You couldn’t make shit like this up..

Remember that activist that got all pissed at Trump for saying too many illegal immigrants were criminals, in particular rapists, a while back? No, well, here is a refresher. Guess what just happened to this dude? He just got charged with raping someone and tampering with evidence to conceal he had done that: an illegal alien to boot.

You may not be aware of it, but I am noticing that a ton of the predictions or comments made by people that were then excoriated by the left and their attack dogs in the media – Russia & China are dangerous, Obamacare is a disaster, Iran is playing us and what the Obama administration is doing about it is really scary, all this talk of rape on campus sure feels made up, Clinton is a lying crook, and something is definitely wrong with her medically, and so on – have not only panned out, but panned out so blatantly, that despite the DNC operatives with bylines’ attempt to disregard or even hide these stories, you couldn’t have missed them unless you wanted to. I am sure we will get hours and hours of coverage for this story like we do whenever the media hopes to convince you that the evil people that the left hate said or did something wrong. PSYCHE!

It’s almost as if reality is putting a major beatdown on these idiots and their fantasy world views and ideas. No, it isn’t almost like: it is! Reality is basically ripping the left’s narrative and agenda to shreds. You can’t change the laws of economics, of human nature, of mother nature, or physics, but these morons seem to think if the right people try, it somehow will happen. And they have the gall to make fun of people that believe in religion or other such items that others feel are fantasy. Heh!

I think it was Lord Melbourne that said: “What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.”

The first amendment was written specifically to stop shit like this

What am I talking about? Well, WaPo has an article called “Congress to allow special restrictions on speech ‘inappropriate with respect to race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or other intrinsic characteristic’?” which is exactly why the brilliant, but now much maligned, white men with wigs put the first amendment in the Constitution. When government starts regulating speech, no matter how noble their intent (claimed, because I am sure this is about giving them a weapon to censor the uppity people), the road to hell is paved with these kinds of good intentions.

This ends bad for us people. America, nay the Western World, is heading in the wrong direction, because our credentialed elite class that runs the institutions of power & politics are comprised mostly of petty incapable people that actually look down on those of us that want nothing to do with their globalist wealth redistribution agenda that obviously is intended to enrich them as they steal from the productive to buy votes from the rest. When government gives itself the power to punish people that dare to point out that what they are doing is destructive, and worse, they know it but care little for the damage it will do to others, because their priority is their own greed and lust for power, we all lose. When I read “1984” and “Brave New World” I was naive enough to think it would never come to pass, because good people would always resist the collectivist globalist machine. Here I am now almost 4 decades later, and I feel like I live at the beginning of what lead to those worlds.

You ask why we have someone like Trump? I think the answer is clear: he is not one of the people that are part of the clique currently driving us off the cliff, even if he is a buffoon and a boor. As I have already said to one of our resident trolls: popularity doesn’t make one right. Practically always, doing the right thing results in exactly the opposite. Our world has become an upside down one, and nothing good will come from it despite the promises of the select few that live the high life and do so above the laws they use to keep us serfs in line.

Election 2016: IV. The Case for Hillary Clinton

This is the fourth part of a five (or maybe seven) part series I will do this week making the case for and against each of the major candidates, with a wrap-up on the weekend. I did this in 2012 and I will observe the same ground rule I did then: making the case for a candidate means making the case for a candidate, not a case against the opponent. That’s the subject of later posts. So “he’s not Hillary” is not a reason I will list for voting for Trump and “she’s not Trump” is not a reason I will list for voting for Clinton. Each one of them will get their own special post all to themselves about they don’t deserve our votes.

Today I write the post I’d hoped I’d never have to write: making the case for Hillary Clinton. Ugh.

Hillary Clinton has been part of our political landscape for 25 years. There are grandparents who can’t remember a time they didn’t know her name. Andrew Sullivan used to call her “Nixon in a pants suit” and that’s very appropriate. Like Nixon, she was denied the Presidency in a close race by a younger, more charismatic candidate. Like Nixon, she’s back for more. Like Nixon, her principle advantage in this election is having a terrible opponent.

So why should someone vote for Clinton? I mean, other than masochism?

She would be checked by a Republican Congress: I made this point four and eight years ago with Obama and it remains true. We have a system of checks and balances that puts much of the power — and almost all of the power to spend money — in the legislative branch. The Republicans are very likely to hold onto the House and might still keep the Senate. Paul Ryan would be a powerful balance against Clinton.

Now I can already hear the cries of “surrender caucus!” But let’s remind ourselves of what the Republican “surrender” looked like: Obamacare deprived of its “public option” and risk corridors; no card check; no cap-and-trade; flat spending; a deficit cut in half; spending $700 billion per year less than Obama was projecting back in 2010; the retention of most of Bush’t tax cuts; no gun control; no “free” college; no amnesty.

Remember that all that was in opposition to Barack Obama, a charismatic politician and good speaker who came into office with a nearly filibuster proof majority in the Senate, a big majority in the House, a 70% approval rating, a massive electoral win and a national economic crisis to capitalize on.

Hillary Clinton is no Barack Obama. Many people within her own party don’t like her. Thanks to Gary Johnson, she’s unlikely to win even 50% of the vote and, thanks to her recent collapse at the polls, she may only eek out a slim electoral margin (in fact, Nate Silver now estimates an 8% chance she wins the electoral college while losing the popular vote).

Obama had a mandate. Clinton won’t. If she’s going to get anything done, anything at all, she’s going to have to drive a bargain. And that bargain will be favorable to the GOP. She simply doesn’t have the political skill to hang shut-downs and confrontations on them.

A weak President means a strong Congress. And I like the idea of a strong Congress behind Paul Ryan. I like it a lot.

She might … might … govern like her husband. Bill Clinton’s presidency managed to be one of the better ones of modern times, certainly better than Bush 43 or Obama.* Granted, a lot of his achievements were due to a Republican Congress. But we avoided stupid wars, balanced the budget, controlled spending, had a booming economy and reformed welfare.

Will Clinton II be like that? I am very doubtful, as you’ll find out tomorrow. The party has veered sharply left since Bill left office and Clinton has veered with it. She was once a Goldwater Girl so she can’t be completely beyond redemption. But that was 50 years ago.

Still, one can hope. Hope is really all we have these days.

The Democrats should reap what they have sewn: One of the hallmarks of Obama’s legislation is time-delay. Obamacare was gradually rolled out, Dodd-Frank was gradually rolled out, most of his regulatory excesses have come recently. There is a price that is going to be paid for Obama’s policies. Obamacare is teetering on the brink of collapse, the economy remains sluggish and we are due for a setback. And a host of regulations and minimum wage hikes are soon to come crashing down on us.

Maybe we should let these happen when a Democrat is in office. If these happen under President Trump … give me a second to recover from those words … the Republicans will reap the blame from the disaster Obama has sewed. If it happens under President Clinton … give me a second to recover from those words … she will take the blame.

And that brings me to:

2020. In general, I don’t like playing the “let’s lose this election so we win the next one” game. I heard that in 1992 and the GOP didn’t take the White House back until 2000 and even then with a “compassionate conservative” in charge. In general, I believe you play for today’s election.

But if the GOP loses this year, they will have to purge the Trumpistas and rebuild toward a potential landslide in 2020. I have little doubt that Clinton will be vulnerable in 2020. Hell, she may not even be in office by then. Maybe we can gamble four years of Clinton against denying Trump and having a sensible candidate in 2020.

That’s it. You’ll notice that, like Trump, I’ve mainly focused on things outside of the candidate — the next election, Congress. You could argue there are some other positives about Clinton: her massive experience, her time in the State Department, her skill in organizing her campaign. But most of those, as I’ll explain tomorrow, I don’t see as a positive.

She’s semi-competent. And she’s sane. I doubt she’ll be as bad as my heart tells me. And if she turns out to be great, I’ll be happy to eat some delicious crow in four years. But I don’t see a huge amount of upside here. However, that’s the case for being Ready for Hillary.

(*For those of you interested, my ranking of the Presidents in my lifetime from best to worst: Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Carter, Ford, Obama, Nixon, Bush II. Ford is a bit difficult to rank and Carter I rank high only because he embraced deregulation and appointed Volcker to the Fed Board, both of which were of enormous benefit to the economy of the last 30 years.)

Election 2016: II. The Case Against Donald Trump

This is the second part of a five-part series I will do this week making the case for and against each of the major candidates, with a wrap-up on Friday. I did this in 2012 and I will observe the same ground rule I did then: making the case for a candidate means making the case for a candidate, not a case against the opponent. That’s the subject of later posts. So “he’s not Hillary” is not a reason I will list for voting for Trump and “she’s not Trump” is not a reason I will list for voting for Clinton. Each one of them will get their own special post all to themselves about they don’t deserve our votes.

Today I’ll make the case against voting for Donald Trump. A lot of this I’ve said before, but I’ll now put it all in one place. It’s going to be long and I expect any Trump supporters will be angry. Don’t worry: my anti-Clinton post will go up on Thursday.

There has never been a Presidential candidate as controversial as Donald Trump. Half the country is insisting that he’s the next Hitler while half the country is insisting he’s our only hope to prevent the collapse of our country. Trump himself has played to this dynamic, with numerous speeches depicting the country as a ruined wasteland and himself as the only salvation.

Needless to say, I think both view are overblown. Trump isn’t Hitler. But he’s also not the only thing standing between us and the abyss. So what is he?

I think he is a deeply deeply flawed candidate who has no business near the White House. Why?

Donald Trump is a big-government populist who would wreck what’s left of conservatism. As I said in the previous post, it is hard to pin down Donald Trump on a specific policy position. However, the overwhelming theme is one of greater government power: the creation of a massive deportation force, opening up libel laws so that it’s easier to shut up his critics with baseless lawsuits, opposing entitlement reform, supporting eminent domain (which Trump has used and described as a beautiful thing), the end of free trade, forcing companies to “bring jobs back” to the US, encouraging police to engage in more brutal policing methods, reinstating torture (a war crime), murdering families of suspected terrorists (also a war crime), seizing oil (also a war crime). The ACLU has put out a 27 page PDF file, detailing all the Trump positions that violate the Constitution. Some of those, I disagree with them on. But the list is overwhelming.

Over and over again, Trump advocates more government power, more Constitutional violations, less human freedom. Here’s a question for the Trump supporters: when has Donald Trump ever spoke movingly of freedom? When has he spoken of freedom at all? Has he ever said anything about civil liberties or property rights? He has ever once said that the government can’t or shouldn’t do something because of the Constitution? If so, has he said these things with a thousandth of the passion with which he advocate for more government power?

This is even worse if you look at Trump’s past positions: in favor of a massive wealth grab, in favor of gun control, in favor of high taxes, in favor of mandating paid family leave. How is this conservatism? How is this anything that we have been fighting for for the last four decades?

Yeah, he’ll have a Republican Congress to balance him. But that didn’t work so well with Bush, who at least had a modicum of respect for basic freedom and Constitutional process. And Donald Trump will not be powerless to do things on his own. He is surrounding himself with people who believe in hard executive power. He has advocated for more executive power.

And it’s even worse than just his big-government agenda. Trump has now elevated the so-called “alt right” to a position of respectability, retweeting alt-right dreck, filling his campaign staff with alt-right dreck and making naked appeals to alt-right dreck. Is this the GOP we want? Big government, populist and friendly to bigots? Anti-trade, anti-free-market, pro-torture?

He has alarming authoritarian tendencies. Trump is constantly beating drum of a Cult of Personality, portraying himself not as an executive to lead, but as some sort of savior. There have been numerous incidents of his supporters engaging in violence and Trump either doesn’t care or even encourages it. He is an enemy of transparency, refusing to release his tax returns under the flimsy excuse that he’s being audited. He kicks out media who have the temerity to question him. He has been known to carry out decades-long vendettas against journalists and has used ruinous garbage lawsuits to try to silence his critics.

For the last eight years, we’ve heard a non-stop shower of shit about how Obama is betraying our allies and coddling up to dictators. How is Trump any different? He’s dumped on our allies, threatened to abandon our alliances and praised Vladimir Putin as a strong leader.

(The latter comment is particularly revealing because Putin is not a good leader. Over the last few years, the Russian economy has collapsed. Putin has found himself diplomatically isolated and stuck in an insurgency in the Ukraine that he can’t really win. So by what standard is he a great leader? Because he blusters, because he murders the opposition and because he appears strong even when he’s weak? I’m sorry. A man standing boldly over the wreckage of his country is not my vision of a good leader.)

Can you imagine what we’d be saying if Hillary Clinton had endorsements from Kim Jong-Un, Vladimir Putin, the KKK, Omar Mateen, Don Black and the Chinese Communist Party? Can you imagine what we’d be saying if Clinton repeatedly retweeted images from neo-Nazis and White supremacists? Can you imagine what we’d say if Hillary Clinton praised Saddam Hussein for “killing terrorists”? (Reality: Hussein funded terrorists, paying blood money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers). Can you imagine if she said the crackdown on Tiananmen Square “showed strength”?

These are not the words of a President who will exercise Constitutional restraint. These are the words of a srongman wannnabe. Maybe some people think we need a strongman. I don’t.

His diplomatic skill is non-existent. Foreign policy is the one domain where the President has the most authority to act. As I noted above, Trump has bashed our allies and questioned our alliances. He has praised dictators and called for nuclear proliferation. What are our allies going to think about this? Why should they strengthen our alliances when Trump has indicated he’ll abandon them? Why should they engage in free trade when Trump is spewing protectionism? When has he ever shown an ability to work with other countries?

Look at Trump’s recent visit to Mexico. People are calling it a triumph because Trump didn’t actually catch on fire. But he lied about what he talked to the Mexican President about. His claims were instantly contradicted. If this happened to Obama, the Right Wing would scream themselves blue about how the world didn’t respect us anymore.

He’s a fraud and a liar. There is way too much to go into here. But basically Trump’s history makes Hillary Clinton’s look honest by comparison.

Let’s just take one example: we’ve heard a lot about the Clinton Foundation (which has a top rating from major charity graders). But have you heard of the Trump Foundation? This is a charity that follows the Clinton model — raising money from groups and then giving it to deserving causes (Trump himself, for all his boasting, has not contributed to it in 8 years). But wrapped up in that are gifts Trump has given himself (including a $20,000 self-portrait). Wrapped up in that are illegal donations to politicians who, mysteriously, subsequently dropped investigations into Trump University. Wrapped up in that are numerous violations of tax law. Wrapped up in that are donations to charities that allowed them to … rent rooms in Trump properties. The Clinton Foundation may have been used to exchange access to Clinton for donations. The Trump Foundation has been used mostly for buttering Trump’s ego.

Trump University. Trump steaks. Trump water. Multiple bankruptcies. Vendors unpaid. Casinos run into bankruptcy while being used as cash machines. Over and over again, we see how this man is a blustering fool whose only real skill is self-promotion.

Is there any reason, any reason at all to expect this will change once he’s in the White House? Then you’re probably the kind of person who believes your drunken husband will sober up once the children are born. In the White House, Trump will have more power and influence than he’s ever had. This will be like taking a raging alcoholic and putting him in charge of a liquor factory.

He shows no understanding of even basic policy. Trump said that he would “renegotiate our debt” like a corporate bond. This would set off a world-wide financial panic. Trump has show that he doesn’t understand our nuclear policy, which makes nuclear war more likely. He’s promised to support parts of the Constitution that don’t exist and advocated policies that are flagrantly unConstitutional. More to the point, after being the Republican frontrunner for 15 months, he’s shown no interest in learning any better. I can understand someone outside of government not understanding the ins and out of the bond market. But it’s unforgivable in someone who is nine weeks away from the election.

I know that’s a lot. But this post could easily have been three times as long. You’ll notice I haven’t talked much about Trump’s personality. Instead, I’ve been talking about his positions (or lack thereof), his approach to issues, his past actions, his future promises. Trump defenders have frequently admitted he’s a jerk, but said he would still be better than Clinton. I’m not convinced. Trump is the most singularly unqualified person I have ever seen run for President. I have been against Trump all year. And I remain #NeverTrump. Not now, not ever.

I don’t care if he’s the only thing standing between us and President Hillary. As I’ll post on Thursday, Clinton is a terrible Presidential candidate whose ideas are pure left wing whackadoodle. But in every way that Clinton is bad candidate, Trump is worse. She’s dishonest; Trump is a flagrant lair. She’s vindictive; Trump has nursed decades-long vendettas. She’s for big government; he’s for bigger government. She is an enemy of civil liberties; he is a bigger one. She’s corrupt; Trump is even more corrupt.

As I said yesterday, the reasons to vote for Trump are the Supreme Court and the hope that he’ll just be a rubber stamp for a Republican Congress. This does not, in my opinion outweigh the massive negatives. Maybe he’ll do those things. But he could also wreck the economy, crush civil liberties and get us into a war. I don’t think it’s worth the risk. I think it’s way more likely that he’ll wreck things than lead us into a new American century. And as someone who, while libertarian, still has a conservative heart, I can not countenance that. I can not roll those dice.

Election 2016: I. The Case for Donald Trump

This is the first part of a five-part series I will do this week making the case for and against each of the major candidates, with a wrap-up on Friday. I did this in 2012 and I will observe the same ground rule I did then: making the case for a candidate means making the case for a candidate, not a case against the opponent. That’s the subject of later posts. So “he’s not Hillary” is not a reason I will list for voting for Trump and “she’s not Trump” is not a reason I will list for voting for Clinton. Each one of them will get their own special post all to themselves about they don’t deserve our votes.

I’ll swallow the bitterest pill first: making the case to vote for Donald Trump.

Making the case for Donald Trump is exceedingly difficult because it’s not really clear what Trump stands for. He was for a wall, but now it may be more a virtual wall. He was going to deport illegals, but now he’s not sure, but maybe he still will. He’s outlined policies on his website but most of them are GOP boilerplate and are often contradicted by things he says in speeches or debates. He says he wants a moratorium on new regulation, which sounds good. But I have no idea if he’ll actually do it.

So the absence of ironclad policy, we’re left with a few things:

Trump may, in the end, just be a rubber stamp for the GOP: There have been a lot rumblings that Trump is not terribly interested in governing. His son reportedly conveyed an offer to Kasich to let the latter become the most powerful Vice-President in American history. His positions and his list of Supreme Court nominees are mostly copied from the Republican mainstream. If that is so, then Trump’s talk about policy is kind of irrelevant. Trump would become mostly a figurehead with Congress having the real power which is a bit closer to what the founders intended. A vote for Trump would be a proxy for President Paul Ryan.

A Trump election might end parts of the Culture War: Trump has evinced little to no interest in the Culture War. He bungled the abortion question because he doesn’t care. He’s been fairly friendly to gays and his election would probably put the last nail in the coffin of the anti-gay conservative faction (a nail many Republicans would love to see driven). Trump is less moderate on issues of policing, immigration and race. But this would be progress. Of a sort.

The GOP may have earned a second chance to govern: I have been reluctant in the past to give the GOP full control of the government again. The last time, they blew spending out the window, wrecked the economy and bungled a war. As a general rule, I favor divided government and the divide I favor is the one where the GOP controls the purse strings.

But Ryan has laid out a conservative agenda and shown the ability to get it through Congress. It’s been ten years. Maybe they deserve another chance.

The Supreme Court: This, even to the biggest skeptics of Trump, is the main reason to support him. I do this every election, but here is the age of the Supreme Court justices:

Liberal: Ginsberg (83), Breyer (78), Sotomayor (62), Kagan (56)
Moderate: Kennedy (80)
Conservative: Thomas (68), Roberts (61), Alito (66)

With the passing of Scalia, the Court will shift Left if Clinton is elected. She could also replace Ginsberg, Breyer and Kennedy on the Court, cementing a liberal majority for the next twenty years. You can, if you want, find many gleeful articles on liberal websites about what they hope a liberal court could do — overturn Heller, stomp out Citizens United, dash what is left of federalism, produce an unfettered regulatory state.

Now this is a bit of wish-casting by the Left. The Court tends not to overturn precedent so lightly. But some of the most important SCOTUS decisions in recent years have been 5-4. If Clinton is elected, those decisions will not be resolved in our favor.

That’s pretty much it. There are a few other reasons people have touted but none of them cross me as likely or even desirable. For example, Trump isn’t going to “smash the establishment”; he is the establishment. Of the reasons given above, the one that really resonates is SCOTUS. Assuming that Trump goes with conservative justices, the fate of the Court hangs in the balance.

Is that reason enough to vote for him? Stay tuned.

Fundamentally changed!

Do you think Seoul would have felt compelled to put out a statement like this one if they felt the US could be reliably trusted to make sure the crazy a-hole running the North Korean prison state held in check, and if that failed, dealt with?

This is the Obama legacy. That great statesman that was going to fix all the problems that cowboy Boosh caused by actually showing strength and telling most of the madmen of the world there would be consequences?

Note that I still felt Boosh was soft on both North Korea and Iran, and that he wasn’t particularly strong with China or Russia either, but our allies at least felt the US had their back.

Clinton Faints

So some excitement this weekend:

Hillary Clinton has pneumonia, her doctor said Sunday, hours after the Democratic nominee stumbled and exited a 9/11 commemoration ceremony early.

“Stumbled”. Fainted would be a more apt description.

The incident seems certain to prompt further scrutiny of Clinton’s health and her campaign’s transparency — though Republican rival Donald Trump was uncharacteristically silent throughout a solemn day marking the 15th anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

I can only assume this is because Kellyanne Conway seized his phone and locked herself in a vault.

Clinton, 68, was diagnosed on Friday with pneumonia, and “was put on antibiotics, and advised to rest and modify her schedule,” Dr. Lisa Bardack said in a statement.

“While at this morning’s event, she became overheated and dehydrated. I have just examined her and she is now re-hydrated and recovering nicely,” said Bardack, chairman of internal medicine at the Mount Kisco Medical Group.

Pneumonia can vary from “walking pneumonia” to a deathly illness. This explanation from the Clinton camp comports with what we saw yesterday as well as her coughing fit from a week earlier. Despite my distaste for Clinton, I hope she recovers well. Pneumonia, even a “minor” case, is scary business

A few thoughts on the wider issue of candidates’ health:

First, the health of the candidates is a perfectly legitimate concern. Clinton is 68, soon to turn 69. Trump is 70. Either would be the oldest President in American history and both are at an age where health can decline very rapidly, especially under the massive pressure of the Presidency.

The conspiracy theories about Clinton have been silly, but the “how dare you!” response of the press to those questions has been even more ridiculous. And it blew up in the media’s face this weekend. There was a hilarious period of time where the Clinton supporters were insisting that the mild temperatures and low humidity in New York were inferno conditions that would make even the most rugged human pass out. This was before the pneumonia was revealed and they decided that Clinton continuing to campaign while sick showed superhuman strength and vigor.

The health of a Presidential candidate is always a legitimate issue. It was an issue when Tsongas was concealing lymphoma back in ’92. It was an issue with Dole. It was an issue with McCain, specially given his tin dingbat of a running mate. It’s an issue this year. Let’s not pretend it isn’t.

(There’s a part of me that thinks that, in both cases, poor health would almost be a reason to vote for them since Pence and Kaine would make much better Presidents than Clinton or Trump. But the larger concern is a President incapacitated or making poor decisions due to health.)

Second, the paranoia and secrecy of the Clinton camp came home to roost. The Clintons tend to be secretive and untruthful, even when honesty and openness would suit them better. Revealing Clinton’s pneumonia diagnosis on Friday or Saturday would have made Trump’s followers crow, but it would have quickly abated as everyone else just wished her a full recovery. Having it crop up this way was the worst possible combination of circumstances.

Third, as much as the Trumpaloos are preening, they are in a glass house on this one. Trump has been completely opaque about his medical history, releasing a crazy note from a California quack and claiming to be in perfect health. Clinton, for all her concealment, release a more detailed note addressing the hematoma from her fall of a few years ago and revealing her hypothyroidism.

The gripping hand here is that it would be really hard for either of these candidates to conceal a major health issue. The schedule demanded of a Presidential candidate is absolutely brutal. During the campaign, they never get a day off and they meet with donors, media or voters all day long (and thus are constantly exposed to pathogens). The idea that Hillary Clinton is being carried to the finish line by the Secret Service or that Trump is concealing cancer is ridiculous.

However … I do think healthcare disclosure remains important. Both candidates should have their medical records reviewed by an independent physician (or three of them). But neither will do it of course since Clinton is paranoid and Trump is consumed with his own vanity and won’t reveal anything. So maybe this is something, like the release of tax returns, we’re going to have to mandate.

Dark times are a coming..

Today, on September 11, 2016, 15 years after the worst attack on US soil, while my thoughts are with those that lost their lives and those that loved their loved ones, both on that day and in the struggle after, I want to actually deal with something I see coming that bears ill for all of us: the PC movement’s attack on freedom in general, and internet freedom in particular. Now I am sure most good people will say that there should be nothing wrong with being polite and respectful to others, especially when hiding behind the anonymity provided by the internet, and that anyone unable to do so or resisting that effort must be bad or have ill intent, but whenever I hear the PC movement run their mouths about the ills of a free internet (or opposition of the PC movement in general) all I hear or see is exactly this: those in power will silence the opposition and their political enemies.

The world is heading towards dark times as Western values are being abandoned by the most corrupt and least capable political class ever (both oh, do they think they are awesome shit). The political elite calls the masses stupid or evil because they will not let the globalists do what they want. Especially since what the globalists are doing is horrible for the common people. Oh sure, they tell us that they are doing this to help the less well off and fight injustice, but these people give absolute proof to the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Don’t take my words for this. Look at what the world looks like after 8 years of the people that tell us anyone that doesn’t share their social and ideological values and ideas of social justice being provided by them, actually is today. In short, things are worse, and it is by design. More instability, the rich got more powerful and richer – and it is no coincidence ,that the biggest promoters of social justice also are the ones that have profited the most from the misery it has caused – and the rest of us are robbed of more of our freedoms and wealth.

Unlike the old fascists and communists that actually killed of their =political enemies, the new crop of collectivists now content themselves with destroying the lives and well being of those that dare stand up against the disservice they are doing us all. I leave you with one of the most telling quotes I have ever read:

“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

― Robert A. Heinlein

The Clinton Quiz

For some reason, this morning’s hoo-hah over Gary Johnson reminded me of a Polish joke from the Cold War. I will adopt it to the present circumstance:

Hillary Clinton is on a game show where you have to answer four questions to win a cash prize. She sits down with the host.

Host: So, Mrs. Clinton, are you ready for you first question?

Clinton: I’ve been ready since 1991, when I …

Host: OK, so … for your first question … what is Iraq?

Clinton: Iraq is a country that I voted to invade in 2003.

Host: That is correct! Now, for your second question … what is Libya?

Clinton: Libya is a country I decided to bomb in 2011.

Host: That is correct! Now, for your third question … what is Syria?

Clinton: Syria is a country I supported bombing in 2014.

Host: That is correct! Now, for your last question … and all the money … what is Aleppo?

Clinton squirms for a while, fiddles with her blackberry, stares off into space, bites her lip. She concentrates very hard. Finally, she clears her throat.

Clinton: Well, I’m not completely sure, but I’ll take a shot at it.