Thursday, September 14, 2017

Bipartisanship And Conservatism Cannot Co-Exist

Hold this line boys! The Germans would never think to go around this!
The other day I saw President Trump meeting with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck "The Smirker" Schumer, aka The Soros Lapdog, aka Crocodile Tears Chuck. Then last night the Gruesome Twosome announced a super awesome deal with Trump....

This morning Trump denied the Wall would not be built....

So obviously someone is not telling the truth, more likely all of them are not telling the truth. Cuz politicians.

Just seeing Trump with the Devious Duo makes me nervous. In the business world if you screw someone and break your word, you get sued and word gets around to not do business with you. In politics if you screw someone and break your word, you get accolades for being shrewd.

Lots of people talk about bi-partisanship as if it is something noble that all of our elected representatives in a two party system should strive for as a sign of their statesmanship.

It is not.

Here is why. Being bipartisan in our current political climate means only one thing. Conservatives keep giving up ground and liberals keep taking ground. There is never a point where conservatives actually conserve anything. Conservatives operate like the French before World War II, setting up behind a fixed Maginot Line and then watching befuddled as the Germans just go around it.

Imagine that conservative values are an island. There is nowhere to go because you are surrounded by sea on all sides. Liberals come to invade the island and demand a 5 mile beachhead. Conservatives in the spirit of bipartisanship offer to give them 2 miles of beachhead. Under bipartisan rules, that means a compromise and both sides win, especially Republicans that tell us we should be grateful at how little they surrendered. But in reality only the liberals win because they got something. Maybe less than they demanded at first but the conservatives still gave something up. The conservatives never get anything, they just lose less. This happens over and over again, usually in the form of liberals demanding and getting something they want now like a new program or new spending item and the conservatives agreeing to get something in the future that they never, ever get. Each time bipartisanship wins, liberals get more of what they want and conservatives lose more of what they are supposed to be protecting. It is an endless cycle. If conservative and liberals fight over 100 issues and liberals only win twice, they still end up ahead because conservatives have no where to go. This wall/DACA nonsense is a perfect example. What is likely to happen is the wall will get promised at some unspecified point in the future but liberals will never surrender to seeing it built. But they will get immediate and real amnesty of some sort for almost a million "dreamers" and paint themselves as the savior of these "dreamers" (because only illegal aliens have dreams), thus locking down almost a million permanent Democrat voters. Whenever you see Republicans and Democrats working together, it is a sure thing that the conservative cause is getting screwed in the deal. That doesn't stop utterly worthless "leaders" like Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, John McCain and Paul Ryan from crowing about "getting something done" as if that is the goal of conservatism.

The problem is that conservatives don't stand for much of anything except being not liberal. Every single conservative policy is a response to liberal policy. Conservatives have drawn a fixed, permanent line in the sand like Qaddafi but then they keep letting liberals win and all they accomplish is negotiating where the lines have moved, or in other words sometimes Democrats allow Republicans to negotiate just how many conservative principles they will surrender and to what extent. That is all bipartisanship is, liberals winning and conservatives losing a little less than liberals want them to lose. Meanwhile the national debt crossed $20,000,000,000,000 recently and now is charging at breakneck speed toward $30 trillion.

When liberals and conservatives work together, liberals get most of what they want, conservatives lose a little less than they want and the country loses. Quit acting like bipartisanship is something noble, it is just a code-word for Republicans and Democrats teaming up to make things worse in this country.

Monday, August 14, 2017

Dissolving The Union: The Yankee States of America

In February I suggested that it was time to have a conversation about amicably dissolving the United States into smaller, independent nations: Is It Time To Once Again Dissolve The Political Bands That Connect Us?. Since then it has become more painfully clear to me that we are on the way to a massive divorce, one way or the other.

It is one thing to suggest a dissolving of the union but it is quite another to work out how this would happen in a practical sense. It can be so daunting as to discourage us from thinking about it so I tried to imagine just one partial scenario, an independent nation formed from the northeast that ironically looks a little like the Union in the Civil War. I call it the Yankee States of America....

The Yankee States Of America
This is the easiest area to carve out based on political affiliation. The northeast, specifically the large metro areas, are the most homogeneous liberal areas in the country.

The New England states went 100% for Hillary Clinton, as did New York, Delaware and Maryland/Virgina thanks to the huge populations centered around D.C.. There are a lot of people in this region.

Four of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas are included in this new nation....

New York: 20 million people

The D.C. area: 6 million

Philadelphia: 6 million

Boston: 4.7 million

Those four metro areas alone make up around 10% of the total population of the U.S. and when you add in the smaller cities like Buffalo, Cleveland and Pittsburgh it grows larger yet.

Some of my thought processes behind this.

At first I had a vision of the Greek city-states as the model for the overwhelmingly homogeneous liberal urban centers on the East Coast. The New York metropolitan statistical area with over 20,000,000 people in 6,700 square miles (less than 1/5 of 1% of the total area of the U.S.) and has more people than any states except California, Texas and Florida. The D.C. and Philadelphia MSAs have more people than than over 30 states do individually. So why not four independent city-states like ancient Athens and Sparta? Or perhaps one continuous of exclusively urban areas that basically follow I-95 from Boston down the coast through NYC and Philadelphia and ends in D.C?

I considered that. There are a lot of red counties in the states that would make up the YSA. I also considered that the people in New York City probably have little interest in managing huge rural areas in New York, Pennsylvania and Maine. My reason for going with the larger landmass you see above is that even in our interconnected world I think it is important to hold natural resources. Pennsylvania has coal. New York and Pennsylvania have a lot of farm ground. More importantly this map gives the large coastal cities access to America's most unheralded natural resource, the critically valuable freshwater reserves of the Great Lakes via Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. The lack of access to freshwater is the most glaring problem for a California exit from the Union. Too many people, not enough water.

With technology and financial services being major employers in the YSA they would have a very robust and self-sufficient economy. They already have a solid infrastructure in place via highway, multiple massive airports and rail-lines.  Add in access to the Great Lakes, a long Atlantic coastline, borders with whatever the United States became in this scenario as well as Canada and you have all the makings of solid independent nation.

Obviously this is a very clumsy and simplistic sketch but it is the sort of lines of thinking that gets us from sitting on a powder keg to finding some sort of peaceable divorce. There are so many issues to resolve that it boggle the mind: what about people who don't want to live in the new nation, trade and mutual defense agreements, what sort of government would it have and where would it be located, everything. The British exit from the European Union is causing all sorts of headaches and this would dwarf Brexit in comparison. It would take years to formulate and years to enact but perhaps seeing the start of the process might provide a means to ease the tension via a light at the end of the tunnel.

A final thought for now in the form of a quote from JFK that I ran across today...

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

President John F. Kennedy, 1962

Monday, July 10, 2017

R.I.P. L.P. Or Why Libertarianism Isn't A Viable Political Party

Something very minor but very interesting happened last week in the world of politics, or at least I thought it was interesting. It involved Austin Petersen, a relatively young 36 year old guy who is mostly famous in Libertarian circles for coming in second to eventual Libertarian party Presidential nominee Gary Johnson at the 2016 LP convention. Gary Johnson went on to run a Quixotic campaign memorable mainly for asking "What Is Aleppo?". Even so Johnson somehow managed to pull in a rather substantial percentage of the votes in 2016, positioning himself as less obnoxious than Trump and less criminal than Hillary, although to be fair virtually everyone not currently incarcerated in America is less of a criminal than Hillary. Johnson won 4.4 million votes in 2016. That is a huge number of votes that came from a variety of people, including people like me on the "far Right" who recognized that Trump was not a "conservative" of any sort and temperamentally unsuited for the Presidency. It was so many votes that when you look at the total votes cast, the meaningless "popular vote", I dug into the data and came to the conclusion that candidates on the right won more votes than candidates on the left (for my reasoning, see here). Ironically it also was a sign that the end has come for Libertarianism.

Back to Petersen. On Facebook he said he had been pondering a run for the Senate in his home state of Missouri. Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, is up for re-election in 2018. On Independence Day Petersen announced that he was indeed running for the Senate but as a Republican. Petersen said of his announcement:
Dear friends in the Libertarian Party,
For the last eight weeks, I've spent six hours a day calling my supporters to ask them their thoughts on how I might best advance liberty. I took the time to listen to every single persons' opinion about a potential opportunity to seek a seat in the U.S. Senate here in my home state of Missouri.
 Of the thousands of people I spoke to, all encouraged a run, hundreds donated, and the vast majority offered their opinion regarding which party I should align with. Over 98% of them, including registered Libertarians, independents, Republicans, and even Democrats, said to run GOP.
You can read more here from Reason Magazine, Read Austin Petersen's Goodbye Note to the Libertarian Party. It is worth pointing out that Trump won big in Missouri, defeating Crooked Hillary by around half a million votes and nearly 20% so McCaskill looks hugely vulnerable.

You might not know who Petersen is but I think this is pretty significant. As someone who supports most of the points of the Libertarian Party platform (a platform I think a lot of "Libertarians" are completely unfamiliar with) and has voted Libertarian for the Presidency in the last two elections, I liked Petersen a lot and had high hopes for him. He is not a religious fellow but he is pro-life and makes a great secular case for being so. He is solidly pro-Second Amendment. He is young and charismatic and well spoken and dynamic, pretty much the exact opposite of the ticket of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld who combined being dull as drywall with not being terribly Libertarian. I think he recognizes the reality that a lot of Libertarians have come to, that the LP is completely incapable of competing on the national scale except as a spoiler to help Democrats. For example, in our home state of Indiana every statewide office is held solidly by Republicans except for one Senate seat held by Joe Donnelly. Donnelly won in 2012 with almost exactly 50% of the vote, thanks to some serious missteps by his opponent Richard Mourdock that the media repeated ad nauseum but also thanks to a solid third place from Libertarian Andrew Horning who drew 5.7% of the statewide vote. While Mourdock would have still lost by a few thousand votes even with Horning's votes, it would have put a win in striking distance and in a different electoral environment could have caused the difference.

More broadly speaking, I see Libertarianism as equal parts an academic exercise and an online treehouse. It is fun to post "Taxation Is Theft" memes on Facebook and talk about Austrian economics on Twitter. It is especially gratifying to have the smug sense of intellectual superiority compared to those sheep who vote Democrat or Republican. It is kind of like being a Calvinist. Half of the fun of being a Calvinist is commiserating with other Calvinists and chuckling over a craft beer at how simplistic and inferior Arminians are.

Libertarianism is great as a political philosophy but ultimately impractical for governing because it fails to understand something critical about human nature, that is that humans are fallen and selfish beings. It  is ironically one of the same failings of its polar opposite political philosophy, socialism/communism. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need sounds lovely when arguing over drinks but in practice human selfishness takes over and no one works any harder than is absolutely necessary which is why in the end the only way to keep socialism functioning is via state sanctioned violence.

That brings me to the NAP. The NAP or non-aggression principle is the cornerstone of libertarianism. You leave me alone, I leave you alone. Unless you are hurting me or someone else, what you do is your business.

James Madison addressed this question, although not necessarily in libertarian terms, in the Federalist No. 51, a text I learned way back in political science classes in college:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
That is a pretty solid summary. It was true in 1788 and it is just as true in 2017. Men are not angels and because men are not angels, they must have some sort of government.

Back to the NAP. The problem with it is that it only works if everyone agrees to abide by it. The reality is that almost no one does. This works from a Romans 12, non-resistance theological framework because we fully expect people to abuse it. As a governing political philosophy it doesn't. It doesn't take into account human nature and it doesn't really take into account a lot of other factors that contribute to our liberty. Don't bother me and I won't bother you doesn't address questions like abortion. It also fails to deal with the problem that as long as a bunch of people can vote to take what they want from other people and a bunch of other people get rich from making that happen, there is very little chance that we will ever disentangle the political process from a redistributionist scheme.

The other big problem and what I think is contributing to the rapid disenchantment of many towards libertarianism is that the movement seems to be obsessed with and hijacked by the twin pillars of gay marriage and legalized pot. Instead of "muh freedom" we have "muh pot" and "muh sodomy". A lot of people on the Left who favor "gay marriage" and pot legalization have latched on to libertarianism and either don't know or don't care that those are, or ought to be, pretty peripheral issues when it comes to liberty. I guess as long as two fellas can play house and smoke a joint after sodomizing each other, it doesn't really matter what our tax structure looks like or if our Second Amendment rights are intact.

More broadly, we have moved into a new phase of political expression that defies the old Left to Right political spectrum where more Left means higher taxes and bigger government and more to the Right means less government and lower taxes. We are seeing a lot of groups on the "Right" that don't care all that much about tax policy. We see a lot of new groups on the "Left" that have very little interest in the once cherished working class insofar as the working class includes white people. Libertarianism used to occupy the position on the far right end of the spectrum by calling for the elimination of most taxes and even government itself just as the socialists on the far left end called for complete government control of all economic activity. As we saw with the Bernie Sanders insurgency, identity politics transcended socialist politics. An old heterosexual Jew from Vermont was inadequate to represent the new Leftists. No, you have to be homosexual or "transgender", black or Latino or "Native American". Being a Jew is a no-go, being a Muslim is the way to go. What you really need to be for the new Left is a homosexual transgendered half-black, half-American Indian vegan Muslim in a wheelchair. It is all about identity. Trump is the mirror image of this on the Right. Other than his suspect miraculous conversion to the pro-life cause, Trump is nowhere to be found on the old Left-Right continuum. He is always rambling about protectionism and stimulus spending and tax increases/decreases. In fact he doesn't seem to know what he believes but he believes in the West apparently.

The divide now is one of cultures and civilizations. The political struggle is now Western culture vs. everyone else. The Libertarian response would be that our conflict with Islam and the non-West is a result of "blowback" from military interventionism in the region. That is true, but it is not the whole story or even the majority of the story. The West and Islam have been in conflict for over 1000 years, a conflict that predates the Crusades and a conflict driven by Islamic aggression that largely precipitated the Crusades. Blowback provides a convenient contemporary issue to rail against but it is just a tiny irritant in the grand picture.

A low tax, low regulation Libertarian utopia is irrelevant in a non-Western culture, even if it could hypothetically happen. Those on the far "Left" don't care if there is a socialist paradise if the paradise is run by heterosexual whites. The Left has moved past "get other people's stuff for free" and it now mostly concerned with "taking white people's stuff". If you think I am wrong I would challenge you to simply open your eyes and see what is being said by prominent "activists".

Libertarianism in it's purest form is the best possible form of government in a perfect world but we don't live in one of those. Quite the opposite. A better way of describing it would be that Libertarianism is the best possible form of government for the 1990's, after the fall of the Berlin Wall but before September 11th. For the world we live in today it is at best a whimsical academic exercise, something fun to debate online but otherwise about as meaningful as fantasy football. In the best environment for a serious third party challenge in decades with two absolutely repulsive main party candidates, Libertarians nominated two utter chumps without a shred of charisma between them and who were actually barely qualified to even call themselves Libertarians. Even in that environment they managed to garner a tiny fraction of votes.

The political world has jumped the single political spectrum tracks and now a lot of us are arguing about policies that aren't even in play anymore. People who care about liberty and freedom and who also care about sustaining Western civilization need to find a different path because Libertarianism isn't going to be any more viable in the critical next 5-10 years than it was in 2016. That path doesn't exist in a clear form yet but the makings of it are there. The real question now is who will lead that movement and what will it look like? That question is the one that occupies an awful lot of my attention these days.

Rest in peace Libertarianism. You had a nice run but ultimately failed to live up to even a fraction of your potential. It is time to make room for something new.

Sunday, June 25, 2017

The Prophet Tom Clancy

I started rereading Tom Clancy's The Hunt For Red October, one of his best back before he started churning out just awful, predictable books before his death. It was written in 1984, some years before the fall of the Berlin Wall and the death of the Soviet Union. It later became a popular movie but not a terribly good one, thanks in part to Sean Connery trying to talk with a Russian accent in his Scottish accent (a close second in cringe to him trying to sound Irish with a Scottish accent) and the presence of uber-liberal Alex Baldwin, a casting choice that apparently irritated Clancy.

It doesn't get much play in the book but it does warrant several glancing mentions that this fictional story was happening in the middle of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, an occupation that lasted a decade (1979-1989). The occupation resulted in some 14,000 Soviet fatal casualties and tens of thousands more wounded. It also led to a perception of weakness and was a source of smugness among Americans who knew we were aiding the mujahideen. The Soviets were bled for a decade and in the end retreated from Afghanistan. The Soviet Union collapsed shortly thereafter. I was struck by a statement Clancy penned early in the book from his main protagonist, at that time CIA analyst Jack Ryan regarding Afghanistan.
“Sir, the truth is that Moscow moved in there by mistake. We know that from both military and political intelligence reports. The tenor of the data is pretty clear. From where I sit, I don’t see that they know what they want to do. In a case like this the bureaucratic mind finds it most easy to do nothing. So, their field commanders are told to continue the mission, while the senior party bosses fumble around looking for a solution and covering their asses for getting into the mess in the first place.” 
Wow, that sounds familiar. A misguided occupation of Afghanistan with no clear objectives but sustained by bureaucratic inertia and a fear of looking weak. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan lasted a little less than 10 years. The U.S. occupation is entering the 16th year with no sign of a "victory", no actual objectives that anyone can name and the looming reality that when we eventually leave, the Taliban will take right back over and things will go back to how they were. The same Taliban as an aside that grew out of the mujahideen that were our buddies when they fought the Soviets but now are our enemies. Ironic, no?

Staying in Afghanistan because we don't know what else to do and can't figure out a way to leave without losing face is criminally incompetent. We are on our third administration overseeing this fiasco with no sign of a change in policy. On the bright side there have "only" been around 2,000 fatal casualties for U.S. troops which is a lot better than the Soviets losing 14,000.

Afghanistan has often been referred to as the graveyard of empires or where empires go to die. The British learned this. The Soviets learned this. We apparently are refusing to learn the same lesson. Every day we stay there bleeds our nation a little more and accomplishes nothing. It is high time for someone to have the courage to realize and say out loud that we have no mission in Afghanistan, no discernible objectives and no way to "win" when we don't even know what winning means. President Trump needs to be the maverick he ran as being and get us out of Afghanistan. We should not sacrifice even one more American life in the pursuit of an unknown goal. Osama bin Laden is dead, the Taliban are ascendent yet again and we need to wash our hands of that country.

The only real question left is how many more American kids will die in that desolate wasteland before we finally leave.

Friday, June 16, 2017

Love Of Power Is Not The Same As Love Of Country

Following the shooting of House Majority Whip Scalise and three others by a leftist loon (somewhat redundant, I know), President Trump released the obligatory and predictable statement condemning the attack, calling us to come together, etc. It was completely forgettable and I would rather he had skipped this predictable exercise that we go through after every tragedy. His visit to the hospital was far more noteworthy. But one line in the statement stood out to me, not because it was profound but because it was an obvious lie.
We may have our differences, but we do well, in times like these, to remember that everyone who serves in our nation’s capital is here because, above all, they love our country.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and a son of globalist
demagogue and puppet-master George Soros. How very cozy.
Does anyone seriously think that Nancy Pelosi is in Congress because she loves this country? Or that Chuck Schumer is in the Senate and pals around with the Soros family because he loves this country? In the spirit of bi-partisanship, do you really think Mitch McConnell, as worthless a Majority leader as the Senate has ever seen and the most pitiful excuse for a "conservative" this side of George Will, is in the Senate because he loves this country?

What about lobbyists? Federal bureaucrats? Various trade associations and law firms and sundry other groups? Do they all love this country? I don't doubt some of them do but no doubt a lot of them like their job or at least the benefits or happen to live there.

Or, as is I suspect very common, they love the power. They may not have much but they like being in the vicinity of the power. Smelling it, rubbing shoulders with it on the Metro, seeing it walking around, surrounding them in every grotesque Federal office building that controls and dictates the lives of hundreds of millions of people. I have spent some time in D.C. and you can feel it. You can feel the difference. There is some of this when you are in the financial districts of big cities. The tall, imposing buildings full of people that think they are super important convey that sense of power. I imagine that is what it is like on Wall Street but I have actually never been to New York City, one of the few major cities I have not been to on business., but I suspect it is similar. But D.C. seems to throb with power. Everyone seems to look at everyone else as either someone to envy or someone to look down on depending on their place on the Washington social strata. Plus there is the weird love-hate relationship people who live there have with the city. They all complain incessantly about traffic, crime, cost of living, tourists, etc. but they would never leave. If I disliked somewhere as much as so many people in D.C. do, I would leave but they don't because you can't get a taste of that power anywhere else.

There is a difference between loving this country and loving what this country can do for you.

A huge difference.

I know this. Anyone with any sense knows this. I know for a certainty that President Trump, a man who spent his life running in the power circles and buying and selling politicians, knows this far better than I do. So why say something like that?

It is just what you do when you are President. The whole game in D.C. is a giant farce put on to distract us. The truth, or at least the first whiff of truth, is that no matter who wins or who loses an election, the same people stay in power. Sure, if Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer switched places as Majority/Minority leader it would mean a little more power for one and a little less for the other but they would still be enormously powerful, wealthy, influential and sucked up to. For a man who campaigned that he would "drain the swamp", President Trump seems to find that the swamp ain't all that bad and kind of suits him these days.

Sometimes you drain the swamp, sometimes the swamp drains you.

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

This Is The World We Live In

Unless you have been completely out of the loop, you know that a fruitcake supporter of Bernie Sanders, a fanboy of Rachel Madcow Maddow, 66 year old James Hodgkinson opened fire today on a large group of Republican Congressmen practicing for a charity baseball game against their Democrat counterparts. Reports are still coming in but it looks like this guy was a fan of every leftist group around, from Bernie Sanders to the Southern "Poverty" Law Center, which ironically claims to identify people who hold hateful ideology, and Media Matters, one of the most intractable and obsessive leftist engines on the internet.

The FBI is seeking information on this guy, it certainly seems like he acted alone but who knows?

One of the wounded is the Republican House Majority Whip Steve Scalise who is listed in critical condition, as is a lobbyist who was there. A Congressional staffer and two cops were also wounded. You can watch the video taken by a cell phone here if you want.

What are we to make of this?

The first and most obvious thing is that this is what we should expect in an era of overheated rhetoric laced with violent suggestions. The American Left has been engaged in an orgy of assassination porn from the New York play mimicking Trump being assassinated to "comedian" Kathy Griffin holding a mock severed head that was made to appear like it belonged to the President of the United States. Who can forget Madonna and her juvenile bluster about blowing up the White House or this ironic picture:

Spoiler: There are actually two clowns in that photo. Keeping it in the family, the nephew of Mr. Dogg, some nobody who calls himself Bow Wow, blustered about "pimping out" the First Lady of the United States, thereby unintentionally reinforcing any number of stereotypes about black men.

Weird, who could have predicted that the endless attacks by the media and "entertainment" figures would lead to violence from unhinged people? It is worth repeating yet again that while the rhetoric is super-heated on both sides, the violence leading up to and following the election has been overwhelmingly one-sided and the side it emanates from is the Left.

Second, these are perilous times we live in. It has been my opinion since the election that we were headed for partisan bloodshed sooner rather than later and I was correct, unfortunately. Absent the police being there because of the Majority Whip this could have been a situation where dozens of sitting Congressmen were assassinated in broad daylight. I am not sure what that would have meant for this country but it would have been unprecedented in my lifetime. I have a hard time seeing how this country doesn't come apart at the seams, literally, in the next five years. The only question is how bloody it gets. I hope that doesn't happen but I can't really see a way forward when you look at the state of this country, our debt load, our diminished economy, etc. It is something of a comfort that this gunman was an idiot and an awful shot which helped mitigate the potential carnage.

Third, it is even more obvious now than ever that the media in this country is not a news source but a partisan mouthpiece mostly for the Left. As more and more people realize and embrace this, we see more and more people gravitating to echo chambers whether on the right or the left. At least conservatives for the most part realize they are doing this while the left seems to think that their hyper-partisan favorites are somehow the unbiased news sources. While the "mainstream" media obsesses over Russia and the NBA champs (who knew the NBA was still a thing?) boycotting the White House visit to whimsical musings about impeachment without a shred of evidence to outright calls for open revolt, there are many people who soak that up and that leads to losers opening fire on Congressmen playing baseball.

Fourth and finally, and more on this later, we are seeing that the old dichotomy of liberal-conservative, left-right, no longer are accurate descriptions of our political situation. It has evolved way beyond that but most of the energy is still spent on useless battles while the real struggle is happening elsewhere.

This is a sad day for America and for our grand experiment of liberty and freedom in a Constitutional republic. Benjamin Franklin once was said to have responded to a question about the sort of government the Constitutional Convention had given the American people. His reply is said to have been "A republic, if you can keep it". The reason for his warning seems clear today and the response is sadly looking very much like we are no longer able to keep the republic they gave us.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Speaking Of The Mad Queen

Hillary tries to be funny on Twitter

Hillary is not funny

Donald Trump, Jr. Replies

Hillary Gets #REKT