Monday, October 12, 2015

Why Socialism is Chic, and Capitalism Sucks (ICYMI)

Socialism is chic in 2015.   But, just a few short years ago, Obama voters would mock and charge racism when anyone likened his ideology to socialism.  Now, Bernie Sanders, an openly socialist candidate, is leading in some key polls of those very same voters!

Why is this happening in a country which enjoys the highest standard of living of any large diverse country, and one which uniquely earned it's place due to its historic reliance on free markets and constitutionally limited government?  Part of this is a triumph of deliberate indoctrination which has been going on for at least half a century.  Another part, and the most recent part, is a deliberate deception regarding the financial crisis of 2008.

Pop quiz:   
  1. Who is the father of modern socialism/communism?  
  2. Who is the father of modern capitalism? 
Odds are you will be able to answer the first question correctly, and can name Karl Marx as the father of modern socialism/communism.  You probably can do a decent job of explaining Marxism without even looking it up on Wikipedia.  You may even be familiar with the Marxist slogan, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Conversely, if you are asked who the father of modern capitalism is, odds are you'd either draw a blank or be mostly wrong.

You may not realize it, but socialists have been influencing you your whole life. Prior to the 1960's there were prohibitions on government workers joining organized labor.  That's because there was an obvious conflict of interest; organized labor and socialism have been synonymous throughout U.S. history. But that changed in the 1960's under Democrat John F. Kennedy, and since then, government workers, including school teachers, have flooded into organized labor.   Most likely every teacher who taught you in a U.S. public school was a member of organized labor.  Of course, not all teachers nor members of organized labor are socialists, but the politics of organized labor in the U.S. leans undeniably in that direction. 

So how did you answer the second question?  In one sense the answer to that one is again... Karl Marx.  Yes, Karl Marx is both the father of modern socialism AND the father of modern capitalism. Karl Marx was the person who defined capitalism for the masses in his scathing critique of 1860s capitalism, called "Das Kapital".  He constructed a convenient dichotomy between socialism and capitalism based on his own definitions to support his theories .  Of course Marx's preferred ideology, socialism, was defined in the most glowing light, while capitalism was defined in the most sinister.

Many scholars credit a Scotsman named Adam Smith as the person whose ideas most influenced our economic system.  Adam Smith’s book, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”, was actually published in 1776.  (That date rings a bell, no?)  But the word capitalism didn't exist in Adam Smith’s day.  He never used it.  We mistakenly call our economic system capitalism because that's what Marx and the critics called it.  The name unfortunately stuck. 

If everyone knows what Marxism is, why doesn't everyone know what Smithism is?  Because it’s not taught.  "Smithism" never became a word.  Marxism is taught everywhere all the time.  If you want to learn about Adam Smith, you most likely have to do it on your own.  You can go through K-12 and well beyond in schools in the U.S., and never hear the name Adam Smith, never learn about his ideas, and never understand the influence those ideas had on the founding of our country.  If you go to Wikipedia and look up Marxism, you’ll find plenty.  If you go to Wikipedia and look up Smithism, you’ll get crickets. 

How about a more modern term, like Supply Side Economics?  You are probably familiar with that term, but can you accurately define it?  Can you define its opposite, Demand Side Economics?

·         Supply side economics is the theory that people will SUPPLY (create) more value if they are free to function in a free market and pursue happiness.
·         Demand side economics is the theory that people will DEMAND (consume) more value if wealth is taken from suppliers and redistributed to demanders.  

These are opposite approaches for achieving different economic goals.  Supply Side seeks to optimize overall economic vitality (Smithism).  Demand Side at times seeks to stimulate consumption (Keynesianism), or at times to achieve egalitarianism (Marxism).

If you look up supply side economics on Wikipedia, you’ll find a thorough entry along with plenty of criticisms.  If you look up demand side economics, you’ll get zip.  The language in this case does not favor the socialist demand side ideology.   Hence, it is not even defined.

No event has had a more profound impact on this country's recent tilt towards socialism than the financial crisis of 2008.  It is said that history is written by the victors.  That has never been more true than in the wake of the financial crisis.  Democrats controlled the government commission that wrote the post-mortem.  Barack Obama won the presidency.  Democrats had both houses of congress.  And liberals made the movies and wrote the books explaining the crisis to the masses. Unfortunately, everything they told you was a deliberate deception designed to exonerate socialism, and scapegoat capitalism.   

The fact is the financial crisis of 2008 was a perfect demonstration of the failures of socialism. Redistribution of wealth, in this case redistribution of mortgage credit, was at the heart of the financial crisis.  At times, the support for this redistribution was bi-partisan, but the ideology behind it was socialist regardless of who was advocating.

It all began with the affordable housing goals promoted by Democrats in the early 1990s, which lowered mortgage requirements.  It accelerated in the mid 1990s under Democrat Bill Clinton with further loosening of mortgage standards, pressure on banks to write loose loans, and mandates for government backed companies FNMA (Fannie Mae) and FHLMC (Freddie Mac) to buy all the new mortgages.  It finally reached it’s apex in 2007 under Republican George W. Bush, while Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, ran both houses of congress.

All the risk from this socialist redistribution was supposed to be assumed by the federal government in the form of the afore mentioned government backed companies.  Fannie and Freddie were ground zero for the financial crisis.  No government official took more money from these two companies, and at a faster rate, than the junior Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama.  His closest competitors in that money grab included Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Hillary Clinton.  If this is news to you,  it's because they wrote the history.

What they told you was that it was a perfect storm involving greedy bankers, deregulation, and the natural flaws of capitalism.  It was a plausible argument designed to deceive.  Bankers today are no greedier than their banking forebears.  So why did they suddenly engage in subprime lending for the first time in history in such large numbers? Because they were coerced to do so by their government.

Deregulation also had nothing to do with it.  Canadian banks are lightly regulated compared to their U.S. counterparts, and none of them failed.  Are U.S. bankers so much greedier than their Canadian counterparts that they drove their banks into insolvency while their less regulated neighbors to the north did not?  No, it was U.S. government regulation in the form of a socialist housing policy that caused the financial crisis.  Unfortunately, when the scheme went bad, the damage spread to the private banking and investment sector, bringing the entire global financial system to its knees.

The deceptions about this animated the Occupy Wall Street movement, got Barack Obama elected twice, and are responsible for the acceptance of openly socialist candidate Bernie Sanders today.   They are also part of the continuing campaign that has mischaracterized the mortgage market as an example of failed capitalism.

The frightening thing about this is that, if history is written by the victors, and they engage in deception, aren't we doomed to repeat it?  We are.  Fannie and Freddie own just about every new mortgage written since 2008, and the socialist policies promoting home ownership and borrowing have accelerated under Barack Obama.  We are in the process of building a second real estate bubble.

National socialism has never produced anything long term other than misery, starvation, poverty, and authoritarianism.  That's at the national level.  At the local level, socialism can and does survive longer term.  Survival of local socialism does not eliminate the incentive killing aspects of socialism, but it does avoid some of the other negative effects. That's because local governments cannot create money.  State and local governments must be more disciplined, or risk imminent collapse.  Local governments tend to be more fiscally responsible as a result.  National governments can hide their insolvency much longer, plunder future generations, devalue currencies, manipulate interest rates, and cause much bigger problems down the road.

This is an important point that deserves repeating;  socialism cannot work long term at the national level.  The national level is where money is created and controlled (Euro countries being a recent exception).  The conflict of interest is just too great for elected officials.  National politicians will eventually destroy the currency, borrow too heavily, undermine the work ethic, and undermine national defense in an attempt to gain power today.  It's happening here now, and it's a runaway train. We have doubled our national debt in just the last seven years.  Interest rates have been artificially held near zero for that entire time.  If and when rates normalize to historical levels, the debt service alone will cause the kind of pain socialist nations have felt throughout history. We are not immune.
Meanwhile, socialism is chic in America today, and the indoctrinated masses are marching like lemmings towards the cliff.

Saturday, October 10, 2015

Why we do Redistribution all Wrong, and how to Fix It

Redistribution goes back a long time.  The first undocumented case of redistribution was back in caveman times when a particularly disciplined and skilled hunter, let's call him Grok, managed to kill more food than he and his family could immediately consume.  In stepped the tribal leaders who, realizing that others in the tribe were hungry and somewhat envious, confiscated the bulk of Grok’s food and redistributed it to the others.  Of course, in a tradition that would be forever etched in stone, the tribal leaders took a huge chunk for themselves.  Redistribution, in one form or another, has gone on unabated ever since. 

Naturally, in the wake of this redistribution, Grok decided to spend less time hunting and more time on his hobby, which was etching pictures on cave walls.  His family was soon as hungry as the rest of the tribe, and as history has shown, such is the fate of an artist’s family. 

When tribal leaders redistributed Grok’s food, they were doing more than just redistributing his wealth.  They were redistributing his power, responsibility, and rights too. Grok’s power to provide for his family's future was taken from him as was his right to his own work.  Meanwhile, the responsibility to feed others was redistributed to Grok.  Anything can be redistributed, and is in modern societies.  Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness included.  Redistribution can be any coerced transfer of wealth, power, or rights from individuals or groups, for the explicit purpose of benefiting other individuals or groups.

Neither Karl Marx, Vlad Lenin, Mao Zedong, or even Barack Obama are innovators in redistribution.  They just took it to relatively new levels in their societies.  Every society, from the most democratic to the most autocratic, does some kind of redistribution.  No politician, particularly in a democracy, can afford to oppose redistribution in its entirety, even though many are philosophically opposed to coercing one person to give to another.  Blame it on the collective will.  Universally, the people allow and desire some redistribution to satisfy needs and envy within the society.

Yet, redistribution is our nemesis too.  It is the opiate of the people.  Free stuff paid for by others.  Rights granted by denying others theirs.  Costs passed to the unborn.  It has led to deficits unprecedented in human history.  It has ruined societies right in our lifetime.  It kills incentive.  It was the primary cause of our recent financial collapse, which was precipitated by a giant redistribution scheme that gave easy money to marginal homebuyers.  And yet, neither party has satisfactorily figured out exactly where to draw the line.   Both parties played roles, albeit to varying degrees, in the recent crisis.  Amidst this confusion, the default position of the voters has been:  redistribute more, and redistribute it to me!

In the US, the two political parties are not far enough apart on redistribution.   It is safe to say that one party advocates progressively more redistribution than we have at any given time, while one party advocates less.  But, that puts them both firmly in the redistribution camp, only with varying degrees.  This results in an arbitrary and nebulous difference between the parties.  Hence, the claim by some that there’s not a “dimes worth of difference.”  As one party just found out, this can result in voter apathy.  History has proven it also leads to runaway deficits regardless of which party resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

What I propose is a policy that will create a bold distinction for politicians, win elections for them, and insure that redistribution is done responsibly, all the while acknowledging the undeniable human instinct to redistribute.  This can be done by opposing all redistribution at the federal level, and at the same time recognizing that redistribution is essential at the state level.  This is not a contradiction.  In fact, the Founders showed us how.  The problem is not redistribution per se.  The problem is only federal redistribution.  State and local governments must be free to redistribute as they please. 

But states are not able to print money, and thus market signals will ensure redistribution is done with discipline.  This is essentially what the constitution prescribes.  By articulating this distinction, responsible politicians can both side with voters, who want redistribution, and be 180 degrees opposed to the irresponsible redistributors who want to continue doing it the unsustainable way we have been doing it.

I believe separating redistribution from the federal sphere is the system we were given in 1789.  For one, the constitution limits the power of the federal government to a few things and redistribution is not one of them.  For two, one of the things the constitution does grant to the federal government is the power to create, borrow, and manage money.  Redistribution combined with the power to control money is a formula for disaster.  This sets up a massive conflict of interest for politicians who can use redistribution to endlessly buy votes with borrowed and printed money.

Politicians who run nationally and vow to redistribute less are seen as party-poopers who want to remove the punch bowl.  The austerity approach has been, and will continue to be, a losing one.  Nor has it been an effective one at stopping the problem.  Fiscal conservatives (few though they are) have only been able to slow the acceleration of the fiscal train wreck, but the train has continued to accelerate.  I don’t see voters voluntarily removing the punch bowl either. They like the punch.  It makes them feel good.   They are not going to stop drinking because they have been shielded from the hangover.

I have heard the argument that the constitution twice mentions the term “general welfare” and thus the founders wanted the federal government to be the provider of “welfare”, or redistribution.  This is a canard.  Both mentions of “general welfare” in the constitution refer to the federal government, not to “the people”.  Thus the phrase is not about redistribution, but rather about having roofs over government buildings, paying government workers salaries, arming soldiers, providing adequate courthouses, and the like.  It is about running the government properly and seeing to its general welfare.  General welfare was never intended to mean satisfying the needs of individuals in society.

The constitution however, does enumerate the powers of printing, borrowing, and managing money to the federal government.  As the world’s current lone superpower and issuer of the world’s main reserve currency, we are in a unique position to print and borrow money at little or no present cost.  But that’s just how it appears in the present.  As Milton Friedman was fond of saying, “There is no such thing as a free lunch”.  Someday, the real cost of borrowing $20 trillion and printing trillions more will rear its ugly head. 

What have we done with all those trillions?  We used it to redistribute wealth from future individuals to present ones, with the express purpose of obtaining votes in the present.  This is the “fatal deceit”, to paraphrase a term, of our deadly mixture of federal redistribution and federal borrowing and money printing.  We must separate these functions and eliminate the conflict of interest if we hope to have a sustainable future.

No, we did not spend 20 trillion dollars on “unfunded wars”.  No war in history was ever fought without being financed.  In other words, no wars are “funded” with current receipts.  Our debt and printing issues are the demographic result of the above conflict of interest.   Politicians can only boost revenues temporarily to keep up with our runaway redistribution.  But revenues always fall back to the average of 18% of GDP while the redistribution climbs ever upward.  Even in the 90s, when many people claim the budget was balanced, unfunded liabilities were never included and it was in the 90s when the seeds were sown for the recent financial crisis.  The high revenues in the 90s were short-lived and based on bubbles in technology, housing, and lowering of the capital gains rate.    

Why is it that the party of less redistribution is more successful at the state level (they currently hold 30 out of 50 governorships and 27 legislatures to the other party’s 17), yet they have struggled at the national level?   I would argue the key difference is the seemingly unlimited ability of the federal government to print and borrow money and thus obscure the true costs of its redistribution.  States must function in the real world of finance where choices have consequences and redistribution must be paid for.

One argument would be, “Well, what about California, Illinois, and New York, etc.?  States aren’t so good when it comes to managing their own finances!  Why should we have them run all the redistribution programs too?”  To that I would say, yes some states are a mess, but others are in good shape.  It’s about 33% bad and 67% good for states.  The federal government is a 100% mess!  The states are way better overall, and the ones in trouble are about to have to reckon with their spending because they are bleeding population, businesses, high earners, and cash.  The market is giving them signals, signals that do not exist at the federal level. 

One reason a third of the states are a mess is that they currently have a limited stake in managing their own redistribution.  That’s because, although states manage many of their own redistribution programs, one third of the money comes from the federal government.  The incentive for state politicians is to be as generous as possible, kiss up to the federal government, and tap federal taxpayers somewhere else to pay for their largesse.  But there are limits, which is why a majority of states get it right.  Every state has some form of balanced budget law except tiny Vermont, which is small enough to have a bake sale to make-up any shortfall!

Look at the European example:  The Euro has only been in existence for 12 years, yet thanks to the inability of the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain) and Cyprus to revert to the printing press, market signals have exposed their bad habits.  Discipline is sweeping the Euro zone, not without some pain, but the result should be a sustainable future.  We in the US currently have no such market signals warning us of our trajectory. 

Again, I’m only talking about eliminating federal redistribution.  Politicians at the national level should not oppose redistribution at the state or local level.  They should be consistent with the constitution and the constitution leaves this up to the states and the people.  Societies want a safety net.  That much is axiomatic.  Voters want a certain amount of welfare, food stamps, subsidized healthcare, free contraception, subsidized mortgages, etc.  Politicians at the national level must defer to the states and support the will of the people.   States and individuals must decide the proper level of welfare and redistribution they desire.  But this can be done much better by the states, with correct feedback signals, than it can at the federal level without them.  State taxpayers will have to make the hard choices and decide the proper level of the safety net they are willing to fund.  No magic money involved.  They also will be in a better position to eliminate fraud and abuse.  (Did you know that the states administer Medicaid, but the money comes from the federal government?  Neither party has an interest in stopping Medicaid fraud: the state because it costs them nothing, and the Feds because it’s not theirs to administer!)

Of course, taking this stand will require transitional details.  How do we turn Social Security, Medicare, ObamaCare, and Medicaid, over to the states?  In fact, any federally coerced transfer from individuals for the explicit purpose of benefiting other individuals would have to be turned over to the states along with the revenue stream which funds it. Federal taxes and spending would go way down, while state taxes and spending would go up by a commensurate amount.

We would also need to address the backdoor redistribution schemes.  This is the type that got us into the financial crisis in 2008.  The federal government mandated that banks lend money to anyone, regardless of ability to make payments.  My Labradoodle could have gotten a mortgage.  Then the feds bought up many of the bad mortgages through government-sponsored creations like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (FNMA & FHMLC).  No one's taxes went up.  No wealth was redistributed initially. It was all done through the backdoor in the form of a "redistribution of risk".  All of the explicit redistribution, as well as this backdoor type must go to the states.  

The actual details of the transition are beyond the scope of this proposal.  I’m proposing this as a policy stance for politicians and voters who agree that:  a) Our current debt path is unsustainable. b) Austerity is not a politically viable solution. c) The root cause of our unsustainable path is a conflict of interest. d) The conflict is the result of redistribution combined with our ability to print and borrow money with little or no present cost. e) Voters and most politicians have little incentive to fix this because it benefits them. f) There is, however, a passionate group of politicians and voters who want to fix this. g) The above proposal is a viable strategy to fix it.  Those that agree and know the system best can work out the details.

By standing against all federal redistribution, and simultaneously standing for the rights of states to redistribute as they choose, politicians can draw a clear ideological contrast with their opponents and still be aligned with voters. The only reason politicians will oppose this is because it will interfere with their ability to buy votes.  Smart politicians will smoke them out, and put us on a sustainable fiscal course.  

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Oregon Shooting Coverup?

The Oregon shooting is looking more and more like a terrorist attack.  Consider the following:

Meanwhile, the federal government has taken down all social media relating to the Oregon shooting, and Obama and the Democrats want everyone to focus on...  guns.  

This looks an awful lot like a diversion.

(UPDATE: Sacramento officials are all over the airwaves declaring no terrorism in the stabbing of Spencer Stone.  Similarly, federal officials are denying any terrorism in the Oregon shooting.  I am not a conspiracy guy, but I have developed a healthy skepticism when confronted with strange coincidences and government denials.  "Workplace violence", anyone?

This is especially curious in light of the recent revelations that another Democrat administration, that of Bill Clinton's, covered-up Iranian involvement in the 1996 Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen.   Bill Clinton was successful in hiding this information from the American people for twenty years!

UPDATE2: Stone may have been protecting a woman from attack.  So maybe a coincidence after all?)      

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Ted Cruz is Awesome! VI

Just watch the whole thing... (This is number six in a series.  Search for "Ted Cruz" on this site for the others...)

I would also note that our planet has been warming and glaciers melting since the last ice age 15,000 years ago.  Our sun varies in output according to certain vague and unknown timed cycles.  About 99% of the energy absorbed by our biosphere comes from the sun.   Our solar system circumnavigates our galaxy once every 250 million years.  We know very little about the climatic effects of any of this.  Period.  The science is largely unknown at this time.  Run from anyone who tells you otherwise.

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Oregon, Guns, and Obama

The Oregon massacre was bad enough.  Barack Obama made it even worse.  Before anything was known about the event, he got in front of the cameras to politicize the tragedy and blame it on the tool used by the killer.  That would be like blaming the holocaust on gas chambers, 9/11 on box cutters, and ISIS on scimitars.

There is a "first law of Obama", much like there is a first law of physics:  "for every negative event, there is a politically convenient scapegoat to attack, which is designed to rally the liberal base but solve nothing. " For Oregon it's guns.

Not only did Obama attack guns as the culprit, he also attacked the country he leads as being the only developed country that experiences such events.  He must not consider England, France, Norway, Switzerland, Russia, Finland, Germany, or Canada developed.

He may really believe our legal right to own guns makes us more violent.  He seems blissfully unaware that we've always had guns, but we didn't always have this kind of violence.  He's also blissfully unaware that some of the highest homicide rates, 1000% higher than ours, are in Central American countries that have no 2nd amendment and very few guns.  Countries like Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, and Mexico are some of the most violent in the world.   Good thing Obama is not importing illegals from these countries.  Oh wait, that's exactly what he's doing!

Look, I could talk about how Obama's disregard for life (ie: late term abortions) has contributed to a cheapening of the value of life and led to more violence, but that would be theoretical.   What's not theoretical is that in Obama's first term, he and the Democrats had filibuster proof control of the entire government. They could have passed a total ban on guns if they wanted to.  They did not, because even most Democrats know guns are not the problem.

The fact is we have some violent and insane people in our country, and their violence will not magically disappear if guns magically do.  Ironically, the best way to minimize gun violence is to deregulate them.  It is not a coincidence that killers like the Charleston guy, the Batman guy, the military base guys, and the school guys, all sought out gun-free zones to accomplish their evil.    

Obama knows this, but sees a political opportunity.  The damage that this cynical, petulant, arrogant, and divisive man is inflicting on our nation proceeds apace.

(This piece is a re-post of what I wrote after the Charleston shooting.  I basically just changed the place-name to Oregon.)

Monday, October 5, 2015

The Star Wars Solution to Gun Violence

A liberal friend posed this question on Facebook.  Of course, I took the bait:

Ok, I have a question. I’m going to put this out to republican legislators, and republicans in general. Let’s imagine for a brief second that you all have the power to enact and enforce laws to make our country a better place. Oh wait - you already have that power.  Ok, let’s just suppose you’re willing to use it – for actually improving the quality of life in this country? That is the goal, correct?  My question is: What would you suggest is a possible solution to this current crisis of mass shootings? They’re not just killing children of liberal families. Surely, you must agree that this affects us all? So, what do you suggest we do about it? We all can hear very clearly the objections to virtually any sliver of a mention of gun control, or regulation. We get that having an unfettered right to a gun, to any gun, is way more important to you than any reduction in senseless deaths.  So, come up with another solution. Anything. We would love to hear how you all would solve this. You blame mental illness? Well, what would you do about that? What mental health initiatives are you willing to pay for? When can we start?  I’m not even being rhetorical. I’m serious. What will you all do about this, other than to get in the way of fixing it? 

My response:

Can't speak for Republicans, but I am familiar with the libertarian (small "l") solutions for this. Let me start by saying, "Long ago in a galaxy far far away..." Wait, before I get to that, some of your premises need correcting: Republicans cannot make laws. They would need 61 votes in the Senate which they've never had in modern times. Democrats however, did have that for Obama's first two years and they Also, you are right, gun violence doesn't care which party you vote for, but the vast majority of gun violence is in Democrat cities. (Chicago, New York, Detroit, it's all the same street... add Baltimore, Nawlins, DC, etc.) OK, back to Star Wars: Think of Darth Vader as the guy who brings a big gun into a movie theatre intending to take out as many innocents as possible. Who stops him? Not just the cops. No, an ordinary cat with a fast car and some big guns of his own, named Han Solo, has the assist. In other words, qualified regular Joes (like that guy Mintz!) with concealed carry permits could turn a mass casualty gig into a less bigger deal. Still gonna have them though. (There will always be idiots like the "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die" type.) Libertarians would also say, every one of these incidents has an SSRI component, so prosecute any doctor as an accomplice who prescribes SSRIs, or any mind altering drug, to a guy with an arsenal and a penchant for first-person-shooter games (Another correlation). Also, libertarians would say if you have private property and want a gun free zone, fine, but public spaces should never be gun free. 

UPDATE:  Obama and Democrat response using the Star Wars analogy:  Vader still gets his Death Star (the bad guys always keep their weapons!), and the rebels (cops) still have their Xwing fighters. Only Han Solo (the private citizen) has his guns confiscated.  Under that scenario, Luke dies, the rebels are decimated, and the Death Star kills all the good guys.  Obama, Democrats, and the gun ban advocates are naively taking Vader's side.     

Friday, October 2, 2015

Let this sink in...

The Divider in Chief was at it once again after the Oregon school shooting yesterday, taking to the airwaves before anything was known about the incident, other than that it was horrific.  Horrific was all he needed to continue driving a wedge to further his divisive and fruitless attempts at undermining the Bill of Rights.

Now we know something about the monster who fostered this tragedy.  Turns out he is a mixed-race madman who has an acute hatred for Christians.  And don't even get me started on the shooter...     

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Obama vs. Putin

Remember this from the last presidential election debates?

This takes on new significance now that Russia has begun bombing targets in Syria in defense of Bashar al-Assad. Meanwhile, we are in Syria too... bombing ISIS. Apparently, Russia demanded we remove our planes, but we refused.

Today, I heard Secretary of State John Kerry use the word "deconflict" when referring to our relationship with Russia in Syria.

In other words, both the US and Russia are in Syria, and we are in conflict!

Thank God Barack Obama is right about everything else, and can at least tell the difference between a hoax suitcase bomb and a clock.   Oh, wait...