Category: Left Wing Idiocy

Another oldie but goody from the long list of Obama got it wrong again

I now have no doubt that Obama was the most incompetent and destructive president of my time, unseating Jimmy Carter, which in itself is some staggering achievement, and that the only way he could have been saved from that distinction was a Clinton presidency. Lucky for the country and the world, and to the chagrin of your usual leftist douchebag and the guilty pleasure of people like me, we were spared that horrible faith. The guy, along with telling lies and lording it like he was an emperor, made it a point to say stupid shit and then be proven wrong. Of course, the LSM played defense for him and would twist itself into pretzels doing so. Let’s not rehash that conversation. After all, anyone still claiming that the bulk of what those of us have been calling the Lame Stream Media for years aren’t a bunch of biased leftists shills – democrat operatives with bylines if you allow this apt label – is themselves a blind partisan hack.

I could wax philosophical about the failures of Obamacare, the lies told to pass it, and the lies now told to keep it despite the fact the thing is an epic disaster, but that’s not what this post is about. I could also go into how I believe that despite the distraction tactics from the dnc operatives with bylines about Russia stealing the election, Trump being a Putin stooge, or focus on how the people that spend decades excusing the evils of communism and the USSR and then made fun of Romney when he pointed out the Russians were a problem now are all up in arms about that red scare they so sarcastically dismissed and defended, eventually all this empty posturing and belly aching bullshit will be swept away by the revelation that it is all smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that the Obama administration used both the US intelligence community and foreign entities to spy on political enemies of the left. Keep your eye on this one, because that is the real big story out there that the left is desperate to destroy Trump over so he can’t dismantle the machine that has been helping the left cover this criminal activity up. But that is not what this post is about either. Shit I could even go into the “I told you sos” I promised the usual douchebags we have here, and there are several of those already, but that’s not what this is about either. No, this post is about a old lie/idiocy told by Obama and the left, when they were hard at work pissing away billions of tax payer dollars on green shit that only served to enrich democrat operatives, friends, and donors. Let me set this baby up.

Remember when black Jesus told the country, during the days of $4+ a gallon gas, with prices going up and no end in sight, that those of us that were saying that the US should drill for oil to lower prices were morons that lacked his nuanced understanding of economics he had? Remember people saying “Drill baby, drill” being mocked by credentialed leftist elite cunts that made fun of how idiotic one had to be to believe that more oil somehow would reduce oil prices? Yeah, these days there is a reason you only hear people that like me knew Obama and the left were full of shit and either idiots or downright contemptible crooks talk about this topic, and that is because those that managed to do the drilling despite the cock blocking actions of the Obama administration, have brought us to this:

The oil cartel roped eleven other petrostates into an agreement to curtail production in 2017 and are currently working on extending that deal, but the output cut’s ultimate goal of eating away at the oil market’s glut of crude is being undermined by the actions of suppliers outside of OPEC—U.S. shale producers chief among them. Now, OPEC is revising upwards its estimates of how quickly supplies will grow outside of its membership this year by a whopping 64 percent. Bloomberg reports:

Production from outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will increase by 950,000 barrels a day this year, OPEC said in a report, revising its forecast up by about 370,000. The projection is four times higher than in November, when the group announced a production cut to try and re-balance oversupplied world markets. Non-OPEC nations pump about 60 percent of the world’s oil. […]

“U.S. oil and gas companies have already stepped up activities in 2017 as they start to increase their spending amid a recovery in oil prices,” OPEC’s Vienna-based research department said in the report. “In addition to the growth in the U.S., higher oil production is expected in Canada and Brazil.”

Some of the most vile entities on the planet are feeling the pain of low oil prices. From Russia to Venezuela to Iran, low oil prices have prevented some of the most vile players from being able to do mischief. Of course in the case of Iran, they are these days not doing so bad after the Obama administration, which lied to the US people and the world at large about getting Iran to stop the production of a nuclear weapons, not only lifted the sanctions on them, but paid them close to a trillion dollars in a deal akin to selling one’s soul to the devil that basically left Iran free to still build a bomb unless someone else used force to stop them. And I love that the usual green peddlers are feeling it too. I am smart enough to see through the lies that government interference will make these technologies more viable. History has proven that whatever government mandates ends up reduced to near non-existent evolution and stagnated high prices. Look at healthcare, cars, and a plethora of other such examples on your own time. They are there if you are not ideologically blind. And yeah, I remember when government could make things happen. Those days are long gone now that government is populated and run by inept and idiotic credentialed elite douchebags.

Back to the main topic: low oil/gas prices. Want to know why we got that?

This supply-side surprise comes courtesy of American frackers, who have seized the opportunity afforded them by the petrostate cuts and have ramped up their own production over the past nine months. By cutting costs and boosting efficiencies, U.S. shale has made itself capable of profitably producing $50 per barrel oil.

This is the worst-case scenario for OPEC: whatever success its production limits have in inducing a price rebound, the fruits of those labors will be enjoyed first and foremost by U.S. companies who will find more of their shale operations profitable at higher prices. With projections for growth of non-OPEC supplies being ramped up so dramatically through the end of the year, it’s clear to see that that’s already happening.

Kiss your frackers when you see them. And if I might be allowed one more comment about the nefarious relationship with Russians, I point you not to the delusional democrat’s usual target – Trump – but to the people that have opposed fracking in the US. Oh, I have heard the counterclaims made by the same dnc operatives with bylines today perpetuating the lies about a Trump-Putin connection and still harping on about a hacked/stolen election, when there has been zero evidence of any sort of connection presented and their choice of words to mask that what happened was that someone did the US voters a favor and exposed the corruption and criminality of the dnc (and nobody even knows if that was the Russians, but they keep pretending it was) so spare me the douchebaggery.

You can’t make this level of idiocy up, man

On this day where the collectivists celebrate the triumph of their murderous ideology – over 120 million killed and billions imprisoned in hell – there is bound to be so much stupidity making rounds that one would feel lost trying to find what to deal with, but then you run into gems like this one:

In an interview with “The New Yorker Radio Hour” broadcast over the weekend, CNN president Jeff Zucker derided Fox News as a propaganda outlet for the Trump administration, while claiming his own network was the only cable news outlet broadcasting “the truth.”

Asked for his assessment of the cable news landscape in the era of President Trump, Zucker began his reply by saying: “Obviously Fox News is, uh,” then paused for more than 11 seconds. “So, look, there’s three cable news networks. Certainly in primetime and in the morning, Fox is state-run TV and is extolling the line out of the White House.”

A spokeswoman for Fox did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The people that spent 8 years sucking Obama’s cock, then all but sold their dignity to try and push a lame and corrupt woman whose accomplishments all are negative unless they are whitewashed or made up whole cloth, over the finish line, now suddenly feel the game is rigged?

This is the response Fox News should give these idiots:

Here is the LSM projecting on others

Here is the LSM projecting on others

History Did Not Start in 2009

Over the weekend, a number began circulating in liberal circles in an attempt to justify the Democrats’ effort to filibuster Neil Gorsuch. The number was that there have been 148 cloture votes on judicial nominees in our entire history … and 79 of them took place under Obama.

The number instantly triggered my BS alarm and rightly so. As Ed Whelan details, this number is garbage. It turns out that Harry Reid routinely filed cloture motions on bills and nominations even when there was no filibuster or no threat of one (most likely to try to evade debate on Obama’s nominations and proposals).

By my quick count, the cloture motions that Reid filed on some 39 of the 79 nominees were withdrawn or mooted, and the motions on 28 others were successful, many with strong Republican support. (Only twelve of the 28 received more than 30 negative votes, and eleven of them had fewer than twenty negative votes.) All of those nominees were confirmed.

Of the eleven cloture motions that were defeated, three of the nominations were confirmed after some delay, and four others were confirmed after Democrats abolished the filibuster.

In sum, even under a very liberal account of what “blocked by filibusters” might plausibly mean, it is difficult to see how anyone could contend that more than eleven of Obama’s nominees were “blocked by filibusters.”

By contrast, 14 of Bush’s nominees were blocked by filibusters. Only 16 times has the Senate rejected cloture on a judicial nomination. Ten of those were in the 108th Congress when the Democrats were basically filibustering every Bush nomination they could, hoping he would be unelected in 2004. The only reason no SCOTUS nominee was blocked was because Bush didn’t nominate any justices in his first term (a time when Schumer was threatening to filibuster SCOTUS nominees for all four years). The Democrats tried to filibuster Roberts but failed. In the meantime, the Republicans brought up and voted on two of Obama’s SCOTUS nominees.

(The CRS report is here and it really blows away this talking point. Gorsuch’s nomination was only the fifth time cloture was even attempted with a SCOTUS nominee. All five were Republicans nominees. Only seven cabinet nominations have needed cloture votes — five were under Bush. Reid’s office has been citing only two pages of the report, conveniently eliding the other damning parts. Politifact, in proclaiming the “79 of 148″ number true, couldn’t be bothered to look at the full report and just took Reid’s excerpt as gospel. I include that last tidbit just in case you were wondering if Politifact is still full of it.)

Any filibuster of a nominee is wrong, in my opinion. I wasn’t happy when the Republicans did it and I didn’t agree with their sitting on Garland’s nomination. But this business did not start under Obama. It’s been building for years, really all the way back to Bork.

But it goes way beyond that. For eight years, all we heard that was that Republicans were “obstructing” Obama (obstructing, in this sense, meaning a co-equal branch of government not enacting his agenda because they thought it was a bad idea). But that followed on eight years of … Democrats “obstructing” everything Bush wanted to do. If anything, it was worse under Bush. Democrats not only opposed things Bush wanted that they opposed (privatizing Social Security, cutting spending, etc.) but even things they wanted like Medicare’s drug program, Medicaid expansion and massive spending hikes.

And, of course, now that Trump is in power, the Democrats are rediscovering how much fun opposition is. The very same people who cried “obstruction!” for eight years are now crying “obstruction, yes!” as Republicans try to repeal Obamacare, put judges on the bench, enact regulatory reform and … well, anything else. Hell, if Trump proposed single payer healthcare, I am convinced that Democrats would oppose just for the bloody hell of it.

Look, I’m in favor of obstruction. I like it that our government is set up with all kinds of checks and balances that are designed to slow, if not completely stop, bad ideas. But I’ve always been in favor of it. I won’t bash Democrats an “obstructionist” for opposing laws or nominations if they think they are bad ideas. But I will bash them when they claim some kind of factually-challenged moral superiority in doing so.

Yes, the Republicans have been engaging in some shady things. But that’s politics. They only time the Democrats don’t use the same tactics is when they literally can’t. They’ll scream the heavens down about gerrymandering; then they’ll gerrymander the hell out of Maryland. They’ll shout about voter disenfranchisement; but the only reason they want to enfranchise felons is because felons vote Democrat. They scream about Republican special interests; while bankrupting their states in obedience to SEIU. They scream about Garland; and they forget about Estrada.

The Great Liberal Myth is their belief in their own reasonableness and adherence to cold fact. But, as we’ve seen many times, Democrats can be as unreasonable and full of it as anyone. Don’t buy this business that the Garland-Gorsuch thing is a new low. We got there years ago.

Just Say No

Look, I’ve said this before. I don’t like political dynasties. We’ve seen enough of them. So no more Bushes. No more Daleys. No more Cuomos. No more Rockefellers. Certainly no more God-damned Kennedys.

And no … no more Clintons. I don’t think Chelsea even wants to be in politics. This is just some weird fetish that’s developed on the Left.

Bill Clinton was a decent President. Since then, the Clintons have brought nothing but ruin and strife to the party. Stop treating them like they’re a royal family or something.

Bad for America? Maybe. The “Cure” Would Be Worse

So this happened:

Veteran TV journalist Ted Koppel analyzed the media’s role in the political divide in Trump-era America on “CBS Sunday Morning” — and had a pointed moment interviewing Fox News host Sean Hannity.

“We have to give some credit to the American people that they are somewhat intelligent and that they know the difference between an opinion show and a news show,” Hannity told Koppel on camera, registering the veteran newsman’s doubt. “You’re cynical. … You think we’re bad for America? You think I’m bad for America?”

“Yep,” Koppel replied. “In the long haul, I think that all these opinion shows…”

“Really?” Hannity asked. “That’s sad, Ted.”

Koppel explained: “You know why? Because you’re very good at what you did and because you have attracted … people who have determined that ideology is more important than facts.”

I’m not a fan of Koppel and I think the cause he went on to blame for this problem — the demise of the Fairness Doctrine — is horribly misguided. But I think he has a point on Hannity and talk radio/TV in general.

Last year, Conor Friedersdorf wrote a great article on how talk radio precipitated the rise of Donald Trump:

Here are some of the cues and signals that even anti-Trump members of “the party” have sent to voters, over many years, that made the rise of a populist demagogue possible if not likely, and that Trump voters absorbed into their world views:

  • Career politicians cannot be trusted. This widespread conceit in “the party” has effectively made it impossible for candidates with governing records and public sector experience to be accepted by large swaths of GOP primary voters.
  • When the base doesn’t get what it wants, it is because of betrayal by party elites, never because a majority of Americans disagree with what the base wants.
  • Rhetorical stridency is a better heuristic for loyalty than core principles or governing record—and there is nothing disqualifying about extreme incivility (hence, for example, a buttoned up think tank giving a statesmanship award to Rush Limbaugh, a gleeful purveyor of bombastic insults).
  • Complaints about racism and sexism are always cynical fabrications, intended be used as cudgels against conservatives.
    Political correctness in governance is one of the biggest problems facing America.
  • Illegal immigration poses an existential threat to America.
  • President Obama has deliberately made bad deals with foreign countries to weaken America.

If any movement conservatives in the #NeverTrump crowd doubt that “the party” has sent all of those signals or cues, I’ll gladly expound on any of them. Taken together, it’s easy to see why a majority of an electorate that bought into those premises would be more attracted to Trump than to anyone else in the GOP field.

I would add to that list the claim that global warming is a hoax, unemployment numbers are faked, there’s a War on Cops, that opposing anti-terror policies is siding with the terrorists, that tax cuts pay for themselves, etc., etc. When people said “Trump says what no one else says” or “Trump tells it like it is” this is what they mean: that Trump reiterates the (often false) doomsday rhetoric of the conservative echoshere.

And now we’re reaping the results of this. Last week, we saw the utter immolation of Republican efforts to replace Obamacare. There are many authors of that disaster but a big one, as Josh Barro argues, was that Republicans spent years misleading the voters on Obamacare and pretending that healthcare reform was easy.

For years, Republicans promised lower premiums, lower deductibles, lower co-payments, lower taxes, lower government expenditure, more choice, the restoration of the $700 billion that President Barack Obama heartlessly cut out of Medicare because he hated old people, and (in the particular case of the Republican who recently became president) “insurance for everybody” that is “much less expensive and much better” than what they have today.

They were lying. Over and over and over and over, Republicans lied to the American public about healthcare.

To be fair, many Republican politicians understood there would be trade-offs and crafted policies around those. But those policies were never implemented because the Republican base believed that Obamacare had to be repealed instantly, replacement or no replacement. Friedersdorf lays the blame for that on the commentariat:

Still, even the insight that Republicans spent years willfully obscuring the tradeoffs involved in health-care policy doesn’t fully explain the last week. Focusing on GOP officials leaves out yet another important actor in this debacle: the right-wing media. By that, I do not mean every right-leaning writer or publication. Over the last eight years, lots of responsibly written critiques of Obamacare have been published in numerous publications, and folks reading the aforementioned wonks, or Peter Suderman at Reason, or Yuval Levin, or Megan McArdle at Bloomberg, stayed reasonably grounded in actual shortcomings of Obamacare.

In contrast, Fox News viewers who watched entertainers like Glenn Beck, talk-radio listeners who tuned into hosts like Rush Limbaugh, and consumers of web journalism who turned to sites like Breitbart weren’t merely misled about health-care tradeoffs.

They were told a bunch of crazy nonsense.

He lists hysterical claim after hysterical claim. Death panels, forced fat camps, depression, slavery, the end of individual liberty. There were and are plenty of problems with Obamacare. But claiming it was the end of America was ridiculous.

The problem is not conservatives nor conservatism. The problem is faux conservatives like Hannity and Limbaugh and every other joker out there who has no solutions, no answers, no philosophy, no ideas … just acres of doom and gloom and anger. Conor talks about his grandmother, who spent her last years terrified by what she was hearing from right wing hacks like Hannity. I see it in my Trump-supporting relatives, who hear a constant deluge from Fox News about how doomed America is and how awful the Democrats are. It’s incredible disheartening. And it angers me to think of these jokers making millions by convincing millions of Americans that the end is nigh.

I don’t mean to downplay real concerns, which are legion. We are in a lot of debt. Obamacare is staggering around, avoiding a death spiral only because of subsidies. Crime appears to have spiked, especially in certain cities. Rural areas are hurting badly (see my earlier post on the opioid epidemic).

But lately the conservative commentariat has no ideas for how to deal with these problems. Only a steady diet of doom and gloom, blame-storming and uncompromising rhetoric. And yes, this is bad for country. It makes people fearful who have no need to be and it instills an us-vs-them mentality, turning people we disagree with into hideous villains who hate America.

It was not always so. Friedersdorf is a bit too young to remember but in the 90’s, there’s no question in my mind that talk radio hosts like Hannity and Limbaugh were a good thing. They served as a critical counter-weight to a very liberal media. Their broadcasts played a big role in the Republican revolution of 1994, the subsequent balancing of the budget, the passing of NAFTA and the destruction of numerous corrupt politicians.

However, something changed in the aughts. I’m not sure why exactly — I suspect it was 9/11. But the tone of conservative commentary began to be less positive and more negative. Liberals stopped being mocked and started being demonized. I stopped listening to Limbaugh because his show, which has always left me feeling upbeat and inspired, became a huge downer. Everything was awful. America was going to hell. Compromise was a bad word. And now we’re at the apotheosis of this: a Republican party that can’t get anything done because they can’t approach issues in any kind of a realistic way.

That’s not to let liberals off the hook here. It wasn’t conservatives who called half the country “deplorables”. It’s not conservatives who are writing off half the electorate as evil racist sexist monsters for having voted Trump. But liberal idiocy does not make conservative idiocy OK. No matter how bad the commentary on the Left gets, that does not excuse Hannity for being a demagogue who has worsened the debate.

I don’t know that there’s a fix for this. My gut feeling is that we are in the grip of a national fever of partisanship that has yet to exhaust itself. But I do want address one supposed “cure”, which I referenced above, because it’s becoming a bigger liberal talking point these days.

Koppel blamed talk radio on the end of the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC policy that Reagan killed in 1987 that had previously forced television and radio stations to present “both sides” of an issue.

Put bluntly, the Fairness Doctrine was an awful policy and it should stay dead. The only reason we should ever dig it up is to put a stake through its heart and make sure it stays dead. Consider:

  • The Fairness Doctrine was blatantly unconstitutional piece of garbage, no matter what the Supreme Court said. Having the government dictate what constitutes “fairness” in commentary is an invitation to abuse. And indeed, Limbaugh, in one of his books, noted several times where politicians — including Nixon — used the Fairness Doctrine to bludgeon commentators into shutting up about issues the politicians didn’t want discussed.
  • This is why Fairness Doctrines have long been rejected for newspapers and print media, despite the long history of partisan commentary therein (Thomas Paine was not known for his “Fairness”). The justification for the Fairness Doctrine the last time it was upheld was that radio and TV media are limited to only so many channels. So the government has to ensure that all views are represented. This view is nonsense, of course. Most cities have one, maybe two newspapers, both of which are liberal. By contrast, TV has innumerable stations, some of which — MSNBC, for example — are decisively liberal. In that light, the Fairness Doctrine is one of the most liberal of things: a solution running around in search of a problem.
  • People who want government to do things never seem to consider that the powers they give government could be turned against them. Let me ask you something, Fairness Doctrine-supporting liberals: do you really want to give that kind of censorship power to Donald Fucking Trump?! Does it never occur to you that he might decide that “Fairness” dictates that Samantha Bee needs to make more jokes about Democrats or SNL needs to mock Nancy Pelosi more? Can you, for once, consider what government power will look like in the hands of people you don’t like?
  • The Fairness Doctrine is not going to magically create a more skeptical and reasonable populace. This is an appeal to government policy as magic.

Ultimately, the Fairness Doctrine plugs into the Ultimate Progressive Conceit: progressives’ firm belief that they are the only reasonable people in the room; and that if people disagree with them it’s only because they’ve been brainwashed by nefarious forces. This is an outgrowth of the Marxism that underpins much of liberal thought. The Marxists maintained that Marxism was as scientifically proven as the Law of Gravity and, if anyone disagreed, it was because they were mentally ill or had been brainwashed by bourgeoisie interests.

But that is never the case. People disagree with Progressive ideas because they disagree with them. Sometimes it’s because the progressives have the facts wrong. Sometimes it’s because progressives’ logic is poor. Sometimes it’s because progressives are being irrational and stupid. And sometimes — most often — it’s because people disagree with progressives on values (e.g., progressives think it’s “fair” to take money from rich people and give it to power people; many conservatives think that’s the definition of unfair).

I am very concerned about the nihilist direction conservatism has taken. And I think that Sean Hannity and his ilk have played a large role in that and, yes, I think he’s been bad for the country in some ways. One can not behold the election of Trump and not be concerned with the direction we’re going.

But getting government more involved is not the answer. If you really think Trump is fascist, why on Earth would you give him the tools to implement fascism?

All that wolf crying…

Is not really going to go anywhere, and that is because as many of us that saw the hysteria sans any evidence pointed out: it was all bullshit. There is no way that if this story even had an inkling of a chance of being true – based on evidence, that is, not the pipe dreams of a bunch of idiots with an agenda to deflect from the real issues – that we wouldn’t have been given the facts by now. The democrats play dirty. They care not a damn if they destroy the country if it keeps them in power, so if they had proof, that proof would already have been released by their operatives in the deep state bureaucracy.

This Russia thing was started as a distraction from the revelations of how corrupt the DNC and the Clinton campaign were, and it got legs after the people in the Obama administration that tapped the Trump campaign – to find dirt no doubt – started pretending there was something going on there. We now know that the democrat delusion and their knee jerk reaction after losing an election they felt certain they had already stolen, was all bullshit. Oh sure, they are still talking about Trump being a Russian stooge, despite the fact that unlike them he has been though with Russia and is pro fracking – something that impacts the economy of Russia which is mostly centered around the sale of oil and natural gas far more than anything we could do otherwise in a real negative way – because the objective here has from the start been to deligitimize his election in the eyes of the low information voter. The usual dnc operatives with bylines were more than happy to go along with the bullshit because they too wanted some magical event to give them president Hillary. After the attempts to coerce the electoral college, convince people that we should suddenly look at the popular vote and not the legal election, and a bunch of other madness (remember this doozy?) all went nowhere and the left was left unable to steal the election, they decided that they needed to undermine the presidency.

As I pointed out before, only to have our resident trolls all go batshit on me for daring to say so: nothing will hurt the left more than Trump being successful at rolling back the nanny state, firing up the economy, and doing foreign policy different than the cock suckery of the Obama years. Any success is damaging to that moron Obama’s legacy (and those that defended it), and more importantly, to the left’s dogma. The left wants to believe they are the experts. The only ones that know what is right and how to make things work. Note I said want to believe, because any observation quickly should dissuade anyone but the most partisan or stupid person from any such delusion. Hence that Krugnuts prediction about economic doom turns into real stories like this, this, and this. The people that grow wealth all feel that things are going to get better. Even the ones that spout idiotic leftist shit all the time.

And do you remember Obama telling us we couldn’t drill ourselves out of high gas prices? Well, despite his administration’s best efforts, it is precisely the drilling – well, fracking – done in the US and Canada, that has driven down the price of oil, while preventing hostile countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and even that leftist tropical paradise of Venezuela from making like bandits at our expense. What about all that bullshit bracket filling during March madness? I sure as hell don’t miss that crap. And so on.

Anyway, back on topic. The left is desperate to make you believe only they are qualified to be in charge. hence this idiotic play to deligitimize the Trump presidency, of course for many of us it feels more like this. Me, I hope these morons keep at it. Be hysterical idiots. Throw tantrums and act all bitchy. Cry wolf. Sure low information voters might fall for it now, but more and more people are realizing what’s going on. The fact that the dnc operatives with bylines destroyed any credibility they might have had left alone is a major victory for freedom loving people. But the left refusing to accept their fantasy world has run into the real one, is priceless. This is gonna be great to watch. Pass the popcorn please.

Faster please!

Trump’s new proposed budget leaves no doubt he is reprioritizing government and downsizing it, which can’t happen fast enough for me, but has the chattering class and the nanny staters all in a tizzy, is out.

President Trump’s budget proposal this week would shake the federal government to its core if enacted, culling back numerous programs and expediting a historic contraction of the federal workforce.

This would be the first time the government has executed cuts of this magnitude — and all at once — since the drawdown following World War II, economists and budget analysts said.

The spending budget Trump is set to release Thursday will offer the clearest snapshot of his vision for the size and role of government. Aides say that the president sees a new Washington emerging from the budget process, one that prioritizes the military and homeland security while slashing many other areas, including housing, foreign assistance, environmental programs, public broadcasting and research. Simply put, government would be smaller and less involved in regulating life in America, with private companies and states playing a much bigger role.

The cuts Trump plans to propose this week are also expected to lead to layoffs among federal workers, changes that would be felt sharply in the Washington area. According to an economic analysis by Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics, the reductions outlined so far by Trump’s advisers would reduce employment in the region by 1.8 percent and personal income by 3.5 percent, and lower home prices by 1.9 percent.

“These are not the kind of cuts that you can accommodate by tightening the belt one notch, by shaving a little bit off of a program, or by downsizing a few staff here or there,” said Robert Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “These are cuts that would require a wholesale triage of a vast array of federal activities.”

All I hear is that he plans to roll back Leviathan, and then focus on government doing the things it is told are its responsibility in the constitution, but I am sure that the usual members of the vote-buying credentialed elite class, seeing their own lucrative scheme come under attack, will be howling in anger that this is happening. of course, I suspect – as the article points out – that Trump’s biggest challenge to get this done will come from the biggest bunch of freeloaders out there – congress:

Still, budget experts said it was unclear what the precise impact on many agencies might be because the departments could choose to implement reductions in a variety of ways.

Administration officials have also stressed that discussions are ongoing between budget officials and agencies, and that the size of the budget cuts remains fluid. Moreover, the cuts cannot take effect unless they are authorized by Congress, which could prove difficult. Lawmakers routinely rebuffed budget requests from President Barack Obama, leading instead to protracted negotiations between both sides.

Already, Democrats have vowed to fight Trump’s proposals, and some Republicans have also expressed unease at the size of the reductions.

The White House declined to comment publicly, but administration officials have signaled for weeks that large cuts will be part of the budget.

That the democrats – which have never seen either a government entity that is large enough or pisses away too much of the tax payer’s money on crap that adds no value but buy democrat politicians votes – would react to this plan like vampires would to holy water, holy symbols, or sunlight, was expected. But the added bonus here is that it will expose the democrat-light nanny staters in the republican establishment, for what they are. These politicians on the republican side need to stop acting like they care about fiscal responsibility and small government when they are no better than the democrats, and we need to know who they are so we can vote them out as well.

I hope he wins this fight and forces congress to show its hand. And I hope every budget that follows this one repeats the cycle. The best thing to prevent the current tyranny of the nanny state is a small government with little power outside of the duties the constitution allows it. A lot of our problems will fix themselves when you don’t have the political class, and an entire political party, selling favors with other people’s money.

BTW, for the people all confused by why suddenly after the democrats lost the election things like employment, consumer confidence, and future economic outlook are off the charts in positive territory, it is things like this that are driving that. People want less intrusive and abusive government, and most of us definitely want government out of the business of picking winners and losers.

Hawking says that without world government tech will destroy us!

That’s the claim he makes <a href=’http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/stephen-hawking-world-government-stop-technology-destroy-humankind-th-a7618021.html” target=”_new”>in this article. Meh, globalists are getting desperate and even people that are supposed to be intelligent are now talking out of their asses. I find it not just naive but ridiculous to put faith in an entity that couldn’t do the job even at the micro level of states. What, incompetent credentialed bureaucrats like the ones running the EU or the UN will suddenly discover the secret to doing things right? Talk about being delusional. Shit, if the tools that will be running the global government don’t kill us outright themselves, they will use this tech to enslave us. Maybe Hawking thinks that is preferable to his imagined alternative, but I don’t.

Tech won’t doom humanity. Idiots thinking that only they are qualified and know what is best in charge of tech is what will doom humanity, and you are far more likely to get that with a global government than you are without. You want a bunch of social engineering idiots that think their will can bend the laws of nature, humanity, and physics to be in charge? Shit, Obama had the intelligence people spying on everyone, including his personal and political enemies. The Eu is a bunch of unaccountable douchebags that have been screwing over the people of Europe while they live a high life. And the UN, well that is one of the world’s biggest criminal organizations ever. Why the fuck would anyone trust an even larger and more intrusive government to do anything but make things worse for us?

I guess this “cri de coeure” by Hawking is just another desperate attempt at replacing the panic inducing shit other pro-globalization types push, like AGW, to sell their shit sandwich. The globalists are freaking out that their dream is dying, but I see it as a great thing that it is. Credentialed tools should not be calling the shot based on the horrible performance they have produced so far. That’s the real threat to humanity.