Gay Patriot Header Image

“Let Them Eat Cake 2016″

Posted by V the K at 8:57 am - October 24, 2016.
Filed under: National Politics

A leftist Hillary supporter at Bloomberg offers his advice to the political class on how to deal with the millions of Americans who will vote for Donald Trump because of their declining economic circumstances (driven by deliberate Government policy choices) and their sense that the Government has grown corrupt and indifferent: Ignore them.

Come Election Day, we should vote as though this election matters more than others. Fundamental political structures and moralityreally are at stake. And on Nov. 9, we should go back to pretending it never happened, and that in the words of Sinclair Lewis, it can’t happen here.

There’s a little bit of condescending lip-service in the piece of “Let’s sort of pretend Trump voters aren’t really ‘deplorables,’ for the sake of the country,” but overall the message is that the political class should just treat this as a brief national tantrum and move on with the progressive experiment.

I am pretty sure pretending Trump never happened and the concerns of his voters were illegitimate was what the Political Class was planning to do anyway: Hillary will propose policies and continue the Obama scheme of simply imposing them by executive fiat. Republicans will pretend to oppose some of these policies, but will fund them completely and do little to stop them while the parties and the Democrat Media Complex distract us with a circus of “investigations” that go nowhere and accomplish nothing.

These Are Things That Are Happening

Posted by V the K at 2:08 pm - October 17, 2016.
Filed under: National Politics

 A Republican Campaign Headquarters in North Carolina was firebombed over the weekend. I’m sure Obama’s FBI will be all over this. According to CNN, this is Trump’s fault.  Democrats are trying to do PR by donating money to the Republican Party so that the offices can be rebuilt… after the election, of course. They are giving the media cover to give the DNC positive press on this. However, the DNC has been encouraging violence against the Trump campaign.

That video, by the way, shows supposedly independent PAC operatives admitting that they coordinate with the DNC in violation of Federal Law. I’m sure Obama’s FBI will investigate thoroughly, right?

Guess what else the Democrat Left has in common with the Mohammedan Left? A shared belief that they are above the law.

The Director of the Dallas Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Mustafa Carroll, made a surprising and shocking statement during a Muslim rally in Austin, Texas. He firmly believes that the message of the Qur’an is supreme over the United States constitution. He said, “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land.”

Also, the bitter old queens who run The Advocate still hate gay bazillionaire Peter Theil. They also declare that the laws in North Carolina and Mississippi that require people to use the restroom that corresponds to their genital plumbing are “devastating?” Really? Devastating? If you are such a delicate snowflake that using the right bathroom is “devastating,” you have issues, princess.


A Constitutional Conservative Case for Backing Trump in November

Although I’ve only been a lurker and occasional commenter at GayPatriot over the past two and a half years (between working full-time, earning another degree, and making a move, I haven’t felt like I had much time for blogging), I still check in regularly to see what’s going on and what people are talking about.  From comments V the K, ColoradoPatriot and the other contributors have made here, I gather I’m in the minority among the blog contributors–but in sync with many readers and commenters–in my willingness to support Trump in this election.

Trump was definitely not my first choice:  I would have originally put him somewhere near the middle of the pack of 17 declared candidates, and, among the final four candidates, I would definitely have preferred Cruz.  As someone who considers himself a constitutional conservative, I would have preferred a nominee with a clear record of supporting such principles, but now that Trump is the Republican nominee, I am willing to back him.

My willingness does not come from blind party loyalty, but instead, from a clear understanding of my priorities and what is at stake in this election.  While I am more than conversant with Trump’s faults, as I will explain below, even some of his faults provide good reasons for backing him rather than voting in a way that would–directly or indirectly–lead to a victory for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

Although I could begin by outlining my points of agreement with Trump and then detailing and responding to various points of concern, others have done so already elsewhere, and for the sake of my particular argument, at this point, it is more useful to say a few words about my philosophy of voting.  While many people hew to an idealistic vision of voting whereby you are supposed to vote for the person who shares most of your views or principles, anyone who has been voting very long quickly realizes that such a vision rarely squares with reality.  So what to do?  One can vote, as the saying usually goes, for “the lesser of two evils,” which is how many of the people I know think about voting in presidential races, or one can approach it in some other way.  Some people say they vote for issues rather than parties or candidates, others say they vote for the person and not the party, and still others have other approaches.

Many people’s views on voting evolve over their lifetimes.  During Bill Clinton’s first term, it became evident to me that voting on character was in many respects more important than voting on issues because I’d rather vote for a person of character who will try to do what he says he will do, than for a slippery, dishonest snake who will lie and “triangulate” and poll-test all of his positions just for the sake of holding on to power.  I reasoned that even when I disagree with the person of character, I can act on that disagreement to oppose policies or proposals that I disagree with.

But what happens when all of the candidates seem to have objectionable characters in some respect or another, and no candidate adequately represents your views on the issues?  One response is to throw up your hands and say you won’t be part of the process, and many say they are going to do that this year.  My response is to say that in such a situation, one has to vote strategically in order to best achieve one’s objectives.

Anyone who has ever taken a class in strategy or game theory will have come across topics such as decision trees, Nash equilibriums, and games such as the prisoner’s dilemma.  Without going into too much detail, what one learns from studying such matters is that often the best strategic choice is not necessarily the choice that appears to be in one’s best interest at first glance.  Sometimes the best strategic choice involves taking risks that one wouldn’t ordinarily decide to choose.

In this election, as a constitutional conservative, I believe that in a contest between Trump, Clinton, and a variety of third-party candidates, voting for Trump offers the best strategic choice for advancing constitutional conservative principles.  I say that while fully recognizing that Trump is more of an opportunist than he is a conservative.

But let’s examine the situation.  We know that Hillary Clinton is no constitutional conservative.  We also know that Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton, an opportunist willing to “triangulate” for the sake of power.  Hillary is a committed leftist who is proud to think of Republicans as “enemies.”  That’s not hyperbole, but Hillary’s own words from one of the debates.  She views herself as a “progressive…who can get things done.”

During her time in the Senate, Hillary had tried to craft an image as a somewhat “moderate” Democrat, but that didn’t help her against the leftist Obama in 2008, who not only appealed more to their party’s leftist base, but, as a relative unknown, had none of Hillary’s baggage and the added bonus of more melanin.  When she became Secretary of State, however, she quickly reverted to the kinds of behaviors that had earned her so much distrust during her husband’s time as president.  And with the Clinton Foundation, she and her husband had found a new way to enrich themselves through their so-called “public service.”

So what would a Hillary Clinton presidency look like?  This excellent piece written a few months back by the always worthwhile Daniel Greenfield offers a persuasive preview:

The national debt will go up. So will your taxes. Hillary Clinton is promising a trillion dollar tax hike. And that’s during her campaign. Imagine how much she will really raise taxes once she’s actually in office.

Two Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy will likely leave office on her watch. That’s in addition to Scalia’s empty seat which she will fill resulting in an ideological switch for the court. Additionally, Kennedy, for all his flaws, was a swing vote. Hillary’s appointee won’t be swinging anywhere. The Supreme Court will once again become a reliable left-wing bastion.

Even if the Democrats never manage to retake Congress, they will control two out of three branches of government. And with an activist Supreme Court and the White House, the left will have near absolute power to redefine every aspect of society on their own terms without facing any real challenges.

And they will use it. Your life changed fundamentally under Obama. The process will only accelerate.

You will have less free speech. You will pay more for everything. Your children and grandchildren will be taught to hate you twice as hard. Local democracy will continue being eroded. Your community, your school, your town, your city and your state will be run out of D.C. You will live under the shadow of being arrested for violating some regulation that you never even heard of before.

Every day you will notice basic aspects of life that you took for granted just vanishing while a carefully selected multicultural audience cheers on television.

Hillary Clinton had a man sent to jail for uploading a video about Mohammed. What do you think she’ll do to even more vocal critics of Islam? How long will it be until a new Supreme Court decides that a Mohammed cartoon is “shouting fire in a crowded theater” and not protected by the Constitution?

I wish I could say Greenfield is exaggerating, but I know that he is not.   As Glenn Reynolds always says, read the whole thing.

And I haven’t even touched on the reckless dishonesty and unquestionable corruption of the Clintons.    As Fred Barnes noted in a recent piece, “Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to get this close to becoming president of the United States.”  Barnes notes:

Is there any public figure who lies as routinely as Clinton? Not in my lifetime in Washington. Not Richard Nixon. Not LBJ. Not Donald Trump. Not even Bill Clinton. She skillfully, though probably unconsciously, spreads out her lies to lessen the impact. But when you pack them together, as Rep. Trey Gowdy did while questioning FBI director James Comey at a House hearing, they’re shocking.

And in that case, he is just talking about the e-mail scandal.  The Clinton Foundation is another story completely, and an even more appalling one on its face.

The Clintons are so unscrupulous in their quest to gain and hold on to power while enriching themselves that they could teach a graduate-level course on political corruption and political machines that might shock the denizens of Tammany Hall.

For those reasons and many more, my political position this year has always been one of “Never Hillary.”  Hillary Clinton must not become president.  If she does at this point in time, the damage she will be able to do to the country will be irreversible.

So then, why Donald Trump?  Honestly the main reason, the most basic reason, is that Hillary is a guaranteed disaster, and Trump is admittedly a gamble, but in a desperate situation a gamble is the best choice.

I’m more than sufficiently aware of the case people make against Trump: he’s a narcissist, he’s dishonest, he’s impetuous, he’s unscrupulous, he’s not a “true conservative,” and, last but not least, he displays authoritarian tendencies in many of the things he says.

Of those, the most significant complaint is that he may have authoritarian tendencies, and that may appear to be the most challenging concern to reconcile with my claim that I consider myself a constitutional conservative.  How can one vote for a candidate who may be tempted to act like an authoritarian after taking office?

For me, the answer to that question is one of faith, not in Trump, but in the genius of our constitutional system.  Ever since it became evident that Trump would be the nominee, my thinking about this issue has remained the same:  Trump may try for unconstitutional power grabs, but Congress and the courts can and will block him along the way.


For the record: YES, Hillary is a criminal

…who sought-and-received such special treatment that now, in her own person, she embodies the most corrupt, disgraceful and dangerous aspects of American political life.

Allen B. West gives a summary:

…here’s what FBI Director Comey said regarding Hillary Clinton and this email server episode:

  • He concluded Hillary was “extremely careless” in handling our nation’s secrets.
  • He admitted no reasonable person could have believed putting these emails on a private server was at all appropriate or acceptable.
  • He admitted 110 emails on the server were classified at the time they were sent — showing Hillary not only lied, but knowingly endangered national security as secretary of state.
  • He admitted Hillary deleted work-related emails before turning them over to the State Department, despite her claims otherwise.
  • And, most shocking, Mr. Comey even admitted it’s likely foreign governments hacked her emails — and our adversaries could know critical secrets about the U.S. government because of Hillary’s actions.

Consider that just last week, there was a secret, private meeting between former President Bill Clinton and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch…Over the weekend, quietly, Hillary Clinton visited FBI headquarters and then came out to give an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd — who stated he had inside information there would be no charges. Then…Director Comey announces a press conference — as the pre-flight checks were being conducted on Air Force One, preparing to fly President Obama and Hillary Clinton on a campaign ride to North Carolina…Comey announces no charges, and Air Force One takes off. Barack Obama is flying, on taxpayer dollar, not with someone under criminal investigation — but a recently-exonerated Hillary Clinton. This, Ladies and Gents, is the “policy of political corruption” on full display.
When Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton stood together on that stage [in North Carolina last weekend], you saw two people who abandoned Americans to die and lied about it.

In short, and even if we leave aside the Benghazi deaths, Hillary Clinton is 100% guilty of crimes of negligence – and obstruction of justice (lying to prevent investigation). She was given a giant pass, for no reason except politics.

David Petraeus, convicted.  Scooter Libby, convicted.  Youtube filmmaker, jailed.  Edward Snowden, charged.  Hillary Clinton, Democratic nominee for President.



Obama loses P.Diddy?

In 2004, the rapper formerly known as Puff Daddy was active with the “Vote or Die” group to encourage youth voter turnout. In 2008, he upped it to “Obama or Die”.

Guess what he says today?

During a recent Q&A at Revolt’s music conference, Diddy let loose with his true thoughts about voting.

Asked how young people could make themselves heard in the upcoming election, Diddy said, “See the things that’s tricky about politics is there’s so much bullsh*t with it. We started Vote or Die and… and from the community we’re in, we’re not with hearing too much of the bullsh*t. So that’s why we get disenfranchised, [we’re] disconnected because nothing that they’re saying actually relates to us… So Vote or Die, and getting out the vote, those things [were] laid out there so people could understand about the process. We started Vote or Die, and the whole process was all full of sh*t. The whole sh*t is a scam.”

He then added that people could still vote if they wanted: “At the end of the day, I’m not telling you not to vote. But I’m saying be a realist and know that they’re motherf*cking kicking some bullsh*t up there.”

Ya think?

And Obama is still President, so….is that who he’s talking about?

News of the World

Posted by V the K at 8:20 am - May 26, 2015.
Filed under: National Politics

Just a few headlines today.

Goldman-Sachs, a company of exceptionally greedy progressive rent-seekers, says that the world is drowning in debt. Well, duh. The progressives claim that the USA can continue to rack up debt indefinitely because the dollar is a reserve currency, and deficits don’t matter, and we should actually be borrowing and spending a lot more than we already do. Because everybody knows that having an exploding Government on top of a shrinking private sector is totes sustainable.

The Senate Republicans under Mitch McConnell continued enacting and empowering the Obama Agenda by passing the president’s “Trade Authority,” i.e. the ability for Obama to conduct trade negotiations under total secrecy with no transparency and Congress gets to vote the final secret trade pact up or down without amendments. Call it “Obamatrade.” The Chamber of Commerce wants this, and promises it will create jobs and prosperity. You know, just like they said NAFTA would. How well has that worked out?

81% of Al Jazeera’s Arabic audience supports ISIS; so where is this Moderate Muslim Majority I keep hearing so much about?

Segregation is now being promoted by progressives as a Civil Right. Exhibit A: A $43,000 a year private elementary school in NYC is instituting monoracial classes. Exhibit B: Universities setting up “safe spaces” that exclude white people. The rationale is that racially homogenous environments are better for black and brown children, who just can’t compete with their lighter skinned peers. (When leftists do it, it’s not racism.)

Disinhibited by the company of racially different peers, the children would, the school hoped, feel free to raise questions and make observations that in mixed company might be considered impolite. The bigger goal was to initiate a cultural upheaval, one that would finally give students of color a sense of equal ownership in the community

Criminals are running amok in Baltimore after the mayor told them to them to stand down and give those who want to destroy space to destroy and an overzealous state’s attorney indicted six others because a drug dealer died in their custody. But remember… the really, REALLY important lesson here is not to call violent criminals thugs because it’s racist; Rachel Maddow said so.

So… runaway debt, useless Republicans, racial division, and criminals running amok because corrupt big city Democrats don’t dare offend the mob. Pretty much sums up Obama’s America, doesn’t it?

What’s the best news of this election?

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 3:33 am - November 5, 2014.
Filed under: 2014 Elections,National Politics,Obama Arrogance

Given how crazy U.S. political culture has become – in other words, given that too many of today’s Republicans are not that much better than Democrats, who went insane years ago – it’s a bit hard for some of us to be pleased by any political news, even news of a Republican victory.

Still, let’s all try to be pleased. What’s the best news of the 2014 election? Let us know your thoughts in the comments. For starters:

What else?

UPDATES (some from comments or Twitter):

More Americans beginning to see through Obama?

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 3:41 pm - October 20, 2014.
Filed under: National Politics,Obama Incompetence,Obama Prevarications

This is everywhere, and with reason: President Obama makes rare campaign trail appearance, people leave early.

That is,

  • People bought tickets to the rally and then didn’t care what he had to say, and
  • The “mainstream” media were willing to report the fact.

P.S. Yes, he basically lied about the economy. Maybe at least some people are getting tired of the lies?

Nearly half of America still doesn’t get it

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 5:00 am - June 17, 2014.
Filed under: National Politics,Obama Incompetence

What’s amazing is not that, in 2014, President Obama’s personal likeability numbers have finally dipped below 50%. What’s amazing is that, in 2014, they are still up at 40-45%.

How dumb are people? How many more Democrat-Obama disasters do people need before they can admit that the Emperor has no clothes (and continually lies to them about it)?

Coward/Traitor calls Snowden a coward/traitor

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 12:30 am - May 29, 2014.
Filed under: Hatred of the Military,Leftist Nutjobs,National Politics

This is rich in iron(y):

Secretary of State John Kerry escalated his criticism of Edward Snowden, calling him a “coward” and a “traitor,” and saying that the NSA document leaker should return to the United States from Russia and “make his case.”

“Edward Snowden is a coward, he is a traitor and he has betrayed his country,” Kerry said in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Daily Rundown” with Chuck Todd. “And if he wants to come home tomorrow to face the music, he can do so.”

The point in itself may have merit; we can discuss. But for fun, let’s remember some points about Kerry. The following conclusions have been either proven, or at least well-indicated as likely, by eyewitness testimony and other evidence: (more…)

Various and Sundry News Items

Posted by V the K at 7:54 am - May 7, 2014.
Filed under: National Politics

Real Scientists: Climate Change Report Written by Obma’s Hack Scienticians is Pseudo-Scientific Scaremongering.

Former Loyal Republican Moderate Charlie Crist: Republicans Hate Obama Because They’re Racists.

EPA Inspector General: EPA has been breaking the law, violating citizen’s rights, and lying about it.

California: We’re going to tax motorists for every mile they drive.

Clay Aiken appears to have won his primary race and will run against pro-Amnesty Republican Congresswoman Renee Ellmers.

Speaking of which: Obama Regime ready to impose Amnesty by Executive Fiat.  Boehner & Company will be delighted that the president is taking the Amnesty issue off the table by imposing it unilaterally.

Also, this seems about right:

Most people think of Obama as inept but likable; I think inept and mean-spirited is closer to the truth. As he has so often recently, Obama attacked Fox News. He seems to think that he might have had a successful presidency, if only Fox had gotten with the program:

Let’s face it, Fox, you will miss me when I’m gone. It will be harder to convince the American people that Hillary was born in Kenya.

The only person trying to keep birtherism alive is Obama, as it suits his purposes to portray his critics as a bunch of wingnuts. But Fox News was not the source of birtherism, Obama himself was. For close to twenty years, his official literary bio said that he was born in Kenya. Also–this is pure speculation–I suspect the main reason why Obama’s college and law school records are a state secret is that he applied as a foreign student born in Kenya, and received favored treatment as such.


Soros & Lewis behind marijuana legalization?

From Kelly Riddell at the Washington Times:

With a cadre of like-minded, wealthy donors, Mr. Soros is dominating the pro-legalization side of the marijuana debate by funding grass-roots initiatives that begin in New York City and end up affecting local politics elsewhere.

Wait a minute, “grass-roots”? I get the pun, but when a billionaire secretly bankrolls groups to push his agenda, isn’t the proper term “astro-turfing”? Anyway:

Through a network of nonprofit groups, Mr. Soros has spent at least $80 million on the legalization effort since 1994…

His spending has been supplemented by [recently-deceased billionaire] Peter B. Lewis…an unabashed pot smoker who channeled more than $40 million…

What is it, with the Democrats/Left giving a pass to all their manipulative billionaires?

Mr. Soros’ Open Society Foundations have annual assets of more than $3.5 billion, a pool from which he can dole out grants to pet projects, according to 2011 tax returns, the most recent on file for his charitable organizations.

David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who often are cited for their conservative influence, had $308 million tied up in their foundation and institute in 2011.

Finally, I may as well state my own view, and readers can agree or disagree. I do oppose prohibition of marijuana for the same reason I oppose prohibition of alcohol: the prohibition doesn’t work and creates more problems than it solves. Having said that, I don’t use the stuff and find its heavy users (or addicts) repellant.

Fort Hood, again

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 1:18 am - April 3, 2014.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,National Politics,Social Issues

There will be plenty of time to understand what happened and make appropriate points. For now, our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families.

True conspiracies?

It’s healthy to be skeptical of conspiracy theories; especially ones whose truth would require bad science, illogical motives, the implausible silence of thousands of people, etc. For example, the Rosie O’Donnell form of 9-11 Trooferism, in which absurd claims are made that fire somehow can’t melt nor weaken structural steel, that employees spanning vast security agencies of multiple nations conspired in vast deceptions, etc.

But occasionally, a conspiracy might be real, or partly so. I recently web-surfed to this interesting video from the folks at They claim to list 25 true conspiracies.

Note: I DO NOT AGREE with, or vouch for, their entire list. For example, their item 18 (the Nayirah al-Sabah war propaganda case) specifically asserts a CIA connection that Wikipedia does not mention at all. Or their item 15 (about polio vaccine containing a cancer-inducing agent) appears to be weakly sourced.

Still, here are three of their items which were new to me – and which did seem to be supported, when I did quick Google searches for them. If true, they would be historically interesting. If untrue, please feel free to say so in the comments (hopefully with links).

25. Did the NSA in the early 1960s propose to foment war with Cuba, by means of false terrorist incidents that would kill Americans? Search for Operation Northwoods. Again, if this story is false, please let us know in the comments. ABC News reported it as true. If it was a real proposal, then President Kennedy deserves kudos for rejecting it.

24. Did technology exist, as early as the 1970s, to assassinate people ‘trace-free’? A page says that:

At the first televised hearing [of the 1975 Church Committee]…Chairman Church dramatically displayed a CIA poison dart gun to highlight the committee’s discovery that the CIA directly violated a presidential order by maintaining stocks of shellfish toxin sufficient to kill thousands.

Some say the point was to deliver a tiny dart, and a toxin, that would decay on impact and become undetectable, after having induced a massive heart attack. I (Jeff) would add that, if the CIA had it in the 1970s, then surely others must have it in the 2000s; which must be why some people wonder about the sudden heart attack of Andrew Breitbart. (more…)

Yes, it’s easier not to think about politics

My title (point) will strike most people as obvious. But some “obvious” things remain theoretical until they hit you. Then they feel almost like a new thought.

I’ve been on a break from “the news” for over 2 months now, and I feel relaxed. Life is easier this way. What Obama and the Democrats have been up to, by way of destroying most of what has been healthy and good about America, is so sad. And out of my control, so it’s easier to think about other things.

This may lead to a small insight into the “low-information voters” who support Obama / Democrats. Politics deals with life-and-death questions. A budget or regulatory change can force any number of people into changing their lives. ‘Not thinking about it’ is probably easier for most people, including those voters.

The average Democrat voter (that I’ve encountered) has a feeling that the Democrats seem to like abortion privileges, gays and blacks; and she likes those things, too; and she doesn’t think any further about politics, because she figures that whatever else the Democrats are up to, she would probably also like. Never mind that in reality, the Democrats are the stalwarts of that Big Government – Big Banking nexus which siphons off her earning power year after year, and whose nature is essentially fascist (anti-freedom).

What’s depressing for libertarian-conservatives is that the Republicans are only a little better. The GOP are better – as in, usually they are a bit less insane. But the GOP Establishment are also captives of (or intimidated by) the same Big Government – Big Banking nexus that uses/runs the Left. The GOP and Democrat establishments unite in seeking to destroy the Tea Party – who are the main people interested in a smaller government, to restore the prosperity and freedom of Americans.

Can America Ever Recover From Obama?

I’m not being facetious here. I am asking this as a serious question. The damage done to the United States by the President and his Party – not just in this term, but over the last 40 years – may be too great for the country to ever recover. I am increasingly doubtful that it is even possible to avoid national collapse.

Our economy has been devastated by 100 years of creeping socialism and is currently functioning at or near Great Depression levels, masked only by massive public borrowing and spending and a sycophantic state media that would embarrass Leni Riefenstahl. Our public debt is unsustainable, or economy is strangled in regulations, yet Obama and the Democrats keep piling on spending, regulation and entitlements.

Left-wing social and economic policy works no better at the national level than at the municipal level; Detroit is the inevitably outcome of prolonged liberal Government.

I can’t help but notice the resemblance between present-day USA and the USSR in the 1980′s:

  • A bloated, over-leveraged national government whose expenditures have long exceeded the ability of the underlying economy to finance them. In other words, the USSR had a bloated military that consumed more of its GDP than the Government could afford. The USA has a bloated welfare state that requires massive borrowing because our economy cannot support it.
  • An aged decrepit leadership (Reid, Pelosi, Hillary) stuck in old socialist paradigms and making fatefully bad decisions out of rigid ideology. (In the USSR, it was the decision to invade Afghanistan. In the USA, it was passing Obamacare).
  • Growing internal self-rule movements. The USSR eventually split into its constituent states. Self-rule movements in Maryland, Colorado, Texas, and Calidornia suggest that similar faultlines are showing up in our own politics.

That’s basically the trap we are in. The only remedy to our situation would be austerity, a severe pruning of the regulatory/welfare state, and restoration of limited Constitutional Government. There is no other path to avoid destruction; but these things, we are told, are politically impossible.


Obama Keeps On Dividing America

Hat Tip: Ace.

Obama encourages his followers to inject contentious political debate into the Thanksgiving dinner, and helpfully provides talking points to spew.

Because, y’know… nothing makes for a more festive Thanksgiving than a fantical liberal shrieking talking points around the dinner table.

And the Obama cultists at Slate urges liberals to be even more obnoxious.

First off, you should wait until everyone’s seated at the table before you try to get things started. That way you have a captive audience that has to watch the fireworks, and everyone is settled in for a nice long time. Getting the topic of conversation to politics shouldn’t be too hard. Stick to short, sarcastic, tendentious remarks to get things going. “I’m thankful for all that free stuff Obama gave me.” Once you’ve engaged the enemy, it won’t take much effort to pivot to whatever particular subject you feel most comfortable with. A good Thanksgiving skirmish will scamper from topic to topic wildly and without warning, but it’s best to begin by digging into one particularly contentious subject to get tempers flared.

In short, be a jerk to your family because your leader commands it. (Maybe Slate was being ironic; it’s so hard to tell between over-the-top caricatures of leftism and actual leftism any more.)

This would seem to be an ideal way to make sure families stop having Thanksgiving together. But, since leftists tend to regard the family as a hateful, oppressive, and atavistic institution, it’s not too surprising that they want to tear them apart.

Thoughts for the day

“Gaius Gracchus proposed a grain law. The people were delighted with it because it provided an abundance of food without work. The good men, however, fought against it because they thought the masses would be attracted away from hard work and toward idleness, and they saw that the state treasury would be exhausted.”
- Marcus Tullius Cicero

“Politicians get up and promise you all sorts of free stuff. They say, I’ll give you more and more stuff, and you won’t have to pay for it…My own view is that we have to tell people the truth, and we’re going to have to demand sacrifice of the American people. The idea of borrowing a trillion dollars more than we take in [each year] is not just bad economics, it’s immoral. I’m not going to do it, and I’m not going to promise what can’t be delivered.” – Mitt Romney

“We had a chance, in 2012, to elect as president a man who built his entire career and fortune on turning around financially troubled enterprises. But the voters rejected him because Obama claimed he was going to give women cancer and outlaw tampons. That is when I knew our country was f—ed.”
- V the K

On the inevitability of default

In recent days, I’ve ridiculed President Obama’s claim that not giving him a debt ceiling increase would somehow force him to default on U.S. debt payments. (Since current revenues cover the minimum debt service many times over, making any debt default the president’s choice.)

But over the longer term, U.S. default is inevitable – if we keep raising the debt ceiling.

If you’ve ever seen a bankruptcy, you know that the path to default is to take on ever more debt – to supposedly “pay your bills”, in Obama’s expression – as you fail to cut your spending down to what you can afford.

By raising the debt ceiling so that Obama can borrow even more, America comes closer to default. NOT raising the debt ceiling – that is, giving up the deficit habit now, and running immediate balanced budgets – would postpone or prevent America’s coming default.

Some may answer “Ah, but letting Obama borrow more will keep things smooth and buy time to fix our other problems.” All I can say is: People told me that in early 2009, some six trillion dollars ago (of U.S. debt). Bullhockey. It’s how an alcoholic or drug addict thinks: tomorrow is always the day to officially clean up; never today.

Under present leadership, a U.S. default is inevitable. The only question is what form it will take.

  • Less likely: We could yet have an ‘honest default’, where we admit that we can’t repay our creditors and we negotiate cutbacks to our debt – and to our spending.
  • More likely: We will have a ‘dishonest default’ where we borrow, spend and print money until the dollar is confetti, and we never officially default, but we pay our creditors in dollars that buy far less than the dollars they loaned us (or were promised).

Either way, it’s a default (our debt is no good; our creditors don’t get what they were promised). And it’s the road we’re on. “Thanks, Obama!”

More details:

  • Niall Ferguson on why “the fiscal position of the federal government is in fact much worse today than is commonly realized”.
  • Jim Grant on America’s past defaults – honest and dishonest – and the one that’s coming.
  • Seeing the inevitable, China has called for the dollar to be overthrown (removed) as the world’s banking reserve currency. Read about it in the IB Times, the New York Times (which twists the facts to blame the Tea Party, natch) or the LA Times.

UPDATE: Obama has just called on America to stop listening to ‘the bloggers’, by a strange coincidence!

So poll with highest level of presidential approval is Rasmussen??

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:13 pm - September 28, 2013.
Filed under: National Politics,Random Thoughts

We’ve often heard it said the the Rasmussen poll skews Republican, but their latest shows the Democratic president with a higher level of approval than any other recent survey:

Screen shot 2013-09-28 at 11.07.41 AM

Not since May has any survey showed him with over 50% approval.