The Demons in Guns.

The May 12 print edition of the Macomb Daily (a suburban county of Detroit) carried an oped attack on gun ownership by Miami Herald writer Leonard Pitts Jr. He starts out by reporting on an 18 year old student who died rushing a gunman in his school and goes on to list a few other heroes who met the same fate.

He then declares:

     ""Don't blame the guns."
     That's what gun-rights advocates always say in moments like this. And OK, fair enough. Lets not blame the gun"

From there he proceeds to blame the gun but not the gun itself just its existence in a free society. Like Ocasio-Cortez  claiming that billionaires are not immoral themselves, just their existence is.

     "But can we not blame this nation's insistence on easy and unfettered access to the gun? Might that not have the tiniest bit to do with the fact that gun violence is rampant here?
     Instead of dealing with that causality, gun people ask us to take gun violence as some immutable fact of life, some intrinsic component of freedom."

There are three  things wrong with those sentences. First, unfettered access to guns would mean me going to a gun shop, selecting a gun, paying for it and leaving. But that's not the reality we have. I had to apply for a permit, wait for a background check, take an 8 hour class in gun safety. Unfettered? Hardly.

( In a laissez faire economy it wouldn't be completely unfettered either. The above requirements would be demanded by insurance companies not the government. Any government involvement would be restricted to the framework of how best do we exercise our right to self defense while protecting the rights of others. For example, laws against brandishing in public, because such brandishing is an objective threat to the rights of others, would be a proper government concern.)

Second, "gun violence" is a cognitive package deal designed to deceive by packaging as a concept's defining characteristic two or more things that are not the same and thus don't belong together.

Gun violence can be used to assault and destroy life or it can be used to defend life. To package these two contexts--assault and defense--together in the concept of 'gun violence' and condemn both as equally evil is dishonest at worst or sloppy writing at best.

Third, someone needs to inform Mr Pitts that an individual's Constitutional right to life includes the right to defend that life and 'unalienable' means immutable and intrinsic. Notice too how he admits that he believes guns, inanimate matter, cause deaths when he uses the word 'causality.' But 'let's not blame the guns''?

Mr Pitts then tells us his view on why we citizens want to own guns in self defense:

     "People are dying for nothing. For some fantasy of rugged self-reliance.
For some shortcut to macho. For some terror of the Other standing at the bedroom window. For nothing."

So your right to defend yourself and family against attack is nothing more than an irrational fear of a boogey-man in the bedroom window? Or a shortcut to macho? This is nothing but a smear of American's right of self defense. What's wrong with self-reliance rugged or otherwise? To be against self-reliance is to be for dependence. That must be what he wants of citizens.

The image that Mr Pitts is projecting is an image of self-reliance, independence, individualism, and self-defense. This is to be denigrated as fantasy?

I would like to point out that if you don't have a right to defend your life, then in fact and in reality, you don't have a right to life. How can you have a right to something you are not allowed to defend and keep? You can't and you won't. And this is what the gun grabbers want, your right to life in their hands, not yours.

Our ancient primitive ancestors believed that spirits and demons inhabited everything, trees, rocks, air, water etc., that some had a magic power to bless us while others could destroy us. Mr Pitts, in believing guns have a power to urge their owners to run around killing fellow humans is trying to return us to the primitive. Let's not fall for that.

The God of Moderation

Here is a comment I left at the Valdaidiscussionclub.com website.

The God of Moderation
This is written as if it were an attempt to balance individualism with collectivism, food with poison, suffering with happiness and the goal or goals of this balance are to be achieved by moral efforts of the United Nations. It is a moral foundation designed to justify the New World Order's goal of balancing freedom with dictatorship because extremes of either are allegedly evil.

The authors have a hard time figuring cause and effect.

They say: "According to the study the key factor accounting for the rise in individualism was the increase in the level of economic development, though this relationship had some significant exceptions: “the fact that most of the countries that did not show an increase in individualist values were among the lowest in socioeconomic development over the time period examined is consistent with the observation that socioeconomic development drove the rise in individualism. China is an exception to this pattern, showing a decrease in individualist values even though the country has experienced economic growth.2”"  

Leaving the China point aside, this is backwards, it is political freedom that gives rise to economic development, not the other way around. To create an economic value a people need to be politically free to think and free to act on those thoughts. Without such freedom no economic development can happen. If the authors had read their first quoted author Ayn Rand further they would have learned: ""Another current catch-phrase is the complaint that the nations of the world are divided into 'haves' and the 'have-nots.' Observe that the 'haves' are those who have freedom, and that it is freedom that the 'have-nots' have not." ~ Ayn Rand

The authors openly admit, as they should, that individualism--individual freedom--is growing all over the world but they insist, it must be balanced. With what?

"In the end, a moral audit of the world economy suggests that part of the story of “global imbalances” that are blamed for the world’s economic ills may have to do with an excess of national self-interest over cooperative motives across countries, regions and global institutions. Rebalancing the world economy may necessitate a reassessment of values and a shift in gears to effect a transition to a new moral “steady-state."

When you hear someone claim the moral state as theirs, always ask "Moral? By what standard of value ?" Press them on this and you will find out theirs is the same standard used by every bloody thug and dictator in man's long history of butchery, human sacrifice. For centuries people have been told to sacrifice--give up--their money, property, freedom and even their lives but to whom?

The NWO concept screams for an answer to the question "Ordered by whom?" Obviously the rulers of the world and hopefully, in their minds, the UN. A world where sacrifices are offered by the ruled and collected by the rulers is the naked essence of their "new moral 'steady state.'"

More governmental "bold action" coming against citizens.

The Detroit Free Press Sunday 2/10/19 AP article "'Leader of climate panel predicting 'bold action'" portends of more wrong headed legislation by those who see themselves as saviors of the world. For example, the first sentence reports that "Florida Rep Kathy Castor is confident that a special House committee on climate change will play a leading role on one of the most daunting challenges facing the planet."

First, let me say that today's politicians can't help thinking they are in charge of the whole world, that they can save not only America but the whole planet. Someone should remind Ms Castor that she represents just the US and not the world.

The next sentence is an example of obfuscation: "The Democratic caucus is unified under the belief we have to take bold action on the climate crises," she said.  What's being obfuscated is the concept 'bold action.'

It is an out of context phrase. It makes no distinction between  the private bold action of Henry Ford inventing the industrial production line or the Wright Bros discovering human flight, each action devoid of force, verses the government 'bold action' of FDR forcing the dollar off the gold standard by making it illegal to own gold.

The difference is the 'bold action' of free men voluntarily creating goods and services in a free market and the bold action of government force initiated in the absence of any rights violation. The gold standard didn't violate any one's rights. So owning gold should never have been a crime.

 In the context of government,  'bold action' can only mean government force initiated against citizens who have done nothing wrong. Since they have done no wrong, a crime has to be invented.  So, the goal is to make some human action a crime. Like FDR's gold, that crime must be owning and using fossil fuels.

The USA was founded on the principle of individual rights which means doing something wrong meant violating or threatening to violate someone's rights. But now the powers that be want us to believe that exhaling or otherwise creating carbon dioxide (CO2) is or should be a crime for which the government must initiate bold action against us.

This new crime found a quasi-justification when the US Supreme Court declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. It is not of course. CO2 is a natural atmospheric gas which is actually plant food required by almost all living organisms.

There is an abundance of evidence against the pollutant designation. I recommend highly " Watts Up With That?" by @Anthony Watts for daily updates on the climate change scam. He has a blogroll of other climate critics I also like. And I recommend the book "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" by @Alex Epstein @CIP, Center for Industrial Progress.

The Democrats Can't Escape Their Farrakhan Problem

The Democrats Can't Escape Their Farrakhan Problem

2019 Hopeful Headlines.

 On most New Years I like to look at the passing year's main events and then ponder what headlines I want to see in 2019. There is an awakening going on but since people wake up to reality at different times and stages, these are in no particular order except the first one which I hold most important.

1. "Public Schools going Private" People are waking up to the fact that government controlled education is destroying education by replacing learning with socialization which always teaches obedience to government force.

2. "Gun Confiscation Legislation Defeated" Citizens are also waking up to the fact that if they don't have a right to defend their life, they in fact don't have a right to life, for how can you have a right to something you are not allowed to keep and defend?

3. "George Soros and Tom Stayer both told by their CFOs they are broke" It won't change much but it's a feel good headline.

4. "Michigan Governor Whitmer switches parties, becomes Republican, pushes privatization" I know that's a stretch but, well, I'm in a wishing mood.

5. "Trump orders more ports of legal entry placed in wall" President Trump offers migrants 4 year path to citizenship via a green card and no voting or entitlements for that time. Steals immigration issue from Dems.

6. "Fed raises rates, crashes economy, blames Trump" People can now get interest on savings. Since all productive investment comes from savings, market rises.

7. "Trump returns dollar to gold standard" President Trump declares dollar to be worth one 1200th of an ounce of gold, lets float from there, economy spasms then booms.

8. "Mass arrests of pols announced" Large numbers of past administration and current bureaucrats indicted for crimes ranging from fraud, obstruction of justice, sex crimes, and even treason.

9. "Trump declassifies documents" Many pols flee country. Mueller promises to end witch hunt. Trump doesn't accept.

10. "Trump, AG> ABA must revoke Mueller and Comey law licenses"

11. "Trump offers China zero tariffs" Today President Trump offered to reduce our tariffs to zero on their goods in return for zero tariffs on ours. Xi considering.

12. "Trump does fireside" The president begins a series of televised evening chats with people explaining the why behind his policies with heavy amounts of evidence.

13. "Airports cancel contracts with CNN, investors flee" CNN files for bankruptcy.

I'm keeping it at 13 because it's already a bit long. My readers are invited of course to add their own. Who knows, maybe these will be more pleasant than counting sheep. Have a happy new year and stay optimistic.

LA Doubled Homeless Budget, Doubled Homeless Crime

 The fruits of government enforced altruism.

LA Doubled Homeless Budget, Doubled Homeless Crime

Reply to Robinson oped

In my last post I said I would respond to WAPO writer Eugene Robinson's editorial which appeared in my county paper the Macomb Daily on 12/6/18.

Mr Eugene Robinson was way over the top with his promotion of the ridiculous scaremongering reports from the G20 meetings and the Katowice, Poland meetings. He states:

"We don't have to wait for history to prove how utterly, stupidly wrong Trump is on this existential issue.

 "We have baked ourselves into an era of superlatives--the rainiest storms, worst    floods, deadliest fires, most punishing heat waves.

The hottest years on record.

The highest levels of atmospheric carbon in hundreds of centuries."

There is only one problem: There is no evidence to back up those claims. They are just that, baseless, arbitrary claims. And all those things he claims--storms, floods, fires, and heat waves, are weather, not climate. No, the "utterly, stupidly wrong" person is Mr Robinson, not Trump.

I recommend The Inconvenient Blog which has great reports the truth about the number of fires here and other articles contrary to Robinson's and the UN's claims.

To see what Robinson's future America might look like, see today's France

Just Another Hobgoblin

My local county newspaper of 12/6/18 the Macomb Daily featured Progressive Washington Post oped writer Eugene Robinson dutifully championing the latest climate change scaremongering report from the Group of 20 meeting in Buenos Aires.

And this on the heels of the United Nations conference in Katowice, Poland which recently issued the most threatening, dire, catastrophic, doomsday forecast ever for us humans. Ever, ever! I will critique Robinson's oped in a following post. For now I just want to focus on its aim.

This doomsday oped is just another of H.L. Mencken's hobgoblins which governments use to keep its citizens "frightened and thus clamoring to be led to safety." All said hobgoblins of course being imaginary.

When I graduated from High school in 1960 it was acid rain that was going to wipe out the human race unless we humans changed our evil ways and modified our industrial way of life.

That was followed by global cooling which would, yes, kill us all by freezing unless we gave up our evil industrial ways.

At about the same time another hobgoblin "population explosion" was introduced which would see us all die from starvation because we wouldn't be able to feed ourselves, unless of course, we gave up our industrial and technological ways.

Following that was global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions which would result in the  melting of the ice caps and drowning us all unless, again, we get serious about doing away with our industrial society.

Well that didn't come about so global warming had to be morphed into another hobgoblin: climate change. Now they've got us coming and going. Any change in earth's average temperature up or down automatically portends disaster. And, according to these scientists, only the government, an institution with a legal monopoly on the use of force, can save us. What a dream come true for power hungry politicians and money and fame hungry professors and scientists.

Do you see a constant pattern here? Give up our way of life. Relinquish our freedoms. Surrender our rights. Sacrifice.

The Progressives are in no hurry though. These hobgoblins were used to prod the populace into giving up just a little of their freedoms at a time with the creation of government regulatory agencies like the Dept of Energy and  the EPA just to name two. These have issued  myriad of regulations restricting our freedoms and rights.

Unfortunately, Congress has placed all of these regulatory agencies into the Executive branch which means they are not answerable to Congress. Sure, Congress can hold hearings and even hold individuals in Contempt of Congress. So what? Do those guilty of contempt go to jail? Not that I can see. There is no teeth behind such hearings.

This fact is revealed in the excellent book "Deep State"  by Jason Chaffetz former Congressman from Utah. In it Mr Chaffetz shows how the regulatory state pretty much ignores Congress, it's subpoenas, inquiries and even its threats to hold persons in Contempt of Congress.

New to me though is the brazen act of the State Dept requiring a State Dept plant to be present at every meeting between a Congressman and regulatory staff. His job was only to take notes of what was said and report back to the State Dept so they could put their own spin on it. Amazing!

So what does all this mean? To me it means Congress has by piecemeal legislating itself out of existence by abdicating its responsibility to write rights protecting laws in favor of an unelected bureaucracy writing rights violating laws which is what most regulations are.

It also means that all of the controllers that a totalitarian dictator would require to become the next fuhrer or chairman are in place now just waiting for him or her to arrive. It almost happened. Trump's election put a temporary hold on that. The question is, how temporary?

(I deleted a link that did not work)

A Brief History of Leftist Political Violence in 1 Year

 "Hatred of the good for being the good" is the motive of the progressives identified by Ayn Rand

A Brief History of Leftist Political Violence in 1 Year

Put this up at the New Clarion a few minutes ago with a few additions.

Shumer and the Democrat's resistance.

Just after President Trump announced Kavanaugh for the SCOTUS, Senator Chuck Schumer announced he would fight the conformation with every thing he had.

This means Schumer had no interest in Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy, his past rulings or decisions. The knowledge that Kavanaugh was somewhat of a conservative was all the Senator needed to know.

Before Kavanaugh was named, Sen Schumer said then he would vote against any nominee by Trump. Justice, fairness, facts, evidence and reality means nothing to Sen Schumer
.
So what does matter to him? Power. The power of legalized force he and his party want to use to force their collectivism on the rest of us. The entire Democrat Party in infected with lust for power.

Blind resistance to a reality that, in their minds, is not supposed to exist is all they have. Thus the ease with which they use wild exaggerations and outright falsehoods against Kavanaugh, Republicans and Trump.

They can't put together a reasoned argument against Kavanaugh because they don't know how and this is because they weren't reasoned into the beliefs they hold like collectivism and altruism.

They accepted on faith the notion that collectivism-the supremacy of the state not the individual-and the morality of sacrifice on which it is based, is the morally good.

So anyone who talks and acts in favor of individualism (even if inconsistently) and of self interest is the morally evil and must be destroyed. That in my view is what we are seeing today from the Democrats and their servants in the media.

More on their irrationality to come.

The Diverse Hatreds of the Democrats

 This is an insightful post on hatred. It hints at the fact that the leftist class's treatment of hatred as the cause of racism is backwards. Hatred is a consequence of racism not its cause. The cause of course is an idea, the idea that a person's bloodline causes what he thinks. No it doesn't. The cause is collectivism, the notion that a man's value is to be determined by some group (collective) to which he belongs.

The Diverse Hatreds of the Democrats

Kavanaugh Hearings.

I haven't watched today's hearings but did watch Wednesday morning and all day Tuesday. It was almost laughable the way the Democrats kept posturing as great defenders of justice while for the last ten years looking the other way as the DNC rigged the 2016 election against Bernie Sanders, as Hillary moved government documents from government servers to her own private server-a felony-as she had that server destroyed along with some cell phones while they were under subpoena-another felony-as she paid for the creation of a phony dossier meant to frame Trump and who knows what else.

It was obvious from the beginning the Democrats were only interested in delaying the hearings until after the Nov elections in hopes that Trump would be impeached and the Dems could then appoint a progressive judge to the bench. Several Democrats made motions to delay or suspend the hearings. Fortunately chairman Grassley didn't allow it. You can be sure the Democrats would never allow it if rolls were reversed.

Senator Feinstein tried hard to push the idea that certain weapons can only be classified as assault weapons and not as defensive. She has to evade a lot of reality to promote that notion. Common sense should tell anyone that any weapon can be used for assault or defense. What she is promoting is a very narrowly defined, out of context definition. It requires a concrete bound mentality that seeks to define something by focusing on only one of its essential characteristics, assault, while ignoring the other, defense. Thus it is a concept designed to deceive.

If a weapon can be reclassified as exclusively an 'assault' weapon in the mind of a public conditioned to use its eyes as tools of thought, then that public will be influenced by the notion that if assaults are to be stopped, then those 'assault' weapons should be banned. It should be obvious that banning such weapons is blaming the weapons for causing the assaults. Senator Feinstein is evading more than just self defense, She evading the human element. She ignores the fact that humans have free will and can choose to use any weapon for good or evil. It is human choice that is the causal factor in all assaults and defenses.

I don't think Sen Feinstein invented this invalid concept of 'assault weapon'. More likely it was thought up by some progressive intellectual. She heard it and bought into it completely because it relieves her of the responsibility of  asking why do people choose evil? That question requires a lot of heavy conceptual thinking for which most of our leaders are not equipped. I thought judge Kavanaugh handled it well as could be.

The Republicans offered heavy praise to the Judge citing his many accomplishments and endorsements. The Democrats seemed totally uninterested. If the hearing doesn't end today I might look at some of it tomorrow. Maybe.

Blogroll update

 I just added this awesome blog to my blogroll. It's by Peter Schwartz author of  the book "In Defense of Selfishness" and many in-depth articles on currant events from an Objectivist perspective.
http://peterschwartz.com/  HT https://www.hbletter.com/ Enjoy!

From freedom by right to tyranny by majority rule

Why is the Progressive left calling for no borders, abolishing ICE and the border patrol and demanding sanctuary cities?

Every nation needs borders if for no other reason than to define where its law enforcement authority starts and ends. Otherwise the Mexican government could cross our old, now nonexistent border and start enforcing its laws on what used to be American citizens. Conversely, our government could do the same to Mexican citizens. This of course would lead to chaos.

Now, I can imagine if all other nations adopted the principles in our two founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the principle of unalienable individual rights,  then a borderless globe might be plausible, maybe. But wouldn't that mean a one world government? For me, a scary thought.

Or we could throw away our founding structure of a constitutional republic and just join all the other  "Democracies" practicing majority rule. We can ignore the fact that history shows us democracies eventually collapse into dictatorships or blind chaos of one kind or another (see Venezuela here).

This--the repudiation of our founding structure however--is the real goal of the progressives' call for no borders and sanctuary cities. Read any newspaper, any radio or television talk or news show and you will hear a steady refrain on how our "democracy" is in danger or how we must elect Democrats to save our democracy.

That America is and should be a democracy is now taught in our schools. In the public mind we are no longer a constitutional republic but rather, a democracy, a fait accompli for majority rule. Students are coming out of school unaware of the concept of a constitutional republic.

But some will say a democracy can have protections for minorities so it's OK to have a democracy. Not really. As soon as the government tries to protect a minority from some injustice, the majority will scream something like 'since when does a minority dictate to a majority? That's not democratic.'

You see, progressives understand that democracy is majority rule. In all democracies the people are forced to segregate into waring groups all fighting each other for control of government to get their group's needs serviced, usually at the expense of other groups through taxes and regulations.

It is for this majority rule that the progressives in the media, academia and politics lust. They can't force us into their socialist utopian dictatorship unless they become the majority. That's why we see the all out, no holds barred, anything goes assault on Trump and the public who elected him. And it is the public who elected him that is their main target.

In 2016 the collectivist left believed they were only inches away from their socialist utopia. But the voters saw something in Donald Trump they liked more. Perhaps it was Trump's willingness to punch the left in the mouth and keep on punching (with his tweets).

Or maybe it was an emotional response one feels at the sight of an image one has yearned to see for a long time, a man with a spine. For sure Trump is his own man and doesn't mind going up against all odds. This image has to be attractive to many voters. (Yes Trump definitely has a spine but is wrong on trade deficits and tariffs. He needs to read Keith Weiner at Monetary Metals and John Tamny at National review).

But thinking in images is not enough to save a nation or even a presidency. What's needed is a public that can think in principles, that is, general truths on which other truths depend. Our founders studied political philosophy. They could see the truth of democracy's failure in the history of Athens. So they decided to create a constitutional republic based on a set of principles.

A constitutional republic is one where the government is restricted to a set of principles, precisely what the progressives who now dominate the Democrat Party seek to destroy. Without principles people can only act on whims and feelings. They really do want to act on these. Remember Nancy Pelosi's "Can't we just deem the bill to be passed?" In other words, let's pretend. More recently, Maxine Waters' claim that "An impeachable offense is whatever congress says it is." So as a member she gets to act on her feelings! Reality will become what she says it is.

The Declaration of Independence was a document of principles by which the Constitution was to be written. Although the founders made some mistakes, their identification of two major principles made America's freedom happen. They were the principle of unalienable individual rights and the principle that the government gets its just powers from the consent of the governed. Both principles revolutionary in human thinking.

Today it is fashionable to regard the principles in the Declaration as having no legal import. This has lead to the implicit notion that legislators can ignore that document when writing laws. That they have consistently done so is obvious.

Slowly, Americans are waking up to the fact that our schools are no longer teaching students how to think in terms of principles, that principles don't matter, that one must act on the range of the immediate moment regardless of consequences ( Pragmatism).

If Americans want to save America from Progressivism and majority rule, they must attack it at is source, Progressive Education in our schools. It must be replaced by a rational philosophy of education.

For that I would recommend this course.

A valuable first step is to shut down the federal Dept of Education and turn education over to the states. This will do two things. First it will begin the process of decentralization which should continue within each state. Second and best of all, states will do things differently from each other. Best practices will have best results. Those results will be out there for all to see, debate and copy. What's not to like about that?

At least we need to write to our politicians and school boards and demand our schools teach the differences between a democracy and a constitutional republic.

Blogroll addition

I just added Judith Curry's blog Climate Etc. to my blogroll. I highly recommend her blog because she is another quality scientist among the growing number of critics of the catastrophic man made climate change politicization of science.

More Trump hatred.

I'm reposting this from the New Clarion FB page of yesterday.

Wow! The MSM is going all out to smear president Trump over immigrant families being separated at the border. Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post oped titled "Trump, Sessions must be proud of imprisoning kids" claims "The moral outrages from the Trump administration come so fast that they blur together, but this one stands out: The unconscionably cruel policy of ripping the children of would-be immigrants away from their parents at the border."

News slanting alert!

Mr Robinson is using a slanting appeal to emotions here by using the verb "ripping" which has a violent, negative, unwanted connotation. He could have used 'separated from parents at the border' which would be more accurate because that is what is actually done. But which doesn't elicit the frightening, condemnatory emotion he seeks. He's clearly appealing to his readers feelings instead of their reasoning minds.

From what I've read most of the children are reunited with their parents unless the parents are problematic in some way like being a criminal. I do think that immigrants making children walk through a hot, dry desert to our border approaches child abuse and the kids should be separated for their own good. In my view it is the parents who are being cruel.

I have seen many videos of immigrants crossing the border but have never seen little children with them. Until now. This has to be a new tactic that I suspect is financed by progressive sponsors somewhere. The use of children I believe, is to make believable the notion that the immigrants just want asylum.

But asylum is something we grant to people who are being persecuted, tortured and killed in their homeland. That is not happening in Mexico.

There is I'm sure, a deliberate campaign to swamp our entitlement society in order to collapse it. Then the progressives will declare--like the Nazis in Germany did--something like "we can fix this, we know how" and the American voters will let them back in to take over the dictatorship oriented justice system already put in place by the Clinton and Obama administrations.

And the media will celebrate.

Full disclosure:
I'm all for an open door policy but I think we need to stop considering immigration exclusively as a domestic problem. It is also a foreign policy problem and that needs to be addressed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To this I want to clarify that I shouldn't have used the word problem in the last sentence. Better would have been the word issue. I don't see immigration as a problem. The main problem we face is two fold: 1, we have allowed our government to set up a giant welfare state that politicians use to buy votes, and 2, we have to hunker down inside our borders because our leaders have neither the moral clarity or moral courage to completely destroy our enemies.

Hatred of the good because it is the good.

Right after congress passed the GOP led tax cuts hundreds of companies began giving $1000 bonuses to their workers. Former speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called those bonuses "crumbs."

And now thanks to those same tax cuts the country is experiencing record low unemployment numbers. Ms Pelosi is now claiming that those numbers "mean little to families" hit by rising costs of health care under Trump's watch.

First of all, those rising costs were written into  ObamaCare to go into effect after the 2016 election so it's not Trump's fault as she is implying.

But why is she poo pooing benefits to American workers? Ayn Rand wrote about this in her excellent essay "The Age of Envy" in her book "Return of the Primitive." I will paraphrase paragraph 3 on page 131: "If a politician wants to do good for his or her constituents but is unable or unwilling to achieve it and begins to hate those politicians who do,"that is hatred of the good for being the good.'

What Pelosi really means is that workers who get $1000 bonuses are 'crumbs' to her. And workers who now have a better chance to get a job "mean little" to her. What's important to her is not that the workers are better off, but who is causing it. What she is against is benefits that have to be earned. She wants to appear to be the giver of benefits through various entitlements, the unearned.

This should give pause to all those who are thinking about reelecting her in the future.

Trump's International Art of the Deal

 Here is another insightful post from Mr. Greenfield.


Trump's International Art of the Deal

Big Banks Target the Bill of Rights

 The Democrat Party intends to get its socialist dictatorship by any means necessary. Government regulations are meant to replace rights protecting laws. They will eventually win because most people do not know there is a difference between the two. Sadly, even the GOP is ignorant of this difference.

Big Banks Target the Bill of Rights

The March to Our Demise

Danial Greenfield has a good post here on how the March for Our Lives is not really a youth movement.

He's right of course. As he explains, the March for Our Lives is actually a middle aged leftist attempt to recreate the pretense of an idealistic youth movement struggling against the injustice of the controlling adult establishment. These marchers are the prodigy of the hippies and beatniks of the sixties and seventies which led to the student rebellion.

I lived through those times and can assure you the student rebellion was anything but idealistic. On the surface it seemed a rejection of ideas and ideals as such.  Proclaiming their rejection of America's founding principle of individual rights, they carried signs saying "I'd rather be red (communist) than dead." Rejecting thinking is terms of principles, their signs unashamedly announced "If it feels good, do it" testifying to their new allegiance to hedonism and nihilism.

But that's the surface appearance. Principles were indeed involved, the political principle of collectivism known as communism and the moral principle of human sacrifice known as altruism were taught then and still being taught to students today.

It may seem ironic to see the Main Stream Media (MSM) championing the anti establishment protests in light of the fact that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC are the establishment media who have been promoting all the self defense-free school zones and other assorted government controls over citizens. But it's not ironic at all.

The MSM is safe for now. Theirs is not the establishment to be brought down by the protestors. The real target is the Constitutional establishment of individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Gun control/restriction/confiscation is the tool to do it. They know that if you don't have the right to defend your life, you don't have a right to life. That is the goal of gun control; your right to life in their hands not yours.