Fun with VW Memes

It's really hard to see the silver lining in the cloud enveloping Volkswagon.  They have admitted to cheating on emission tests by using software that deliberately deceived consumers and governments alike.  Their stock has dropped, sales will suffer, and their reputation may never be whole again.  (As if being founded by Hitler wasn't bad enough.)

And in a case of perfect timing, Germany just welcomed up to 800,000 "Syrian refugees" because they were having trouble filling jobs at, among others, Volkswagon plants!  Now they are stuck with the muslim refugees and God knows how many Germans who will be newly unemployed thanks to this mess.   

For all of you socialists  and anti-capitalists screaming, "See, this is what greedy capitalists do! They lie and destroy the environment!", remember that Volkswagon was started by the National Socialists in Germany (The Nazis).  VW converted to private ownership in the 1960s, but by statute they need over 80% to get anything through their board of directors.  To this very day, the government of Lower Saxony, Germany, owns a veto-proof 20.1% interest in Volkswagon.   This gives the government effective override control of the board.     

So, might as well have some fun at their expense, right?

(Updated)

2nd Update:  11/3/15 - Up until yesterday it was just the four cylinder VW TDI engines that were accused of having the "defeat device" software.  VW admitted to as much.  Now the EPA is claiming that the six cylinder models are also cheating their tests.  VW is denying this for the first time in the controversy.  Things are getting interesting...  

I went to a VW dealer to see if they had any new information.  They told me last month was their best month ever in sales!  Thus proving there is no such thing as bad PR.   

We're All Socialists Now

Fun with Clock Memes

Too rich not to share...  

(Update: By now everyone knows Ahmed was up to no good and made a fool out of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Mark Zuckerberg, and everyone else who bought into his hoax.  Never one to know when he's been made a fool, Obama is following through on his invite of Ahmed to The White House.)   

(The last one I got from Twitter user @JohnGGalt, the others are mine.)

Behind the Polls - The Alinsky Effect (UPDATED)

Analysts puzzling at the outsider surge in GOP polls may be missing something obvious.  No doubt, everything they’ve said about the reasons for the Trump, Carson, Cruz, and Fiorina momentum is true.  But, there is another way of looking at this that gets to the heart of the matter and sheds light on how other candidates, even establishment ones, can understand and learn from what’s going on.

The key is the Alinsky effect.  For half a century the Left has been studying and internalizing the teachings of Saul Alinsky, the father of community organizing.  The Right has largely ignored this development or pooh poohed it outright.  For seven years, Obama used Alinsky tactics with great effect.  The GOP has been unable to thwart any of the Obama juggernaut.   In the last two presidential elections, John McCain and Mitt Romney were both steamrolled by obvious Alinsky tactics but seemed naively unaware of what was being done to them.

The GOP base has watched this slow-motion train wreck and has had enough.  They are not just looking for a candidate this time,  they are looking for a candidate who can turn the tables on the Alinsky tactics.  They want a candidate who is both Alinsky-proof from attack and one who knows how to go on offense.  The four outsiders with momentum, Trump, Carson, Cruz, and Fiorina are, not surprisingly, the ones who can best do this.

Trump probably never heard of Saul Alinsky but seems an intuitive Alinsky-ite himself.   He wrote “The Art of the Deal”, a kind of a businessman’s “Rules for Radicals”.  Attack him, he attacks back. Mock him, he mocks back.  Personalize it, he calls you stupid, ugly, fat, and dumb.  His supporters eat it up.  The press cannot touch him.  Mitt Romney would have made hundreds of apology speeches by now.  Trump hasn’t made one.  It’s pure Alinsky.

Ben Carson went so far as to mention Saul Alinsky in the last debate.  He talks about Alinsky all the time.  He gets it.  He won’t fall for the tactics when they come.  And he is un-Alinsky-able by resume.  If he demonstrates an ability to turn the tables and go on offense, expect his star to continue to rise.

Ted Cruz has already demonstrated a playful ability to turn the tables on the Alinsky tactics used on him by both Democrats and Republicans.  He has surely read Alinsky.  He’s not as good as some of the others at the performance aspect, but his Alinsky bona fides are not a concern.

Carly Fiorina has also likely read Alinsky.  She has been leading the Alinsky assault on Hillary Clinton from the GOP.  She’s been funny, brutal, and unrelenting.  Moreover, she’s done well on defense when attacked by the media and Trump.

The flip side of the Alinsky effect is what’s happening to some of those losing momentum, most notably Jeb Bush and Scott Walker.  No one can question Walker’s resiliency in Wisconsin, but his ability to go on offense seems in question.  Bush is questionable on both fronts.  In addition, both have performance, policy and consistency issues.

I sincerely hope GOP voters have learned their lessons and will not nominate another sheep for the Alinsky slaughter.  Then again, this is only one of the factors being weighed by the electorate.  So far, it seems like an important one to GOP voters.

UPDATE:  The Alinsky effect was on full display at last night's CNN debate:

Fiorina landed an Alinsky punch on Trump's face and, by all indications, won the CNN round.
 
Chris Christie proved, as he has in NJ, that he can play the Alinsky game as well as anyone.  His performance and substance also won high marks.
 
Trump was his usual juvenile self, but his supporters don't seem to care as long as he delivers the Alinsky goods, and he did in spades.
 
Marco Rubio did well among GOP voters, but the Alinsky effect was not a factor.  Rubio is a straight man, and a good one at that, but Saul Alinsky said, "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon...", which does not well suit a straight man.
 
Ben Carson revealed the limits of his experience, performance, and Alinsky offense abilities.  Not his best outing.

Ted Cruz is another straight man, though he is Alinsky ready.  He did well among conservatives, but his performance issues continue to hold him back.

Jeb Bush showed once again that he would be as effective against Alinsky tactics as was Mitt Romney.  In other words, not at all.

Yes, there were others at the debate, but I'm focusing on the ones most affected by the Alinsky effect.            

Hillary Clinton - Rape Expert

My jaw hit the floor when I saw that Hillary Clinton had tweeted the following two gems:

Hillary Clinton ‏ -4 hours ago4 hours ago To every survivor of sexual assault: You have the right to be heard and believed. We're with you.
Hillary Clinton ‏ - 23 hours ago23 hours ago“Rape is a crime—wherever it happens.” —Hillary

She then followed up with several comments furthering her assertion that she is a champion of victims of sexual assault. Even in the vast galaxy of Clinton lies, this one stands out like a supernova. 

Here is a short list of Clinton victims (Bill had the sex while Hillary was in-charge of the cover-up and intimidation campaigns):  

Here is a video I made about this very subject using the NFL "NO MORE" ads as a backdrop:  

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton  4h4 hours ago

Hillary to every survivor of sexual assault: You have the right to be heard and believed. We're with you.

Obama's news from the 1700s - The Glaciers are Melting!

Barack Obama is in Alaska and has discovered that the glaciers are melting.  Moreover, he wants you to believe it can be stopped if only you give the federal government vast new powers to tax and regulate you. This is a con.  It's not that glaciers aren't melting, but that it has been happening for a really long time and precedes the industrialization blamed by today's warmists.   

As a kid I remember learning about "the ice age".  As an adult I have come to learn there were probably tens of thousands of ice ages in geologic history spanning billions of years.  (UPDATE:  If scientists are right, earth is 4.5 billion years old.  We now know from ice cores at Vostok and Dome C that there is a major ice age every 100,000 years.  That means there may have been more than 45,000 massive global warmings in earth's history!)  Countless times the earth cooled, and countless times glaciers melted.  

Looking at the tiny speck of recorded history and trying to blame this all on manmade CO2 levels is like looking at a single cell from an elephant and trying to tell what it's great grandfather had for lunch!

Here, in it's entirety, is the piece by Jeff Dunetz who blogs at "The Lid", which spurred this post:  

Obama's Lying About The Alaskan Glaciers They've Been Melting For Three Centuries

Once again this president is lying to promote his global re-distribution of income policy also known as climate change.  Yesterday he visited the glaciers in Alaska (having been there...they are beautiful!).  He claimed that global warming was melting the glaciers---he is lying.  They've been melting since before the American Revolution. (Undiepundit update: they've been melting for over 10,000 years since the last temperature minimum.)  The good news is that the Arctic ice caps are growing:

- President Barack Obama walked down a winding wooded path, past a small brown post marked "1926" and a glacial stream trickling over gravel that eons of ice have scraped off mountain peaks.

He reached another post reading "1951", a marker for the edge of Alaska's Exit Glacier that year, and gazed up toward where the rock-rutted ice mass has since receded, a quarter mile away.

"This is as good a signpost of what we're dealing with on climate change as just about anything," Obama told reporters near the base of the glacier.

Glacial melting is nothing new, they have been receding before this country had a president.  Lets go back in history...take a look at this news article from 1952 which says the glaciers in Alaska had already lost half their size:

OK I hear you--1952 isn't early enough, how about 1923?

You want it even earlier, take a look at the map of Glacier Bay Alaska.  It shows where the glaciers are today vs. where they were up to at various points back to just before the American Revolution.  Unless Gen. Washington let the revolutionary army in SUVs there was no problem with greenhouse gasses back then.  In fact if you look at the map most of the melting took place before the 20th century.  Does Barack Obama really believe Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and melted the glaciers?

Note: the source of the three pictures above is Steven Goddard's Real ScienceBlog

Lets take a look at what's been happening since Obama was elected.  Check that, let's take a look at what's been happening since Bill Clinton was president. To be honest NOTHING.

That's right, the satellite monthly global mean surface temperature  shows no global warming for 18 years 7 months since January 1997 the last time Hillary Clinton was trolling around the White House. Note that yes there was warming before Jan. 97, and thanks to the El Nino there may be warming in the near future (at least until the La Niña starts or the lack of sunspot activity throws us into a mini ice age as some scientists are predicting).

Those claims of the hottest temperatures on record are "sort of"  true also. Firstly they are talking warmest by a hundredth of a degree. Secondly it uses land based temperature readings rather than satellite data. Climate scientists actually preferred the satellite data as being more accurate until it started disproving their global warming hypothesis.  (Undiepundit update: It's been much warmer, even in Earth's recent history.  Vikings farmed Greenland up until 500 years ago, which would not be possible today.  And when they first went to Iceland 1100 years ago, there were no glaciers on that island that is now largely covered by ice!) 

I hate to upset the president but the truth is the ice caps are growing. A July 2015 article in the U.K. Telegraph called "How Arctic ice has made fools of all those poor warmists" reported:

In recent years there has been more polar ice in the world than at any time since satellite records began in 1979. In the very year they had forecast that the Arctic would be “ice free”, its thickness increased by a third. Polar bear numbers are rising, not falling. Temperatures in Greenland have shown no increase for decades.

When the Telegraph talks about more polar ice since 1979, it is really talking about both poles combined as the Antarctic ice cap has been growing more substantially over that period.

The Arctic Ice had a period of melting but as reported in Nature Geoscience:

However, we observe 33% and 25% more ice in autumn 2013 and 2014, respectively, relative to the 2010–2012 seasonal mean, which offset earlier losses. This increase was caused by the retention of thick sea ice northwest of Greenland during 2013 which, in turn, was associated with a 5% drop in the number of days on which melting occurred—conditions more typical of the late 1990s. In contrast, springtime Arctic sea ice volume has remained stable. 

In other words if the ice cap could talk it would say, "Baby I'm Back!"   It seems as if the Ice Cap size ebbs and flows for natural reasons and has nothing to do with CO2 in the air. That's why as the carbon in the atmosphere as been growing in the last century we've seen the ice grow, recede, and grow again.

In fact the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest level in almost13,000 years. Approximately 12,750 years ago before big cars and coal plants CO2 levels were higher than today. And during some past ice ages levels were up to 20x today's levels--ice ages, that's a lot of polar ice that didn't melt.

Obama talked about severe storms yesterday...another lie. No Increase In Hurricanes: A study published in the July 2012 in the journal of the American Meteorological Society concluded unequivocally there is no trend of stronger or more frequent storms, asserting:

We have identified considerable inter-annual variability in the frequency of global hurricane landfalls, but within the resolution of the available data, our evidence does not support the presence of significant long-period global or individual basin linear trends for minor, major, or total hurricanes within the period(s) covered by the available quality data.

Perhaps it's because he thinks news doesn't travel well from Alaska, but Barack Obama is lying about glacier shrinkage, about the ice caps, and about an increase in storms during his first trip to Alaska.

The Fed and Free Markets

Once again The Federal Reserve is stuck in the unenviable position of taking candy from the spoiled brat it created.  They've been jawboning about raising interest rates for so long I've lost track, yet they never fail to find excuses for postponing.  Meanwhile the spoiled brat keeps getting fatter, closer to type II diabetes, and more ill tempered with every passing quarter.

This reminds me of the similarly irresponsible Fed actions of 2005 - 2006.  In that case the Fed didn't just take candy from the brat, they went on to stomp on it's windpipe!  Forgotten in the blur of deceptive history is how the housing bubble, which the Fed helped create, came to collapse so violently and led to the financial crisis of 2008.

From 2005 - 2006 the Fed raised interest rates from 1% to 5.25%.  That was an increase of 425%! Housing prices, being inversely related to mortgage rates, promptly crashed.   It need not have happened that way.  The fed acted irresponsibly.

Now they are being overly cautious and inflating bubbles in equities, real estate, mergers, debt, etc. Much of the risk is once again concentrated in the federal government.  Fannie and Freddie own just about every mortgage written since 2008.  The Federal Reserve now owns over four trillion dollars of interest rate sensitive securities.  Plus, the rising dollar is squeezing exporters which would only get worse if the Fed normalizes.

We've seen what happens when the Fed helps distort and then crushes a big sector of the economy. Now we are seeing what happens when the Fed just keeps distorting.

Remind me again how we've got a free market economy in the U.S.?  

Big Surprise - Stern likes Trump!

Howard Stern has endorsed Donald Trump.   This will not come as a surprise to readers of undiepundit.com.  Here's what I wrote over a month ago:  

Donald Trump is the Howard Stern of politics.  He’s a shock jock in a field of politicians who sound like boring newsreaders.  He opens his mouth and out comes ego, shameless self-promotion, outrageousness, braggadocio, and downright meanness towards his detractors.   

But there are other things too which endear him to his audience.   He’s fearless, confident, unapologetic, and says things no one else has the cojones to say.   And he's entertaining.  Very entertaining.  In other words, he’s exactly like Howard Stern!  His fans are the same too.  Listen to them talk and you'll find yourself expecting them to blurt out “Baba Booey!” any second.  

Donald Trump is a serious candidate for President the same way Howard Stern was a serious candidate when he ran for Governor of New York in 1994.  Stern didn’t win.  Neither will Trump.       

That said, I really want Donald Trump to be the next President.  Allow me to explain. 

President Trump could accomplish from within the government what could never be accomplished from without:  namely the destruction and de-legitimization of the federal leviathan.  

Donald Trump could be the virus that infects and ultimately kills the progressive idea that government can and should micro-manage every aspect of your life.  Sure it sounds appealing when a silver-tongued community organizer gives you a one sided utopian vision to cling to.   But how many want to sign up for that same program when the guy who says “you’re fired!” becomes boss?  

Donald Trump holds people accountable.  That alone would stop totalitarianism in its tracks.  The only way the progressive takeover can continue is if a majority stays convinced they are getting a free ride in exchange for others losing their freedoms.  Trump will give no one a free ride, and everyone will be his subject.   

Make Donald Trump President and inside of four years the electorate will be clamoring for limited government once again in America.  

So yes, Donald Trump for President.  And while we’re at it, Robin Quivers for VP.    Oh, and Baba Booey, Baba Booey, Baba Boooeeey! 

Why Socialism is Chic, and Capitalism is Not

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 their shared history in the U.S..  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.  Today, Karl Marx is the most assigned economist in U.S. college classes.  

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, except to economics majors.  "Smithism" never became a word.  Marxism is taught everywhere all the time, and not just to economics majors.  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 allowed to function in a free market.
   

·         Demand side economics is the theory that people will DEMAND (consume) more value if wealth is redistributed to them.

    

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, 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. Adding to that scenario is a socialist national debt bubble, student loan bubble, auto loan bubble, and equity bubble.

You might be saying, "OK, big deal, I'm a socialist.  Lots of countries are socialist, and some of them seem to be doing just fine. Britain and much of Europe are pretty socialist.  Why can't we have what they have?  Free healthcare, free college, and lots of benefits sounds pretty good to me!".  Well, we can have those things too.  But it won't last.  Seen Europe lately?  It ain't pretty.  Socialist Europe is dying.

Here's the thing:  National socialism has never produced anything long term other than misery, starvation, poverty, and authoritarianism.  That's at the national level.  And long term.  At the local level, socialism can survive a bit longer.  Local socialism does not eliminate the incentive killing aspects of socialism, but it does delay the inevitable monetary collapse.  That's because local governments cannot create money. State and local governments must be more disciplined or risk imminent collapse.  Therefore, they tend to be more fiscally responsible.  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 usually created and controlled.  The Euro countries are a recent exception now that money is no longer controlled by the individual countries.  The Euro is controlled by the European Central Bank, which is a consortium of 19 Eurozone countries .  It's almost like they recognized the fatal flaw and are trying to work around it.

But in the U.S. we have no such arrangement.  We borrow and print money at the federal level. Our system was never designed to be a socialist system.  The constitution implied that the states were the proper place for redistributive experimentation.  At the national level, 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 and maintain power today.  The founders knew that.  It's happening today. 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.
  

In summary: You were indoctrinated to be a socialist. You were indoctrinated to call our system capitalism.  You've been deceived about the benefits of socialism.  You've been deceived about the evils of free markets.  And you've been deceived about the perils of national socialism.  If you still think socialism is chic after all that, that is your right.  Just keep it local, and maybe - just maybe, it won't collapse until after your kids inherit the mess.

Trump to GOP: "Baba Booey!"

Donald Trump is the Howard Stern of politics.  He’s a shock jock in a field of politicians who sound like boring newsreaders.  He opens his mouth and out comes ego, shameless self-promotion, outrageousness, braggadocio, and downright meanness towards his detractors.  But there are other things too which endear him to his audience.   He’s fearless, confident, unapologetic, and says things no one else has the cojones to say.   And he's entertaining.  In other words, he’s exactly like Howard Stern.  His fans are the same too.  Listen to them talk and you'll find yourself expecting them to blurt out “Baba Booey!” any second. 

Donald Trump is a serious candidate for President the same way Howard Stern was a serious candidate when he ran for Governor of New York in 1994.  Stern didn’t win.  Neither will Trump.      

That said, I really want Donald Trump to be the next President.  Allow me to explain.  

President Trump could accomplish from within the government what could never be accomplished from without:  namely the destruction and de-legitimization of the federal leviathan. 

Donald Trump could be the virus that infects and ultimately kills the progressive idea that government can and should micro-manage every aspect of your life.  Sure it sounds appealing when a silver-tongued community organizer gives you a one sided utopian vision to cling to.   But how many want to sign up for that same program when the guy who says “you’re fired!” becomes boss? 

Donald Trump holds people accountable.  That alone would stop totalitarianism in its tracks.  The only way the progressive takeover can continue is if a majority stays convinced they are getting a free ride in exchange for others losing their freedoms.  Trump will give no one a free ride, and everyone will be his subject.  Make Donald Trump President and inside of four years the electorate will be clamoring for limited government once again in America. 

So yes, Donald Trump for President.  And while we’re at it, Robin Quivers for VP.    Oh, and Baba Booey, Baba Booey, Baba Boooeeey! 


(I posted this originally on 7/21, and in light of everything since, including the debates,  it holds-up pretty well.  Lately Trump has been taking on Megyn Kelly with his characteristic meanness, and Carly Fiorina is having none of it.  I can't think of two women I'd rather not cross more than those two.  Nevertheless The Donald Trump Show will continue and we will all be diminished by it.  Everyone that is except the Clintons who more and more appear to be the architects and beneficiaries of this risible show.)