Have You Noticed?

 Have you ever noticed the bigger our government becomes the richer our politicians are?  Those who would suggest the government needs to tax the rich more so they can fund their social promises never seem to lose out on the deal, and most often find their fortune in those promises.

That is why I remain skeptical regarding the promises of the great socialist leaders of the Democratic party.  It was only about seven years ago folks like Bernie Sanders were praising the wealth redistribution plans of Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela.  It’s a sadly funny thing that now he is dead, but his family and his power base live on the wealth.  It is only the people who suffer from the ruling class's greed.

Those who continue to push for socialism as an economic system to replace capitalism have all kinds of promises and illustrations of how that result just can’t happen here.  At the same time, and almost in the same breath, they claim Donald Trump is an autocratic Nazi who is single-handedly destroying democracy.  Of course, if we support their vision of a socialist America, none of them would be autocratic Nazis (National Socialist Party) who would make the mega corporations richer as they feather their personal nests to “improve the lives of the poor” by destroying the middle-class.

By the way, let's talk about poverty for a minute.  According to the World Bank, 10% of the world’s population live in extreme poverty.  That’s down by about 36% since 1990.  In the U.S., according to the same source, roughly 12% of the population live in poverty with an average income of $33.26 per day. 

Is the best way to improve the lives of the poor to give them free stuff, or to provide them a way to lift themselves out of poverty?  Unfortunately, everyone seems to have their own opinions on this, but history has shown there will always be those who choose (for a variety of reasons) not to succeed, and mathematically there will always be a bottom 10%.  Can a centralized politburo, as the socialists among us would create, come up with a five-year plan to eliminate those two realities?  I think not.

Finally, if Democratic socialism is so great how come so many Democratic-controlled cities are filled with filth, crime, drugs, and civil unrest?  To listen to the news those are all bi-products of American racism, but if so, how come places, where there are strong capitalist leaders don’t have those same issues?

Standing Up for Democracy

The phrase “We’ve got to stand up for democracy” seems to be the latest talking point provided to our Hollywood betters, and all those who hate President Trump for being President Trump!  It is being tweeted around the internet just like a beer salesman at a baseball game.  “Get yer stand up for democracy tweet rite ‘ere.”  Some intellectual giants like Rob Reiner and Bette Midler have taken to the twitter streets to encourage the mob.  I suspect this is only an interim talking point until the DNC can come up with something better, maybe something like “the hell with it, let’s just lynch him and be done with it.”  The only problem is how to get past those pesky Secret Service folks.

With the fiasco that was the Mueller testimony – the House Democrats are trying to figure out what to do next, and there are several talking points being run up the flag pole to see who salutes.  Unfortunately for the DNC, they are counting on politicians who’ve not had an original thought for the past 25 years or so.

Rep. Nadler (D-NY10) is talking about getting the grand jury testimony, and violating one of the foundational values of our legal system in the process, to see what they had to say that led the Special Counsel’s team to conclude there was maybe, kind of, sort of, some obstruction to their investigation.  As far as I can tell Jerry Nadler is best known for having his big boy pants cinched up above his belly button, and occasionally passing out (or nodding off) at public events.

Speaker Pelosi, in an effort to keep her job, is meeting with “the squad” or as I would call them the “gang of four” who want to abolish all the House traditions and history that has led us to this point, so they can become the ruling junta of the House of Representatives.  On a personal note, I can only hope they spend so much energy doing this they open themselves up to the that rarest of events – failing in their reelection campaigns.  But that would require the RNC to actually come up with candidates who’ve not been indicted themselves.  This seems to be a problem for the RNC when trying to win over historically Democratic districts.

All this talk of defending democracy though is wearing really thin and only serves to reinforce my opinion that those who scream loudest about it, are really not in favor of a representative government controlled by law, and would much prefer mob rule.  At least until the mob turns on them.  (i.e. like the French Revolution, but that’s ancient history and we all know history is racist.)

So, as we yell about standing up for democracy but look to abolish the rule of law and our civil traditions remind me again; what do we get when we let those who think it’s okay to throw away election results because they don’t like the winner?

The word anarchy comes to mind.

Not Exonerated

We have entered a new era in U.S. law.  We used to believe in the concept of “innocent until proven guilty.”  With the Special Counsel’s report on Russian hacking of the 2016 Presidential campaign and the possibility of the Trump campaigns involvement we are now in the age of “guilty unless exonerated.”  Don’t believe me?  Just listen to ABCNNBCBS and MSNBC discuss the findings and the Mueller testimony, or tune into any Democratic politician being asked about the report.      

Of course, the public has long ago forsaken the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” based on the perceived injustices of the courts.

With that in mind, I would like to list principle players the Mueller report failed to exonerate.

First and foremost, we have the DNC and the Clinton campaign.  As far as I can tell they were central to creating the Steele report that created the narrative, from which this whole investigation sprang.  Nothing I heard yesterday or in the news has exonerated them so I believe they must be guilty as sin.  Hillary Clinton specifically must be guilty of throwing the election since she ran such an urban-focused campaign that kept her public visibility to an absolute minimum.

Nothing in the report exonerates Donna Brazil, late of CNN and now with FOX.  We know she worked to keep Sanders from winning the DNC nomination so I can only assume the legal standard would apply here and she is, in fact, guilty of election tampering.

James Comey, et. al., at the FBI who used unverified information to begin spying on American politicians in an effort to ensure HRC was elected despite her obvious shortcomings.  His bumbling handling of the whole security violation issue with Clinton must have been to serve a greater purpose and the report fails to exonerate him, so until he is proven innocent one can only assume he is a major player in the deep state and works tirelessly to overthrow the current government.

Loretta Lynch, et.al., at the Department of Justice, who showed from the very beginning a marked loyalty to party over justice.  She met with Bill Clinton in a clandestine meeting to discuss their grandchildren.  She and her executive staff has not been exonerated by the report and must, therefore, be guilty.

Finally, we must assume, since he has not been exonerated, President Obama, Vice President Biden, their wives, and all their staffs must be unindicted coconspirators with Lynch and Comey since both worked for President Obama.   

Robert Mueller and His Political Theater

Apparently, Robert Mueller is the only person who has read less of the Special Prosecutor's report on Russian hacking and Trump's collusion in the 2016 election then me.   This creates somewhat of a problem for the politicians as they should really talk to the people who actually wrote the report so they can get them to testify about all the evil stuff they actually know about.  

But at the end of the day, facts don't really matter.  At this point in time, it is all about the Political Theater.  Those who want to impeach the President made up their collective minds shortly after November 8, 2016.

If they were hoping Robert Mueller would somehow come down from the mountain with the impeachment indictments etched into stone tablets they must be hugely disappointed.

Life will go on, and as far as I can tell, the democratic candidates will continue to drive away all the moderate independent voters in numbers unseen since the 1972  primaries when the party faithful were asked to choose between 15 different candidates.  Eventually, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, George Wallace, Edmund Muskie, and Shirly Chisholm secured primary wins.  In that campaign, McGovern became the party's candidate but lost the general election to Richard Nixon.  It wasn't even close.

The electoral vote totals were 512 for Nixon, 17 for McGovern.  The popular vote was 46,740323 for Nixon, and 28,901,598 for McGovern.

Of course, we are a lot more polarized these days, but I don't see, in the current field and with the current agandas, any move to solicit those who are looking for a strong middle of the road choice.  At the rate the DNC is moving I'd be surprised if they are even close in the popular vote, but we have a year for them to turn things around and who knows, one of them may find a real issue, just as Bill Clinton did in 1992 when he beat George Bush who had just won a war.

It's Shocking.

The Scream, 1893, Edvard Munch

This is my shocked face!  I am appalled at the racism, scandal, and outrage of today’s political culture.  It would be totally unexpected if it hadn’t been 30 years in the making, or maybe we could go back to Richard Millhouse Nixon and say it has been 50-years in the making.

For years the left has been empowered to belittle, mock and ridicule the ideas of the right.  All the media aligned itself with the left and encouraged the behaviors that led to such vilification of conservatives such as Nixon while holding Ted Kennedy up as a “Lion of the Senate.”  Don’t mistake my position.  Nixon probably deserved to be forced out of the Presidency, but that only happened because his own party said his abuse did not reflect the party standard. 

Can the same be said of the Democratic party?  Sadly, I think not.  Where was the party outrage when Clinton was found to have lied and obstructed justice while abusing his power over women?  Meh?  The Republican house levied Bills of Impeachment, the Senate Democrats stood united behind him.

So, we come to President Trump, who is clearly a product of the political evolution since Nixon and Clinton.  He uses the media against themselves and they can’t help but fan the flames of their own partisanship.

I wonder though?  When did racism become mainstream in national politics?  Certainly, from the time of the 14^th Amendment we’ve had a significant underground movement supporting the racist suppression of the black vote.  It wasn’t until a mid-westerner (Harry S. Truman, D-MO) became President that the military was forced to integrate, and only grudgingly at that.

In the 1950s and 60s, Dr. King led a massive effort to force change in the Southern States, where the Democratic Party united in an effort to suppress the black vote and maintain as much segregation as possible.  It was during these times in the 1950s when the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) led by a future Supreme Court Justice was able to have the Court strike down the “separate but equal” standard established by the Court in 1896.  That ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education set the standards for complete integration.  A concept that was central to the civil rights movement of the time.  As a minority of the population, they deserved the exact same rights and privileges as the majority, nothing more and certainly nothing less. In his speech from the Lincoln Memorial, Dr. King dreamed of a day when all men were equal, sadly that remains just a dream, but why?

In the 1970s two legal scholars, Derrick Bell and Alan Freeman postulated that racism was intrinsic in the culture and could never be removed.  The social sciences climbed on board and Critical Race Theory forms the basis for most of those studies in the social sciences today.  Unfortunately, CRT, as it has become known, assumes that only the whites can be racist since they control the power of the government.  That little nugget has become so ingrained in those who base their decisions on CRT that even when a black man assumes the most powerful position in the government, he is not capable of being a racist.  Its supporters have gone so far as to show how he or she might possibly be biased, but any discrimination he or she might support is clearly not racism.

This theory on race creates an unbalanced playing field, where only one side gets to make accusations of bias, hate, demagoguery, etc.  That is the race card the Democratic party has been playing since the 1980s when they began losing their grip on the Southern states as the party of Andrew Jackson moved from seeking a broad coalition to focusing on the urban elites and enticing the urban poor with promises of financial assistance without a labor requirement.

In the process, the Democratic party has created a new class of indentured servants who see their meal ticket tied to an increasingly socialist agenda where the government will care for all.  Those who die from the crime and violence of the Democratic-led cities are just unfortunate losses in a big operation. 

At the end of the day, there are just two statements that seem irrefutable to me about today’s political culture.

First, we get the government we deserve.  If we hadn’t made the government so big or created a political class where offices are passed down from one generation to the next (e.g. Al Gore Sr. and Al Gore Jr. or the Bush's GH and GW.) where personal enrichment is not only possible but is the approved model, perhaps our government would be more responsive.

Next, for all the outrage of the Left supposedly voices about President Trump, they created the conditions for his election by vilifying even the most moderate Republican as a racist.

Asking For a Friend

When did "Tolerant Democrat" become an oxymoron?

The Cost of Democratic Campaign Promises.

Let’s review the promises to Americans (and non-American visitors) made by the Democratic candidates this campaign season.

Top of the list, Universal Healthcare:  According to Bernie Sanders (in a Washington Post interview 31 July 2018), he projects government cost to be $30 to 40 Trillion (over 10 years).  Of course, he goes on to say it would really save $2 trillion by translating private costs into government costs.  Color me skeptical – I’ve zero (nada, zilch, zip) experience where a government cost is ever really less than a private cost.

Student debt forgiveness:  According to Student Loan Hero, published Feb 4, 2019, the current balance of student loans tops out at over $1.56 Trillion with about 45 million Americans carrying debt from their schooling.  There are currently a number of debt forgiveness programs and according to Forbes (2016), we are spending about $170 billion over 10 years on those programs.  So far, all the candidates have voiced some sort of plan that would just wipe some or all the debt off the books, with plans for increased taxation of the ultrarich to pay for it.  Of course, eliminating student debt sounds good, but the real benefactors of this approach are the colleges and universities who can now charge whatever they want and expect students to flock to them in anticipation of a free four, six or maybe ten years of relaxed intellectual/politically sensitive indoctrination.  

Elimination of border security:  On the surface, this promise should save the government about $44 billion a year when we eliminate Homeland Security.  Of course, this $44 billion would be reduced when we can’t just fire federal employees and the Democrats would probably want to keep things like FEMA, and maybe the U.S. Coast Guard, but I have to ask why we would keep the Coast Guard, if we’ve decided anyone and anything can come into the country and there was no need for walls and approved ports of entry.  The real question is how to transition the federal employees from work to welfare, so again that $44 billion would be reduced as the welfare programs are expanded in direct proportion to this new-found government “wealth.”  My guess is we would still spend the $44 billion, just not on things that would impede the mass migration of others into America.

Green New Deal:  All the candidates have jumped on the “Green New Deal” train, although the Senators in the mix refused to vote for it when push came to shove.  This is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY 14) signature legislation publicly intended to save humanity from extinction in 14 years and privately intended to eliminate the threat of capitalism.  Estimates on the cost for the GND range from $51-93 trillion (2020-2029), but factcheck.org questions those values saying the proposal is too vague to put a real price tag on.  From my personal experience, I’ve not seen where the Congress or the President have really ever come in under original cost estimates so for the sake of argument lets split the difference and call GND a $72 trillion home improvement project.   

Well, those are just the Big-Ticket items I’ve noticed so let’s stop there.  Of course, existing programs like Social Security, Welfare, and Defense will continue their expansions through the normal budget cycle, but those will happen regardless of who is in the White House.  The only question that really remains unanswered is what happens when we have more debt than we can pay and the rest of the world stops believing in the dollar as a basis for international trade?  I’m sure there is a Nobel Laureate Economist somewhere who would have a theory on that, but Paul Krugman’s pronouncements on the economy have routinely been wrong so who should I trust?  The same MIT dude who admitted they had to lie to the American people to get the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (AKA Obamacare) passed?  Sorry, no he is an admitted liar.

Amid the Twitter Storm

This weekend President Trump had just a little too much time on his hands and set off yet another twitter® storm of epic proportions.  He suggested in a series of tweets, perhaps those freshman Democrat Representatives who are making such a fuss about the border and the detention centers should go back to their own countries.  Of course, almost everyone with a D behind their names, the media, and all the perpetually offended Hollywood elites were totally outraged.  They flooded social media to clarify, for anyone who had a doubt, how hateful and racist this President is.

But (and that is a longstanding but).

But the question of flight by the intellectual elites from their home countries to Europe and the United States has been a longstanding subject of debate.  They are leaving their countries, seeking a better life for themselves, and leaving behind a country increasingly unable to cope with the issues of modernization precisely because those who could conceivably do something about improving the nation have left.

America has had in place a long-term program to bring eligible young people to the United States to attend our Colleges and Universities, with the expectation they would take that knowledge home, along with warm feelings about the U.S., and help improve the lives of their fellow countrymen.  Of course, some of those on educational visas stayed and became U.S. citizen, but I believe many returned to their homes.  I had a classmate in college who was granted such a visa, he was instrumental in our achieving a national championship in soccer and when college ended he returned home to Uganda with a degree in Chemistry.

Then the Government created immigration policies to allow 65,000 or so skilled workers (and fashion models) to obtain work visas under the H1-B skilled worker program. While this certainly helps the U.S. in some areas (like cheaper labor), doesn’t it do so at a cost to the home nation of the visa holder?   I wonder how good the government has been on ensuring once a visa expires the holder actually returns to his country?  Knowing a thing or two about the government I’m guessing the Departments of State, Labor and Homeland Security have not been all that diligent in holding people to the law.

At the end of the day people are offended when those countries of origin are called $h&t holes, but how will they ever improve if we keep enticing (i.e. stealing) all their brightest citizens?  Here’s an idea, maybe we can offer them a one for one exchange.  We could send 65,000 or so college professors or corporate CEOs back to help them become a first-world nation. 

Joe Biden

Let me say, upfront, I don't think Joe Biden has a snowball's chance in heck of becoming the 46th President.  But what he does invoke is a return to traditional politics where the politician can say anything (i.e. blatantly lie) and the press will adore him for it.

The thing that caught my attention today was his statement he wouldn't "coddle dictators."  This was on Twitter and most of the respondents were just comparing him to Trump who, in their opinions, obviously does coddle dictators. 
I didn't like Biden in 1992 when he was campaigning against Clinton and he hasn't aged appreciably well.  His downfall in '92 was getting caught plagiarizing his  Master's thesis indicating a lack of original thought.  As far as I can tell he hasn't had many original thoughts since then.

Jeffery Epstein and Today's Politics

This weekend (7/6/19) it was reported the billionaire Jeffery Epstein was arrested at Teterboro Airport, New Jersey.  Apparently records sealed by a court had been opened and the FBI and DOJ were now motivated to arrest him for trafficking minors for sex and perhaps extortion.  I think both political sides are salivating over the idea Epstein will squeal like a “stuck pig” to save as much of his skin as he can. 

It offers to be an interesting show as the media and both political parties scramble to determine who knew what and when.  The talking points should be amusing, but before we get caught up in the drama, let’s not forget the left is moving towards the morality that pedophilia isn’t as bad as they used to think, so I assume their condemnations will principally focus on Republicans, while the Democratic politicians were mostly victims of a corrupt system.

What I think the Epstein’s arrest will do is take several old white politicians down for the count.  I’m not sure Trump will be one of them, but what little influence Bill Clinton might still have will disappear almost overnight.  Just my speculation but I’m guessing Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) might already be talking to their lawyers, that is if they are smart.  Since they are Senators that is always an open question.  Menendez has already been through one round of this and survived but there must be some point where the weight becomes overwhelming and he just can’t tread water anymore.

If I had to guess about news coverage, ABCNNBCBS will cover minimally, and FOX will be all over the story, at least until it starts to reflect poorly on top-level Republicans.  The Twitterverse will, of course, explode with each and every new revelation as facts and pseudo-facts are leaked by the political opportunists. 
added:  I don't see Trump's Labor Secretary surviving beyond a fortnight.
added:  Postscript:  Acosta resigned on 12 July.  6 days in the news cycle is a long time.

The Central Issue for 2020

    For me, it seems the central issue for 2020 is a choice between a self-aggrandizing capitalist, whose policies have generally served the nation well by increasing jobs and reducing taxes, or a self-serving politician whose stated goals are to reduce individual wealth while increasing government debt and individual dependence on the government's largess.

    Kamala Harris recently tweeted out her promises to the Democratic voters.  It included the goal of providing everyone will all the things politicians have always promised, but historically have failed to deliver.

    Ms. Harris comes from California, a state controlled by the Democratic party for the past forty or so years.  How have the major population centers of the state faired under their promises and policies?

Homelessness in Los Angeles

    With the current DNC talking points concerning the welfare of non-citizens being more important than actual citizens does anyone, other than a supporting news and entertainment industry, really believe those promises offer real solutions?

If You Say Things Loud Enough

Life is full of confusing contradictions, but if you ignore them, and yell loudly enough you can still convince people that whatever you’re yelling must be true.  The key is to take all things out of context and impose your unique world-view and then speak loudly and often about how abhorrent a democratic republic founded by old white men really is, and how much better would be a socialist state (presumably founded by someone other than old white men -- although an old white man is the loudest voice right now).

This past week Nike chose to begin a controversy over a design choice on a pair of overpriced sneakers.  I presume they are operating under the theory any free advertising is good advertising.  A theory made popular during the Trump campaign of 2015-16.  I agree with Mike Rowe, Nike has every right to do what they want and listen to whoever they choose.  The same holds true for its customers.  Since we are not yet the totalitarian government some would have us become, there are sufficient alternate vendors willing to offer displeased customers other options.

Of course, that doesn’t mean the opposing sides won’t yell at each other across the vast chasm of the internet.  There has been and will continue to be, a flurry of tweets, Instagram’s, and FaceBook outrages back and forth.  The Betsy Ross flag has become a DNC talking point among the racially motivated leadership, and facts really no longer matter.  I imagine each side will declare victory in a few weeks when the loudest voices move on to some other outrage.

As one of the central voices in the Nike decision Colin, I used to be a quarterback, Kaepernick tweeted out a quote from the abolitionist Fredrick Douglas that supposedly said, flat out, America and its flag was not his America or his flag. Unfortunately, there are old white men who had actually read the whole of the Fredrick Douglas speech that Mr. Kaepernick quoted and pointed out that the removal of context for the speech clearly implied a false position for Mr. Douglas.  Unfortunately, Mr. Douglas is not available for comment, and the people who admire Colin, I used to be a quarterback, Kaepernick for his woke courage won’t listen to the old white men who corrected him, and the people who like the old white men, don’t like Mr. Kaepernick to begin with, so as I said, it’s really just standing on either side of a street yelling at each other.  No minds will be changed.   

The Democratic Plan - Work Will Set You Free

As the DNC candidates compete to gain the votes of those who want more free stuff, I haven't seen any realistic plan to pay for all this free stuff, other than to raise taxes on all the people who would supposedly benefit from their largess with other people's money.  But with their increasingly anti-Semitic rhetoric, it seems only appropriate to point out a similarity to previous promises of a government.
But with their increasingly anti-Semitic rhetoric, it seems only appropriate to point out a similarity to previous promises of a government.  So technically they will expect people to work more and receive less.  Which is akin to what the National Socialists promised the Jews as they slaughtered them in Auschwitz.

Arbeit Macht Frei

Just a Thought on Student Debt

There is so much in the news these days about how the Democratic candidates for President wish to cancel student debt.  Personally, I am all for it, kind of.  I would work it like this.
First, we establish a pseudo-military type operation where we have bases for all the individuals who want their debt canceled can report to and live.
Next, we provide "free food and housing" for them while they serve the nation for a period of time to reduce their debt. 
Service should include such things as cleaning up the streets filled with litter, feeding the homeless, building small independent dwellings for the homeless on public land owned by the various governments, and teaching people the basic skills necessary to survive (i.e. reading and writing in English).
Finally, their debt repayment should be at a living wage or greater rate.  Personally, I'm all for forgiving debt at a rate of say $35,000 per year.  So if you had $100,000 in debt you could pay it off in a mere 34 months, and the nation would be that much better for the service. 
I doubt many will agree with me on this, especially those who want their debt forgiven without any cost to themselves.
Just a thought