corruption.

When means Dent is right in on it. Oh, I’m sure when he looks at himself in the mirror, he sees a fine, upstanding practical politician, constantly grappling with important issues and making wise decisions about how government will solve them. Because, like so many in the political class bubble, he lacks the context and awareness to see what he really is: a pathetic liar and coward who pretends to his constituents that he cares about limited, responsible government, and then does everything in his power to satisfy collectivists so that he can get a nice mention in the New York Times.


On a related subject, I think Boehner’s exit is connected, at least peripherally, with the rise of Trump.

(Oh, and could we please, please, please avoid another “Trump is not conservative, and he’s a fraud, and he’s a collectivist at heart, and a crony capitalist, and blah, blah, blah” argument in the comments? I don’t know how others feel, but that has been done to death. Everyone has made their points, and going over it another round isn’t doing anything but pissing people off.)

No matter what you think of Trump, he is effectively running against the GOP establishment just as much (or more) as he is running against the other primary candidates. I said so over at Daily Pundit when the rumors of Boehner’s exit first surfaced. I think Trump would have probably preferred for Boehner to stay where he was until the nomination was locked up.

I have to wonder if at least part of Boehner’s exit was due to the GOP establishment wanting to defuse Trump’s appeal by saying “See? We get your anger. We’re doing something about it. So you don’t need to nominate Trump, who will be a disaster, blah blah.”

I wonder, too, if part of Boehner’s motivation is to see the chaos that results, and tell himself that he really was the indispensable man. The timing means that the whole shutdown debate will happen right after he leaves. He strikes me as just the sort of guy to hope for vindication by seeing bad things happen.

But, as I said above, in the end it won’t mean much either way. The GOP will find a way to cave. Another establishment drone will take Boehner’s place. The government will spend more, oppress more people via regulation and security theater, keep letting millions on new Democratic voters illegally enter the country, keep on colluding with crony capitalists and financial types to extract more money by any means necessary, and keep on giving spiffs to the media to blunt the effects.

That’s called “getting to yes”.

Hillary Clinton’s latest position of political convenience – opposition to the Keystone pipeline

As one might imagine, her opposition comes as somewhat of a surprise:

Her comments made her the last major Democratic presidential candidate to come out against Keystone, a project that has dragged through more than seven years of wrangling and several environmental reviews that appeared to favor the pipeline — most of them produced by the State Department when Clinton was secretary. Obama remains the project’s biggest wildcard: He hasn’t said whether he will grant or deny a permit for the pipeline, or when he’ll decide, even as Republicans lambaste him for repeatedly postponing the issue.

As secretary, Clinton had galvanized a nationwide activist campaign against Keystone with her off-the-cuff remarks in 2010 that the department was “inclined” to approve the $8 billion-plus project. That was her last substantive public statement on the issue until Tuesday.

But then, when poll numbers are sinking and momentum is waning, what better than to flip-flop (when you favor the candidate, it’s called a “pivot”) and throw a bone to a particular core constituency to shore up that vote? Its a move any political opportunist would surely applaud.

Why the Keystone XL pipeline has remained such a political football remains a mystery.  All the past routing problems that first held up the pipeline have been satisfactorily resolved.   And, after all, there are 2.3 million miles of existing oil and natural gas pipelines in the US.  Why has this one remained in the news?

Simple answer?  Politics.  It’s about voting constituencies and keeping them happy.  It certainly isn’t about what is best for the US.

As The Hill points out, it has now officially taken longer for the federal government to review the Keystone XL pipeline’s permit application than it did to build the entire transcontinental railroad 150 years ago.

Amazing and typical.  As for the party that continues to tell us it is for jobs and economic growth, it blatantly turns its back on both with its opposition to the pipeline’s approval:

Consider the economic opportunity this $5.4 billion pipeline presents. The Canadian Economic Research Institute estimates it could add $172 billion in U.S. economic growth over 25 years. Meanwhile, President Obama’s own U.S. State Department estimates construction would support over 42,000 jobs. Nearly 10,000 would be skilled—aka, well-paying—jobs like steel welders, pipefitters, electricians, and heavy equipment operators.

There’s also the potential for gas prices to go even lower than they are today. According to a February 2015 report from IHS, a leading energy research firm, the “vast majority” of Keystone XL’s refined oil will stay right here in the U.S. In other words, it could further add to America’s surging oil supply that has sent gas prices plummeting over the past year.

And yes, as mentioned, that’s the US State Department estimate made while Hillary Clinton was SecState.

Environmentalists live with the fantasy that if the Keystone pipeline is blocked, the oil to be found in the oil sands of Canada and in North Dakota will simply have to be left in the ground.  Of course, that’s nonsense.  Instead is it is shipped by rail, a much less safe and less efficient means of transportation (but one that does amply reward a Democratic donor) than a state of the art pipeline :

This is especially so when you consider pipelines—particularly new, state-of-the-art ones like Keystone XL—are the safest mode of transportation. Ensuring we’re using the safest and most efficient methods possible only makes sense.

Indeed.  So, why is Hillary Clinton opposed to safe transportation of oil and gas, the jobs and income that would come from the construction of the pipeline and economic boost it would give our economy?

Perhaps someone will ask her that at the first Democratic debate.

Yeah, I know, I’m laughing too.


Using the Pope to propagandize “climate change”

The newest Pope has found he has many detractors.  He’s been called a Peronist, Marxist and Communist. He’s also been accused of issuing statements on subjects he has no apparent knowledge.  But when all is said and done, he is the head of the still powerful Catholic Church.  And that is very useful to the President of the United States.  So Mr. Obama plans on using Pope Francis’ visit to the US to again propagandize climate change by attempting to use the authority of the Catholic Church (i.e. Pope Francis) to sway the masses.

The pope has been a prominent supporter of actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that many scientists blame for causing the Earth’s temperature to rise, causing more floods, droughts and other catastrophes.

Francis has framed climate change as a moral issue. Obama will likely use the pope’s time in Washington to draw attention to the challenge of global warming, and the need for putting away political differences in support of actions to reduce emissions.

The pope will also address a joint session of Congress following talks at the White House. In that address, he is expected to underscore points he made earlier this year in issuing his climate change “encyclical,” which outlines his thoughts on the issue of global warming. In the encyclical, he advocates for reductions in manmade emissions from fossil fuels.

But so far, “climate change” has been a political bust for Obama.  The US public is unenthusiastic about the subject, and certainly not buying into either the urgency or the sweeping changes he’d like to see his administration put in place.  Even US Bishops aren’t enthusiastic about the subject of “climate change”.

Obama, however, has declared “climate change” (the newest code phrase for “man-made global warming”) as one of the top priorities of his administration.  The problem is, it has no political traction.  So the job of Pope Francis, whether he knows it or not, is to be a source of traction.  His job is to give the administration a sort of “divine” blessing in its pursuit of “solutions” as well as serve as a propagandist for the cause to a still powerful segment of the US population.

You can expect him to fulfill his role, science be damned.

All of this is conveniently happening prior to the big December UN sponsored climate control talks in Paris. The obvious intent is to gain some momentum from the Pope’s visit even if real science has killed most of the momentum the alarmist side had prior to the discovery of fudged numbers, model inaccuracy and questionable “science” they used to support their hypothesis.

Expect Obama to ignore the evidence as well, and to embrace the Pope’s presentation as the “real deal”.

Who says the US can’t do propaganda?


All lives matter … except to the media

Unfortunately, the broader point expressed below is dead on right:

Who gets believed, in our age of ever-present media, is who talks the loudest. Donald Trump, for example.

Then there’s the Black Lives Matter movement, with its clamorous dedication to the idea that white racism is behind the killing of black men around the country, nothing else — not circumstance, not misjudgment, not fear — just out-and-out racism, end of discussion, period, shut up.

And so, because they interrupt Democratic party candidate rallies and shout down speakers, they’re suddenly “believed” to be a potent and credible group.

But they’re not. They’re just loud.  And rude. Kanye West rude.  They may represent a good portion of the black population, at least in some form or fashion (i.e. the general belief that, in fact, black lives do matter), but any group that chants,  “Pigs in a blanket! Fry ’em like bacon” pointed at the police isn’t about saving black lives.  And the various factions which have taken leadership in this group have made that very clear its not really about black lives.  One even challenged blacks to kill a white, take a picture and send it to them. Yeah, that’ll ensure black lives matter won’t it?  A couple of days later, an officer is gunned down in cold blood refilling his patrol car by a cowardly murderer who happens to be black.

And if you say “all lives matter”?  Well, this vocal minority will boo you and try to shut you down.

There’s a larger point here though:

The media, which lean overwhelmingly left, and the political fraternity, with its own leftist component, don’t fool around much with narratives that contradict left-wing (aka “progressive”) essentials. Among these essentials: the conviction that American whites, having racked up a record of racial oppression, are due for a comeuppance. On such terms, a dead white cop, shot by an inner-city (or in the Harris County case, a suburban) black man isn’t half so interesting a story as an inner-city black man shot by a white cop.

That’s right, the media and the narrative they unwaveringly carry and push has culpability in the violence and unrest we suffer today.  It also has culpability in setting race relations back 30 years in favor of this false narrative.  Advocacy journalism has now replaced fact and research based journalism, much to everyone’s detriment.

The narrative and support of the narrative helps paper over the real problems and shift the blame on the less favored:

Excluding racism as a grievance causes you to fall back on more embarrassing factors: e.g., the country’s moral/cultural climate, wherein Doing Whatever You Feel Like Doing is the normal expectation; when “guilt” for the past can be made to compensate emotionally for present-day failures and shortcomings; when government remedies (gun control, more spending, etc.) can be represented as more urgent than any morally reparative work likely to come out of home or school or church.

It becomes more important, on these paltry terms, to haul away a statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis from the University of Texas main mall (as happened over the weekend of the Minnesota fair demonstrations and the Harris County execution) than, say, to pray for human reconciliation on terms profounder than modern academic leaders are likely to understand or commend.

And we suffer because of it.

This is what decades of progressivism have wrought.  A morally rudderless nation, becoming less and less free and led by incompetent politicians who kowtow to vulgar and racist tribes by trying to make common cause with them … for their “votes”.

What a world we live in.


Equally Clueless

Yesterday it coalesced for me that the pundits and loyal party members of both the Republican and Democratic parties are completely clueless about what’s happening in the world outside of the Beltway or their echo chamber living accommodations.

For the Democrats there’s this piece in the New York Times.  The authors have queried numerous high level Democratic leaders and mouthpieces across the country and they’ve all concluded that the biggest problem Hillary Clinton is facing isn’t that she broke the law or jeopardized national security with her mail server antics, it’s that she just hasn’t handled it well when explaining so everyone shrugs, says “what difference at this point does it make” on her behalf and lets her get on with her ascension to the Presidency of Clinton II as foretold in prophecy.

If any of them think she’s actually committed a crime it’s not very evident.   No, the problem is she hasn’t said the words that will make everyone understand why it was okay for her to have her own server and personal email system (she gave herself permission) and why all that stuff about various levels of national security law being broken is irrelevant or worse yet invented by the Republicans to tarnish her glorious achievements as First Cuckquean, Senator and Secretary of State.  You may pick some other reason as long as it won’t result in criminal prosecutions, can be explained with a few rounds of “mea culpa now let’s move on”, and will result in her accepting the nomination for her party and her ultimate swearing in as President.

Surely you understand the worst thing she’s done is she’s joked about it!  Although no laws were broken she should still take it seriously, probably because the slugs they think they’re dealing with as voters want her to take it seriously even if it’s not serious. Granted it’s just a Vast Right Wing conspiracy manifesting itself (again) as a Republican attack on her candidacy but she still mustn’t make bad jokes over it.  Instead she might consider saying “I’m sorry”. That would make it all better and it would get the press off her case and soothe their fears that Joe Biden might be their candidate in 2016.

Then read the comments section of the article where further hilarity will ensue, you might go read many lead articles in nationally syndicate media outlets as well.  The excuse making and denial is epic.  National security concerns are; contrived, overstated, inappropriate, really not necessary, or all in all clearly exaggerated.  Perhaps some minor law was broken by some unnamed unknown non-entity who is, you can be sure, not Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Come on America! Any good Democrat can tell you unless you’re part of the G.W. Bush White House and your name is Lewis “Scooter” Libby classified data isn’t a reason to start some crazy witch hunt to find out who knew what when and did what with secret information!   Valerie Plame’s secret identity, now that’s some TS/SCI classification stuff!  On the other hand Satellite intelligence that would demonstrate we can read this article from space as I write it on my monitor in Texas, through the window behind me and over my shoulder not so much.   Come on….how is that a secret! Sheesh! (I exaggerate…..maybe).

For those of us who at least have a passing understanding of security clearances, I think we have all acknowledge regrettably the woman is unlikely to see jail time over this, because “Clinton”.  But the idea that if she just says she’s sorry she can go on with her Presidential bid is a bit much.    The reason she didn’t deal with it sooner is because she knew she broke the law and she never expected to be called on it. Who exactly was going to call her out? Obama Justice, State or FBI?   While she was breaking the law the House and Senate were busy crafting and frog marching ObamaCare through the halls of Congress.  Like Nan and Harry were going to allow us to peek into Hillary’s doings or dare to do it themselves.

But the wheel has turned.

The Dems need to find another candidate because this one is once again fork tender.


One the Republican side it’s all Trump, all the time.

The latest mosquito boat tactic the GOP mouthpieces have formulated is essentially “if you support Donald Trump, you’re a racist” and the implication from the linked article here is Trump supporters are looking forward to shooting some brown people too, I’m just sayin.  They remind us Trump is a racist because only a racist would want to deport people who are here illegally.  Only a racist would consider deporting children of these same people after they’re born on American soil, so by extension only a racist would support him. Got that all you racists?

Never mind that racist thing is merely the reverse of the Democratic strategy that’s kept Barack Obama in the White House for two consecutive terms.   Hey, it probably worked.

The 14th is cited as automatically granting birth location citizenship.  None of these people want to discuss the perfection in contradiction then offered in explaining why Congress felt it had to pass an Act in 1924 to grant the birth location right to American Indians though the 14th Amendment passed in 1868.   The 14th was extent for 56 years yet Congress went and addressed the issue again specifically in 1924 because? Yeah, go figure, Native Americans had to have a special act because they weren’t considered citizens although physically born in the US, which, sans Congressional act, sounds exactly like any child of people who sneak in illegally yesterday and are born here today.

Robert Tracinski wants you to know if you’re supporting Trump it’s likely you’re not only a racist, but you’re probably a moron and did I say ‘fanatic’, well yes, you’re possibly a fanatic.

George Will, I think, has given up trying to scare you with the Ronald Reagan Democratic talking points from 1979 (NUKES!!!!! HE’LL KILL US ALL!!!!) and joins in to remind us that (racist) white voters need to get some color mix in their party voting plan to get a President elected and that’s why Trump the Racist isn’t a good choice.

Sometimes mentioned is that many people who might vote for Trump aren’t really ‘in kids’ who vote in most elections and the implication is you probably don’t want to hang around with those kids do you?

Other writers, less interested in trying to tell you you’re a white racist b*****d (but probably still a US Citizen) and more interested in appealing to your rational side point out Trump is; hardly conservative, blindingly undiplomatic, rather bullying, and generally has the personality one associates with a circus ring master.

Not sure I’m a ‘writer’ but I’m in that group, and yet I’m not trying to dissuade you from any Trumpish feeling you possess because, well, read on.

The last one I will mention is Mark Salter, who I think accurately describes Trump as a narcissist and demands to know what your excuse is for supporting him.

“What the hell is wrong with you?” he asks.

I want it noted for the record that Mr. Salter worked for John McCain as a senior advisor on his Presidential campaign – I do that so I can laugh about winning campaign strategists as well as making it clear I believe Mr. Salter, who I have absolutely no personal acquaintance with, is a ruling class GOP Gentry hack.

I also chose Mr. Salter for last because he’s almost got a clue about why you might be, at this time, cheering for Trump, even if you’re not actually supporting the man.

“Politicians and pundits are making excuses for you. They say you’re so sick of bad government and polarized politics that you’re willing to take a chance on making Donald Trump the most powerful man on Earth.

My emphasis there – see, he does sort of understand.   Part of bad government I think is being lied to by your leaders. I think we’re sick of being lied to by our elite elected servant-masters in addition to being sick of our ever expanding, and often badly managed, government. And I personally find being lied to by ‘real’ Republicans more sickening than being lied to by Democrats. So he almost gets it.

For Mr. Salter and the other clueless Ruling Party hacks, leaders and mouthpieces I’ll demonstrate with a single word why Trump gets cheered on by otherwise rational conservative voters. Nota bene, we don’t appreciate being lied to and then being called racist moron fanatics.

We already get that from the Democratic Party, thanks.

I submit for your consideration Speaker of the House of Representatives and squishy GOP leader, Ruling Class business as usual John Boehner, and his view of conservative Presidential candidate Ted Cruz.


Yes, Orange John prefers Senators like Mitch McConnell and John McCain and they’d all really rather you prefer Jeb Bush, or if not Jeb then maybe Marco Rubio, who it appears can be controlled.  Both candidates have spoken in favor of the forms of Scamnesty that Trump is actively campaigning against.   Jeb doesn’t think the country that built the Panama Canal can handle building a wall across its southern border if it wants to.    And they’re all convinced since we can’t possibly deport 11 million people ALL at once in one afternoon in time for supper, we mustn’t bother discussing, let alone trying, anything of that nature at all.

They can’t see their get along, go along, bought and paid for by big money special interest plans of riding the big government train to socialist third world hell is what inspires a considerable portion of Donald Trump’s support.

So to help the clueless GOP Ruling class campaigners I leave this tweet from “Empire of Jeff” to explain where a lot of Trump’s conservative support probably comes from.


“You “conservative” “pundits” still don’t get it: Trump isn’t our candidate. He’s our murder weapon. And the GOP is our victim. “

White House politicizes a tragedy … again

Can’t take a break from ideology and politics to simply comment on a tragedy.  The newswoman and cameraman who were shot and killed on a live TV feed this morning were apparently the perfect fodder for the White House’s anti-gun campaign:

The White House on Wednesday redoubled its call for tougher gun laws in the wake of a shooting that killed two television journalists in Virginia.
“This is another example of gun violence that is becoming all too common in communities large and small all across the United States,” Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Wednesday.
Earnest said there are “common sense” steps Congress can take to reduce gun violence in America without infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
Well, as Charles C. Cooke points out, this is simply wrong. I.e. the facts (you know, those pesky little things) don’t support the implication.  For instance:
National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences by decade: Violence plunged through the 1990s, but has declined less dramatically since 2000.
Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

The facts simply don’t support the statement that this is becoming “all too common” anywhere.  In fact, they say the opposite.  It’s becoming less common.

Don’t forget, the Charleston SC mass murderer was given a government OK to buy a gun even though we found out the background check was faulty. That’s one of those common sense steps that we entrusted to the government and guess what failed?

Cooke frames their argument in the only way that makes any (common) sense and then takes it apart:

If there is an argument to be made, it’s that America has too many gun-related deaths in absolute numbers, and that this drop does not make up for that. Personally, I don’t know what people who say this really mean. As always, we start from where we are, and we are going in the right direction. That’s good, especially given that the positive changes have come at the same time as the laws have been liberalized and the number of guns increased vastly. Either way, though, it is simply not true that there is an “epidemic” or a “surge” or that shootings are becoming “more common.” It’s not even true that mass shootings are up.

In absolute numbers, the people dying in car crashes every day is too high, but you don’t see anyone pushing for the abolishment of cars. Unlike guns, they hold the drunk or reckless or incompetent driver at fault.

But in the era of postmodernism, “facts” are passe.  Now it’s all about the narrative, and the White House has again pushed the narrative forward over the still warm bodies in Roanoke.

Never let a crisis (or apparently a tragedy) go to waste, huh?


Is Trump worse than that?

Donald Trump – wow, how did we get here?    How do we get to the point where Donald Trump is polling as a serious candidate for President of the United States?

Right out of the gate, “The Donald” would not have been my first choice for a Presidential candidate, or second choice, or, wait, my choice ever. I question his commitments to conservative values, I question his loyalty to smaller government, there’s a whole list of things about him I question, including being a Republican (not that that means much these days anyway). He’s a flamboyant showman. Once I would have ruled him out completely, utterly, as nothing more than a modern P.T. Barnum putting on a show.

Well, that was up until 2015 and my watching Washingtonian showmen for about 50 years. Now he’s certainly starting to sound sensible when he talks about national topics the squishes in the GOP Gentry have been completely talking around, or just plain lying about.

I stood at the sink this morning cleaning the scrambled egg bits out of the cast iron fry pan and it hit me – why the hell not? For a while now I’ve been thinking the whole sordid kleptocratic oligarchy needed to be brought down like the Hindenburg, so why not give Trump a shot at it. The usual critics on both sides have been yelling about how he’s everything I said above and more, implying, sometimes openly saying, only emotional, angry, STUPID, dangerous, low information voters will support him.

I mean, he could…what? Then it hit me. WHAT?????? What was he going to do that was worse than what I already have? – and worse yet, some of which I helped create in voting for people who think they can lie to me every day and I won’t notice.

Could he do a worse job than Barack Hussein Obama has done? Could he be hated by the world and the Democrats more than George W. Bush? Would he be more likely to pocket cash and grant favors and have Oval office sex (not with each other you understand) than Bill and Hillary Clinton? Could he in fact run a more corrupt/lawless government than the one we have at the moment?

Pause for a second.

Ask yourself, is he a bigger joke than the current Democratic candidates? A former governor no one knows or talks about? An avowed Socialist. Or the leader of ‘em all, a woman whose sole accomplishment is notoriety derived from being married to the former Philanderer in Chief of the United States. A woman who shrugs like a 10 year old and pretends the whole secret and secure Secretary of State server/government documents thing is beneath her or too much trouble or too complicated or too inconvenient or just too confusing for her widdle brainy brain. And that’s not even starting on the plethora of pay for play glad-handing arrangements her ‘charity’ is probably involved in and also manages to completely ignore the scandals from a time when her job description was chief cuckquean of Little Rock Arkansas and Washington DC. Exactly what was it again that qualified her to be a US Senator or a Secretary of State aside from her last name?

Has Trump less real world experience than the Marxist constitutional scholar who has worked diligently and consistently over his two terms to degrade the standing of the United States in the world while he invents new Presidential powers? A guy who’s busy using his EPA to screw up something as intrinsic as our electrical grid and our coal production and stops us from achieving full energy independence from the Middle East. The President whose prior positions were largely achieved thru hatchet jobs on his competitors and whose chief qualifications seem to be an affection for golf and the ability to read a teleprompter and speak at the same time without falling over. Do you think Trump is going to go out and disrespect our allies and long standing international friends? Will he appoint tax cheats to head Treasury? Maybe run guns to Mexico? Create the most opaquely transparent administration EVER? Is he going to tell NASA their new job is making casino owners feel better about themselves and their contributions to space travel? Insert himself into local incidents where people with comb overs are involved in altercations with the police?

Think about it! The current President is going to be a tough act to follow! From Lois “the logjam” Lerner in the IRS holding up 501c Non-profit designations, through the alphabet soup Obama government agency thugs to Eric “the Enforcer” Holder in the Justice Department, what would Trump do that was worse? Is Trump going to strong arm us into another National Health Care plan? Screw up the implementation, move the goalposts on it and lie about how well it’s going? Is he going to sign a nuclear treaty with Iran, chief Islamic terrorist enabler in the Middle East? Will he agree to let them inspect their own weapon sites to see if they’ve been working on proscribed weapons? Will he lead from behind in deposing weak foreign governments to curry favor with Islamic fundamentalists?

Is Trump worse than that?

How about the pseudo conservative side then –

Is Trump going to campaign on and then betray conservative values any more so than the 2014 Republican Congress has? Is he likely to be worse than the many RINO clowns in the Republican controlled House and Senate? The guys who said they were going to rein in government, rein in spending, rein in the imperial pen and phone Presidency, if only we’d elect them. Remember they were going to FIX immigration? They were going to dismantle Obamacare? The guys who in fact had hardly convened the new year in Congress before they started acting like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi? John Boehner, Mitch McConnell? King of the WackoBird Hobbits John McCain?

Is Trump going to, as George Will seems to fret over, single handedly launch nukes at the first country that comments disrespectfully about his comb over? As an aside, does super intelligent George Will really understand how the whole nuclear arsenal checks and balances thing works or is he just confused about Presidential powers these days because no one puts a stop to Preznit Precious when he starts using his pen?

Is Trump going to lead a party that will sabotage its conservative wing with underhanded politics and throw its support to its opponents rather than see an honestly or even pseudo-honestly conservative candidate get the job, will he actively try and break the back of genuinely conservative voting efforts and ‘crush’ their candidates so he can ensure the jobs go to squishy GOP gentry office holders.

Will Trump grant amnesty to millions of people who broke our laws because enforcing those laws is toooo haaaaarrrrdddd and the New York Times columnists, reporters and editorial staff will say Republicans are mean!? Will Trump NOT build the wall that 40 years of previous administrations promised they’d build? Will Trump NOT enforce the laws? Or will he just selectively enforce the laws, as we do now, making sure to punish people who piss him off while rewarding his cronies? Is Trump going to use his position to increase his wealth like the insider traders in the House and the Senate and the former Secretary of State? Will Trump allow himself to be bought by the cool megarich?

Is Trump worse than that?


How about the man on the street –

Is Trump more ignorant than the people who twice elected the current disaster? The people who bought into ‘hope and change’ as if they were tangibles and without any evidence apart from an Olympian Temple stage set? Does Trump know less about the economy than an army of government appointees and workers that lie about unemployment every quarter and seem actively engaged in keeping us locked in a recession they pretend we’ve been out of for years? Is Trump less wise than pundits and people who think Hillary is a good candidate, who think Barack Obama has no scandals, who believe we can trust Iran, who think unemployment really IS only 5.3% and that the economy is beginning to surge?

What about the Republican Presidential candidate circus?

If you are hoping for Scott Walker, or Ted Cruz, about the only 2 Republican candidates who I might trust in this crop, forget it. The GOP Gentry have been bought and paid for. They have a donor empire to protect even if it means opening the borders to everyone in Central and South America and spending every last dime in your pockets and your kid’s pockets on ever larger versions of ‘small’ government. By many indications Walker and Cruz are likely to try and do some of the really conservative things they claim they want to do. That isn’t going to be permitted.


So if it’s not Walker, or Cruz, and the GOP Gentry will do its damnedest to make sure it’s not… who will it be?

Carson? Drone strikes on our border? And George Will thinks Trump is dangerous?

Immigration flip flop Rubio?

“Act of love” Jeb Bush?

“Skinny dip” Biden?

Hillary Clinton?

Is Trump worse than that?

1 2 3 84