Crossroads, Seem to Come and Go

“Now I have come to the crossroads in my life. I always knew what the right path was. Without exception, I knew. But I never took it. You know why? It was too damn hard.”
– Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade from “Scent of a Woman” as played by Al Pacino

These are indeed tough times for Democrats and my Left leaning acquaintances.  They have been experiencing a losing streak which makes Cleveland Browns’ fans feel good about their team’s prospects.  Initially, Democrats convinced themselves enough Americans would ignore the corruption and dishonesty of the worst Presidential candidate in history, but America was not “with HER”.  Strike One!  Then, they compounded their misfortune by throwing a two year temper tantrum – believing that such action would be appealing.  Strike Two!  Finally, they lose on almost every Supreme Court decision over the final two weeks of the term and Justice Kennedy retires.  Strike Three!   Despite being advised to stop digging their own graves, way too many of them have persisted to demonstrate with the unflattering emotion of children.  I do not have a lot of sympathy for them, but I do have empathy.

Why do I have empathy?  Well, people who did not vote for our current POTUS are not unique in experiencing electoral losses or the consequences that result from those losses.

For example, I was alarmed when the country elected Barack Obama in 2008 as I knew he lacked experience and was not the sweet talking middle of the road Democrat he pretended to be.  I was disheartened even more when, despite the economic evidence, he was re-elected.  I had thought the country might be able to survive 4 years of his policies, but unlikely to be breathing after 8 years.  The hits just kept on coming when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a strict constructional jurist on the Supreme Court, died unexpectedly in February of 2016.  The noise surrounding the 2016 Presidential election made the odds seem likely that a progressive jurist would be selected by a Democrat President as Scalia’s replacement.  This string of defeats was a nightmare for Conservatives like me as I feared the Court would become an irreversible political arm of the far Left progressives and leave the USA circling the drain.  While all of this fundamental transformation was transpiring from 2008 thru 2016, my friends on the Left were on a roll and expressed little concern for my marginalized political views.  After all, those of us on the Right were supposedly on the wrong side of history – so who cares?  This experience was truly depressing, but I didn’t knit myself a dickhat and organize a nationwide pity parade because that would be – CHILDISH.  To the many of you who bet on the wrong horse, I know how you feel today.  News flash:  Losing sucks!

That being said, I’m not writing to gloat, but send an alert that you have reached critical decision time.

I’ve attempted to talk to Democrat friends to help them understand the electoral dynamics in play, but they appear to be too consumed with hate to think rationally.  If Democrats believe the last two years have been traumatic, just hold your hat.  The Democrat Party is now being openly guided by radical socialists and this has become obvious to more than just Republicans.  Trust me, plenty of Democrats who put country ahead of party will crossover and vote Republican this November and again in 2020.  You don’t think the polling supports that assumption?  Well, maybe having thug mobs attacking anyone who disagrees with the Left might cause people not to answer poll questions honestly.  Remember, the polls on the morning of the election predicted that Hillary had a 98% chance of becoming President.  The polls must have missed something – possibly people not admitting how they planned to actually vote.

Over the past month, while the Left has ratcheted up the rhetoric on illegal immigration, aided by their cable network PR arms, Trump’s approval rating among Hispanics has risen by 10 points.  Given what we know about people fearful of admitting to leaning right, the actual support has probably grown by more than 10 points.  Why?  Because many Hispanics see themselves as hard working Americans who want to play by the rules and live safely – just like other groups of Americans.  They have little interest in being condescended to as some victim identity group.  They also do not want to consider the idea of living once again under the Socialism which has destroyed many countries to the south of our border.

Think about this paradox:

Democrats believe we should simply open our borders to allow in people who are seeking refuge from South and Central American countries due to how dangerous life is in those countries.  Those countries are dangerous because they have been ruled by Socialist policies, yet Democrats believe we should adopt Socialism for the USA?  Huh?  People are fleeing the results of those policies.  The most popular Democrat flavor of the month, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is advocating the same socialist policies for the US which have magically turned pets into dinner in Venezuela.

Soon, the Democrat Party will only be comprised of old white liberals, activists who make a living out of stirring the pot and college kids who haven’t paid any bills.  Blacks, Asians and Hispanics are migrating to the party which offers economic opportunity.

You are at a crossroads, Democrats.  You better drag your party back towards the center or you just might disappear.  To do so, would require backing off the Nazi talk and the prognostications of apocalypse over every public policy change.  Knowing how much you adhere to these intellectually shallow tactics, the right path will be damn hard.

Common Sense Social Media and Entertainment Control ?

"They brainwashed my great uncle
Brainwashed my cousin Bob
They even got my grandma
When she was working for the mob
Brainwash you while you're sleeping
While in your traffic jam
Brainwash you while you're weeping
While still a baby in your pram
Brainwashed by the military
Brainwashed under duress
Brainwashed by the media
You're brainwashed by the press
Brainwashed by computer
Brainwashed by mobile phones
Brainwashed by the satellite
Brainwashed to the bone"

 - George Harrison

Do you want to try to solve a problem or do you just want to shout past each other?  If one wants to have an honest discussion, I can't shout you down and you can't shout me down.  That's how it works - or doesn't.

Some of the back and forth I have seen over the past week since the Parkland shooting has attempted to address the critical question:

“How to do we work together to prevent future school shootings?”

However, too much of the discussion has resulted in people talking past each other – surprise, surprise! It is a sensitive issue and we have students exercising their free speech on the issue.  I applaud them for showing their collective anger - born out of grief for their fallen classmates and the terror they experienced.  However, that experience does not give license to a one way discussion.  I do not agree with many of their proposed solutions as they seem to focus specifically on the weapon used in the crime.  There are other factors beyond the weapon itself, but I believe the students are unwittingly being exploited by gun control zealots.

In an attempt to try to help those who line up on the side of gun control to better understand defenders of the 2nd Amendment, I will present an analogy.  Hopefully, they can identify the flaws in logic and shine the mirror back on their own positions.  Please note that just because someone has a different view on the issue does not make one "pro-school shootings".

Here goes:

My recommendation to prevent school shootings is to take a simple common sense approach.  I’ve seen friends posting links to brain studies which conclude that the brain does not reach maturity until the age of 25.  This particular study has been used to argue that people should not have access to an AR-15 until, at the minimum, they have reached that age.  Using that as a premise, I recommend the following:

• Ban citizens under the age of 25 from being able to access social media platforms 
• Ban citizens under the age of 25 from being able to watch TV, movies or music videos which contain violent content
• Ban citizens under the age of 25 from being able to play violent video games

In short, no social media or access to violent entertainment media for citizens under the age of 25.

Over time, it has become obvious that young people are preoccupied with social media.  This obsession has created an environment where real physical human social interaction has been reduced and isolation among young citizens has been increased.  This isolation has led to more at-risk teens being ostracized.   The further these teens are banished from real life social circles, the greater the danger to the community.

Social media has also enabled ease of access to dangerous information.  Prior to social media platforms, a young sociopath had to seek out and fit into external groups in order to learn how to plan and plot destruction.  However, that information can be easily accessed today from a smart phone.  We must explore ways to make this information less accessible to young people.  Removing access to social media platforms will be a great step in that direction.

Another very dangerous condition created by social media is the ability of a person with no real accomplishments to exaggerate their self-importance.  A young, isolated outcast can create video content which can then be spread across the globe.  It was near impossible for the average young citizen to distribute mass propaganda prior to the advent of social media.  We must make the hurdle to achieve this notoriety much higher than what is allowed via social media.

Last on this list is the violent content in the entertainment media being pushed through channels which has helped to desensitize the immature brain and has also provided a road map to plotting mayhem and destruction.

Meanwhile, those who have enriched themselves working for social media and entertainment companies have known full well of the damage they have foisted upon the young.  Their blood money has been filling the pockets of Left wing politicians who have looked the other way while generations of our youth have been forever damaged.  Students should be marching and demanding that politicians stop taking contributions from these entities and should most certainly not allow George Clooney, Steven Spielberg and their kind to underwrite their protests.  That is, in the ironies of all ironies, an acceptance of blood money.

In summary, social media and violent entertainment media used by young people contributes to:

• Reduced human interaction and isolation
• Access to dangerous information
• Ability to exaggerate self-importance
• Desensitization
• Template for methods in plotting mayhem

I will call my recommendation:

Common Sense Social Media and Entertainment Control

Critics of my common sense recommendations may say that these proposals violate the free speech rights as defined in the First Amendment, but let’s get real about the First Amendment.  When the Constitution was written and, subsequently, ratified by a bunch of old white slave holders, they were concerned about printing presses and town criers.  There is no way that the founding fathers envisioned telephones, televisions, movies, computers and the ability of citizens to sit in their homes and spread information and propaganda over social media platforms.  Let’s stop pretending that the free speech guaranteed in a document from more than 200 years ago should apply to today’s technology.

I’m also sure that people under the age of 25 will feel that their rights are being denied, but let’s be clear that nobody “needs” access to social media and entertainment media.  Is their “need” worth the deaths of children in our schools?  Go down to the local coffee shop, shopping mall or playground and communicate one on one in real life with your peers.  If one desires to write and distribute commentary out to the community, buy a typewriter and distribute by hand.  If one desires to share photographs, buy a camera and take the negatives to have them developed at the Fotomat.  I don’t believe that photos of vainglorious lunches and desserts are worth another life.

And, yet, criticism of my proposal - funded by the oligarchs from the social media companies and the entertainment industry - will cite studies stating that 99% of the people under age 25 who utilize social media and the entertainment media do not contribute to ostracizing their peers or plotting mayhem.  That might be an interesting metric, but we must ensure that it is not accessible to the other 1%.  An all-out ban will achieve that goal – it is simple common sense.  If it just saves one life, it will be worth it.

Let’s be very clear about my recommendation:

1. This is not political
2. It is time to Do Something
3. Enough is enough!
4. If these measures save just one life, it will be worth it.

So, I hope you support common sense social media and entertainment control.  We must come together and stand behind this recommendation or you will have the blood of children on your hands.

NOW, I actually believe this proposal would help, but it would completely violate the rights of law abiding citizens - which makes it nonsensical.  Let's get rid of the political posturing and begin to work on a solution which uses real common sense.

Common Sense Social Media and Entertainment Control

"They brainwashed my great uncle
Brainwashed my cousin Bob
They even got my grandma
When she was working for the mob
Brainwash you while you're sleeping
While in your traffic jam
Brainwash you while you're weeping
While still a baby in your pram
Brainwashed by the military
Brainwashed under duress
Brainwashed by the media
You're brainwashed by the press
Brainwashed by computer
Brainwashed by mobile phones
Brainwashed by the satellite
Brainwashed to the bone"

 - George Harrison

Do you want to try to solve a problem or do you just want to shout past each other?  If one wants to have an honest discussion, I can't shout you down and you can't shout me down.  That's how it works - or doesn't.

Some of the back and forth I have seen over the past week since the Parkland shooting has attempted to address the critical question: 

“How to do we work together to prevent future school shootings?” 

However, too much of the discussion has resulted in people talking past each other – surprise, surprise! It is a sensitive issue and we have students exercising their free speech on the issue.  I applaud them for showing their collective anger - born out of grief for their fallen classmates and the terror they experienced.  However, that experience does not give license to a one way discussion.  I do not agree with many of their proposed solutions as they seem to focus specifically on the weapon used in the crime.  There are other factors beyond the weapon itself, but I believe the students are unwittingly being exploited by gun control zealots.

In an attempt to try to help those who line up on the side of gun control to better understand defenders of the 2nd Amendment, I will present an analogy.  Hopefully, they can identify the flaws in logic and shine the mirror back on their own positions.  Please note that just because someone has a different view on the issue does not make one "pro-school shootings".

Here goes:

My recommendation to prevent school shootings is to take a simple common sense approach.  I’ve seen friends posting links to brain studies which conclude that the brain does not reach maturity until the age of 25.  This particular study has been used to argue that people should not have access to an AR-15 until, at the minimum, they have reached that age.  Using that as a premise, I recommend the following:

• Ban citizens under the age of 25 from being able to access social media platforms 
• Ban citizens under the age of 25 from being able to watch TV, movies or music videos which contain violent content
• Ban citizens under the age of 25 from being able to play violent video games

In short, no social media or access to violent entertainment media for citizens under the age of 25.

Over time, it has become obvious that young people are preoccupied with social media.  This obsession has created an environment where real physical human social interaction has been reduced and isolation among young citizens has been increased.  This isolation has led to more at-risk teens being ostracized.   The further these teens are banished from real life social circles, the greater the danger to the community.

Social media has also enabled ease of access to dangerous information.  Prior to social media platforms, a young sociopath had to seek out and fit into external groups in order to learn how to plan and plot destruction.  However, that information can be easily accessed today from a smart phone.  We must explore ways to make this information less accessible to young people.  Removing access to social media platforms will be a great step in that direction.

Another very dangerous condition created by social media is the ability of a person with no real accomplishments to exaggerate their self-importance.  A young, isolated outcast can create video content which can then be spread across the globe.  It was near impossible for the average young citizen to distribute mass propaganda prior to the advent of social media.  We must make the hurdle to achieve this notoriety much higher than what is allowed via social media.

Last on this list is the violent content in the entertainment media being pushed through channels which has helped to desensitize the immature brain and has also provided a road map to plotting mayhem and destruction.

Meanwhile, those who have enriched themselves working for social media and entertainment companies have known full well of the damage they have foisted upon the young.  Their blood money has been filling the pockets of Left wing politicians who have looked the other way while generations of our youth have been forever damaged.  Students should be marching and demanding that politicians stop taking contributions from these entities and should most certainly not allow George Clooney, Steven Spielberg and their kind to underwrite their protests.  That is, in the ironies of all ironies, an acceptance of blood money.

In summary, social media and violent entertainment media used by young people contributes to:

• Reduced human interaction and isolation
• Access to dangerous information
• Ability to exaggerate self-importance
• Desensitization
• Template for methods in plotting mayhem

I will call my recommendation:

Common Sense Social Media and Entertainment Control

Critics of my common sense recommendations may say that these proposals violate the free speech rights as defined in the First Amendment, but let’s get real about the First Amendment.  When the Constitution was written and, subsequently, ratified by a bunch of old white slave holders, they were concerned about printing presses and town criers.  There is no way that the founding fathers envisioned telephones, televisions, movies, computers and the ability of citizens to sit in their homes and spread information and propaganda over social media platforms.  Let’s stop pretending that the free speech guaranteed in a document from more than 200 years ago should apply to today’s technology.

I’m also sure that people under the age of 25 will feel that their rights are being denied, but let’s be clear that nobody “needs” access to social media and entertainment media.  Is their “need” worth the deaths of children in our schools?  Go down to the local coffee shop, shopping mall or playground and communicate one on one in real life with your peers.  If one desires to write and distribute commentary out to the community, buy a typewriter and distribute by hand.  If one desires to share photographs, buy a camera and take the negatives to have them developed at the Fotomat.  I don’t believe that photos of vainglorious lunches and desserts are worth another life.

And, yet, criticism of my proposal - funded by the oligarchs from the social media companies and the entertainment industry - will cite studies stating that 99% of the people under age 25 who utilize social media and the entertainment media do not contribute to ostracizing their peers or plotting mayhem.  That might be an interesting metric, but we must ensure that it is not accessible to the other 1%.  An all-out ban will achieve that goal – it is simple common sense.  If it just saves one life, it will be worth it.

Let’s be very clear about my recommendation:

1. This is not political
2. It is time to Do Something
3. Enough is enough!
4. If these measures save just one life, it will be worth it.

So, I hope you support common sense social media and entertainment control.  We must come together and stand behind this recommendation or you will have the blood of children on your hands.

NOW, I actually believe this proposal would help, but it would completely violate the rights of law abiding citizens - which makes it nonsensical.  Let's get rid of the political posturing and begin to work on a solution which uses real common sense. 

The Things I Did Not Know At The Time

When I was a kid and my Dad used to tune in that awful Irish music on the AM radio on Saturday morning rides, I did not know that I would learn to really appreciate this music as an adult.

When the Beatles disbanded in 1970, I did not know that lovable Paul McCartney was actually the most disliked by the other band members and that George Harrison would blossom into the best song writer of the Fab Four.

When Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 due to the Watergate scandal, I did not know he had previously been Vice President under President Dwight Eisenhower from 1953-1961 and a staunch anti-Communist.

As I grew up in the 1970’s and read about Jackie Robinson and Roy Campanella of the Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers, I did not know that the team name was due to their original fans having to “dodge” trolleys on the way to games in Brooklyn, NY.

When Ted Kennedy drove his car off of the Chappaquiddick Bridge in 1969 resulting in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, I did not know that this was not a mythical extension of the Kennedy curse, but was the result of the actions of a reckless, soulless and unrepentant drunk.

While enjoying the band, the Eagles, in the mid-1970’s, I did not know that members Glen Frey and Don Henley were previously part of Linda Ronstadt’s backing band.

When Bill Cosby was welcomed into 1980’s living rooms as the fun loving and charming Dr. Cliff Huxtable, I did not know he was a serial rapist in real life.

When the Beach Boys reappeared on the music charts in 1988 with the #1 hit single, “Kokomo”, I did not know that the song was co-written by John Phillips of the “Mamas and the Papas” and Scott McKenzie who gained fame with the 1967 hit “San Francisco (Be Sure to Wear Flowers in your Hair)”.

When reading up on one of my favorite actors, Jack Nicholson, I did not know he was raised by his grandmother, but was told she was his mother when his actual mother was who he had been led to believe was his older sister.

When watching the 1990 movie, “Blow”, starring Johnny Depp and then researching the true story, I did not know that the main character, George Jung, grew up a mile away from where I grew up.

When watching Mariska Hargitay of “Law and Order: SVU” fame on TV for years, I did not know that she is the daughter of famous Hollywood actress, Jayne Mansfield (photo above).

When I voted for Meg Whitman (R) for CA Governor instead of Jerry Brown (D) in 2010, I did not know that I would be accused of being anti-women for not voting for Hillary Clinton for President in 2016 by people who had voted for Brown instead of Whitman.

Why do I bring up all of these examples of my innocent ignorance?

We travel through life with the facts – as we know them.  As we continue the journey, we get to become more enlightened if we keep our eyes - and mind - open and read a little more.  It is interesting to learn that some things were not as initially thought and others are provided with some fantastic context.

For people who were born after 1975, they probably are not very aware of all of the political shenanigans of the 1990’s. I hope for those of you who fit this category, you read up a little bit on the Clinton machine.  There are plenty of things that you may not know. There is soon to be a lot of new dirt to hit the airwaves over the coming weeks and months. My hope is that younger people will study and recognize the defensive modus operandi which has been utilized by the Clinton machine for almost 30 years and will be resurrected, yet, again.  Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice.........

The players will include the Clintons, their political flunkies from the DNC, members of the Obama administration, shills in the media and, of course, the “useful idiots” who will share all of their bullshit stories without investigating the veracity of their claims.  We are going to have dueling scandals: a) the payment for and use of the Trump dossier during the election and b) Uranium One.

Here are the steps for which one should be aware.  Watch carefully to determine if you recognize them as they are employed by the Clinton operatives:

1. Denial – initially deny everything (Sgt Shulz: “I know nothing”)
2. Obfuscate – indignantly go on the record denying something which is not relevant to the accusation (Kevin Spacey just failed spectacularly trying to use a version of this one) 
3. Shift – shift back and forth between a standard of what is morally ethical to a standard of what is legal
4. Old News – claim that the offense is old news and we should just “move on” (from where do you think MoveOn.org was spawned?)
5. Repetitive talking points – “opposition research” substituted for “Russian sourced information” will be a big one.  After all, using Russian sourced info to sway an election would be - COLLUSION !!
6. Everybody Does It – they will equate buying yard signs with breaking national security laws
7. Incompetence – this is where they claim ignorance, BUT they are smart about everything else
8. I Don’t Recall – when completely trapped, this is a golden oldie
9. Partisan Witch Hunt – blame the accusers when all else fails

There are more, but these are the main ones employed since the 90’s.

The reason 63 million voters chose not to vote for Hillary was not based upon her gender.  Many voted for a flawed candidate, Donald Trump, because they knew Hillary to be dishonest and corrupt.

The Clinton machine is SO good at what they do that their corruption may not lead to a conviction, but convictions are difficult when the FBI, CIA and DOJ are part of the machine and complicit in destroying evidence.  Nixon was a piker compared to this crew.  Watch as this scandal unfolds and it will become even more amazing that Trump was able to triumph with all of this power aligned against him.

Try to follow the facts and not the smokescreens thrown up on the television.  I highly recommend you watch and read both sides of the partisan divide to try to determine the truth. If you have no problem with the executives of a Russian state run company (Uranium One) donating $145M to the Clinton Foundation when the decision required to transfer 20% of the US uranium supply to that company was sitting on Hillary Clinton’s desk, then you are beyond help – forever lost.  We’ve seen it all before when Bill Clinton’s administration sold missile technology to the Chinese in the 90’s.

Be prepared for the media onslaught as the Clintons, once again, try to escape the charge of selling out the US national defense to pad their own pockets.

Soon, even the Bernie Bros will be chanting: “Lock her up!”

The Fog of Political War

War is the realm of uncertainty; three quarters of the factors on which action in war is based are wrapped in a fog of greater or lesser uncertainty. A sensitive and discriminating judgment is called for; a skilled intelligence to scent out the truth.
— Carl von Clausewitz

I’ve written previously about the bitterness of those who supported the losing candidate from last November’s election.  This bitterness has made it nearly impossible to have an intelligent conversation between the sides.  Newsflash: the people who supported the losers of the last 2 Presidential elections versus candidate and then President Barack Obama were bitter, but they were able to get out of bed and conduct their lives without shunning everyone.  Regardless of which side you are on, few recognize how they are pawns on a chessboard.  The outrage machine gets wound up on one side and then the other.  The result is a food fight which creates a political fog.  People are so bent on believing their side is correct that they do not even understand the effects of their own positions.  If “so and so” supports it, then I am for it or vice versa etc, etc.  

Meanwhile, those with access to government largesse continue to profit while we fight over slop.  The Federal bureaucracy grows and the allocation of capital in the economy becomes less and less efficient which decreases the standard of living and restrains individual liberty.  

However bad the current situation appears, I am starting to see a silver lining.  For those of you on the Left, the country really needs you to engage in some critical thinking.  I get it – you despise President Trump, but why do you fear him?  He is the President, the chief executive of one branch of the three designed to govern our country.  Why do you fear this one branch?  I know that those on the Right fear the power that has grown in the executive branch and have been fighting to blunt it.  Maybe, just maybe, you can see now why this fear exists.  A few years back, there was talk of Texas seceding from the Union.  Now, we hear of California’s desire to secede.  Strange – two groups on polar opposites who share the same urge.

Looks like we have found something in common:  We do not want to be ruled by an over reaching and bloated centralized bureaucracy.

For example, I am not in favor of legalizing marijuana.  The voters of Colorado see it differently and voted in favor of it.  I live in California. I don’t believe it is up to me to tell Coloradans how to govern their State.  I don’t believe it is the Federal governments’ decision either.

You have heard of Brexit?  How about Catalonia’s attempt to leave Spain?  The same forces are at play where citizens want local control over how to run their own lives. People are weary of faraway bureaucrats making the rules of how we conduct every hour of our day.  In other words, we want power dispersed into decentralized government.  It is the same issue that drove the decolonization of the British Empire.

My desire is not to have all 50 States become 50 independent countries. We are stronger as 50 States within a Union, but the Constitution was written to limit the power of government.  It was specifically written to limit the Federal power over State power.  If it had not been written in this way, the States never would have ratified it.  However, the balance of power has shifted so much towards the Federal government over the last 100+ years that it has become ubiquitous and must be scaled back.

If we clear the fog, that is – stop hurling invective at each other, we may find that we agree on that one issue.  President Trump may forever stay in your Revulsion Hall of Fame, but his election may be the necessary agent to bring about the realization that the executive branch of the Federal government is too pervasive.

The Lady Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks

Do we have a problem that generations of American students are not required to read Shakespeare? No, I think it is more of a problem that generations of American students are unaware that Shakespeare even existed.  I do not claim to be an expert or scholar on the bard, but I have been exposed to his writings and the lessons that have been copied for around four hundred years.  Shakespeare was known for developing tragedies, satires and comedies.  Much of which we see in today’s entertainment is the same formula.  Have you ever watched a cop show and see how the detectives trick the killer? Shakespeare.

One of the devices frequently used by Shakespeare was the “play within the play” where the characters in Shakespeare’s play would stage a play as part of the plot.  In “Hamlet”, a play is developed by Hamlet in order to smoke out his father’s murderers.  The quote, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” is said by Queen Gertrude, Hamlet’s mother, in reference to the actress playing the Queen’s role in the staged play who had just declared her love for her husband.

The quote has come to mean that there exists doubt in the speaker’s sincerity.    

If you follow politics, it is all a play.  Have you ever witnessed a more insincere group of SOBs than politicians? For a very long time, and especially since the advent of television, much of the American public has believed these media plays to be reality.  This started to break apart with great momentum when citizen journalists began to expose the poseurs by using personal video devices to record contradictions and, most importantly, distribute them via social media.  The phonies and frauds became much easier to expose.

So now, we have a very skeptical public who, understandably, trust almost nothing they see on television with respect to news coverage.  Protests are not organic which bubble up due to some emerging catalyst.  The protests we see today are plotted out like a script with heavily financed hats, shirts, signs, transportation and lodging.  In many cases, it is a profession.  Who the hell has time to march from town to town and act outraged?  Complicit in these events are the media who play along to push the outrage which supports their bias.  The media uses camera angles and distance to distort the size of events and edits the message for the viewers.

However, the jig is up.  Enough of the population has caught on and there is no trust in the press which had formerly held a position as objective arbiter.

Why was candidate Trump not diminished by saying, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters"?  His voters know that he is playing a part just like the rest of the clowns who appear on your television.  With each new outrageous tweet or over-the-top pronouncement, his base is laughing at the reaction.  It is a bombastic show.

So far, the over reach by the Democrats on the Left in reaction to President Trump has been stupendous.  The pussy hat wearing marches, the Russian collusion saga, the constant Nazi references and the denial of speech for anyone with whom they disagree has been great theater.  There are plenty who do not realize they are in the show, but I equate it to “The Truman Show” starring what Stalin referred to as “useful idiots”.  The NFL decided it was time for their close-up last week and today we have the San Juan, Puerto Rico mayor who has been so busy dealing with an emergency that she has had no time to sit in meetings with FEMA, but had time to throw on a lovely lettered tee shirt and hold an “outrageous” press conference. It’s like an ABC Afternoon Special from the 1970’s. “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”

What does President Trump do in response to this faux outrage?  Moe hits Curly on the head with a crow bar. Yuk, yuk, yuk!

On the other side, we have the entrenched GOP pols who have earned the “Lifetime Achievement in Fecklessness” award.  They are flabbergasted that President Trump has triumphed with his act and, simultaneously, ashamed they had not been shrewd enough to pull it off themselves. Timid of their own shadows, they try to resume their Robert Young “Father Knows Best” role.  They pretend to be the “grown-ups” in the room while the house is burning down all around them.  We have useful idiots on one side and just ordinary idiots on the other.

Whereas, I can definitely identify the comedy and satire in all of this, we will have to wait to determine if we are watching a tragedy or not.  As Max Schumacher (played by William Holden) famously says towards the end of the movie “Network”:

“Music up with a swell;  final commercial. And here are a few scenes from next week's show”.

Put Down the Shovel

Let’s face it, the NFL peaked and is in the declining phase of the Product Life Cycle.  For some time, the fan base was able to separate the play on the field from the drinking, drugging, driving under the influence, whoring and domestic abusing.  Right or wrong, the fans would tune in for the 3-6 hours of escape on a Sunday afternoon or Monday night.

As some of the gridiron heroes of the past began to publicize the long term physical effects of playing the game, mainly the arthritis and the need for knee and hip replacements, the fans took notice.  The news of the frequent concussions leading to CTE brain disorders and the validation of the studies supporting it signified the end of the NFL.  It was not a matter of IF it would end, but just a matter of WHEN.  With kids now being steered away from the sport, the farm systems will dry up and the best athletes will no longer be playing football.  The quality of play in 10 years will pale in comparison to today’s game.

What DOES this mean financially to the owners and players?

Those sold out stadiums will be under capacity and television viewership will decline as the product loses its quality.  As that happens, the revenue to the owners via ticket sales, merchandise and ad revenue will decline.  As the owners make less money, the player contracts will become less lucrative.  These dynamics were baked in a few years ago, so the idea has been to suck as much profit out of the product as it heads towards its demise.

Then along comes Colin Kaepernick to lodge a protest against what he sees as injustice in today’s American society.  He is a US citizen and he is within his rights to protest, but he made a huge public relations error by choosing to disrespect the US flag and the National Anthem as his form of protest. There exists infinite ways to lodge an effective protest, but he chose one that alienates the majority of paying customers.  The idea of a protest is to grab attention AND gain support for one’s cause.  He definitely received the attention, albeit not the desired attention.  As noted above, the fan base is capable of ignoring a lot of side issues in order to enjoy the entertainment escape of the NFL.  However, his actions were an “in your face, big FU” to the fans who were given the choice of supporting the “spitting on the flag” or displaying unconditional support for the USA.  I’m certain this was not the plan, but that’s how it unfolded.  The fans chose the latter.

Then we were witness to an even bigger mistake as the NFL did not recognize the dynamics and the crisis at hand.  The 49’ers, who had the most to lose with the opening of a brand new stadium, should have nipped it in the bud. They simply had to demand that their employee could protest whatever issue he desired, but it would not be done in such a way as to alienate the customers which is exactly what was occurring by sitting or kneeling during the playing of the National Anthem.

The rest of the owners and the commissioner exacerbated the situation by allowing it to continue.  Remember, the NFL is a consortium of owners.  What happens to one franchise can affect all and they have the ability to control the overall product.  The result of doing nothing was declining attendance and viewers turning away.  The customer demographic wasn’t buying this form of protest and decided to send the only message they could by exercising their collective purchasing power.

The NFL had a product which was already in decline due to the CTE issue, but now the downward curve on that decline was made steeper.

Those players who may have been able to cash in over the next decade and a half before the NFL went bye-bye have been kneecapped.  Today’s millionaire players have just displayed their nobleness by sacrificing the future earnings of other players who will never sign that lucrative deal and never have the opportunity to use their star power to affect social change.

It is likely that the damage done to the product is irreversible.  I only see one possible solution which I doubt will be employed. If I were the commissioner, I would demand a complete mea culpa from the protesters that, in hindsight, the FORM of protest was an error in judgment and that, henceforth, every player will be lined up on the sideline with hand over heart during the playing of the National Anthem.  This tactic would have the effect of telling the customers that the company is listening to them and that the product attributes are being aligned to their demands. 

To be clear, the NFL is done in the long run, but this public relations tactic could save the next decade’s revenue stream and profits.

To quote the famous American philosopher, Will Rogers:

“When you find yourself in hole, quit digging!”

U Mad Bro?

“Once upon a time you dressed so fine
You threw the bums a dime in your prime,
Didn't you?”
– Bob Dylan, “Like a Rolling Stone”

It’s been a month since the election of Donald J Trump to the Presidency and some of the whining, rioting and crying from the Left has subsided, but there still exists a perpetual seething from our fellow citizens and non-citizens alike who were supporters of anything “not Trump”.  Campaigns have been waged, won and lost for 200 plus years now in the United States.  Each time, excepting the Gore 2000 campaign, the loser accepted he had been beat and allowed for the winner to plan his upcoming administration.  We now see a recount effort being conducted which all except the naive know will be unsuccessful, but is being done for spite.  Losing hurts, but what makes this loss so hurtful such that the losers are acting as 4 year olds who have been told that there are “no more cookies”?   Everyone has an opinion, but I’ll give my Top 3 reasons why this loss has been so difficult for SOME, not all, Democrats.

One of the biggest reasons the result was so very devastating for them was simply because they had already held the victory parade.  Let’s face it, they looked like real chumps (to be kind) and they knew it.  Take your pick from the list of sanctimonious jerks who were pre-gloating:

Seth Myers, Lady GaGa, the Young Turks, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, Beyonce, Jay-Z, the hags on the View, the Hillary campaign operatives spread throughout the TV and print media and lastly - and probably the most prominent – our dear friends on social media.  Remember, up until about 9pm Eastern time on November 8, 2016, this was a Hillary landslide.  Then the ball rolled through Buckner’s legs. D’oh!

The second reason this one felt like moose and squirrel had handed Hillary supporters a TNT bomb was that the stakes were so high.  After 8 years of lurching far to the Left, growing and unionizing the Federal work force, stacking the Federal judiciary with fellow travelers, tilting the Supreme Court to the point that the Constitution would be moot, utilizing the Executive branch agencies to saddle unfavored industries in the private sector with one regulation after another and using those same agencies as coercive powers against political opponents – 2016 would be the final blow and political opposition would be dispatched to the nether lands. With Hillary’s election was the opportunity to cover up all the corruption, finish off the Supreme Court, wipe out the 2nd Amendment and change the rules of elections forever.  The flipping of the Constitution would be complete.  It was all there, 100 years of Progressivism started under Woodrow Wilson was about to be codified. However, losing the race would risk reversal of all that “progress”.  As Maxwell Smart was wont to say as he held up his thumb and index finger to display a small, tiny gap, “Missed it by that much!”

Lastly, the one that truly hurts the most is that Democrats were beat at their own game.  I do not believe they even understand this point because they have never had this wicked game played against them.  Trump ran his campaign like a Democrat.  It completely befuddled the Clinton campaign and the media which was acting as an arm of the Clinton campaign.  Normally, the GOP fights by the Marquess of Queensbury Rules while the Democrats engage in a street fight.  Let’s take a trip down memory lane to recall how Reagan was pro-AIDS in the 80’s, how George HW Bush didn’t understand how products with barcodes could be swiped at the check-out counter, how George W Bush was responsible for James Byrd, a black man, being dragged to his death behind a pickup truck by two racists in Texas, how Dan Rather fabricated a story of W avoiding the military draft, how black churches were being burned by Republican racists throughout the South during the 2004 Congressional campaign, how Candy Crowley interjected herself into a debate in 2012 to support Barack Obama’s false assertions – the list goes on.

In all these cases, the Democrats flung the spaghetti, the media supported it and the GOP did not fight back at the gutter level.  This time, Trump would not play the game on defense and flung the spaghetti at Hillary.  He knowingly dissembled. He insulted her personally, not just on policy.  He dragged anyone associated with her into the mud, as well.  He challenged her supporters’ patriotism, integrity and morals.  He was downright nasty and smiled while doing it.  For those of you who felt like targets of this nasty campaign, you now know how it has felt to not be a Democrat for the past 30 years during an election.  He played their game and it does not feel good being the target of these tactics.  So, please forgive me if I am not overflowing with sympathy.  You’ve just been punked by a Democrat.

As Mr Zimmerman would add:

“How does it feel
How does it feel
To be on your own
With no direction home
A complete unknown
Like a rolling stone?”

A Black Friday Gift

As I torch a celebratory cigar on my back patio in the Northern California rain, I am reminded of an old Irish blessing: 

"May your glass be ever full

May the roof over your head be always strong

And may you be in Heaven

Half an hour before the Devil knows your dead"

Well, Fidel Castro was not Irish, so "no soup for him!"

"A quote from Huber Matos, who had fought alongside Fidel Castro in the Sierra Maestra: ”I differed from Fidel Castro because the original objective of our revolution was ‘Freedom or Death.’ Once Castro had power, he began to kill freedom.”

Matos spent 20 years in prison for voicing these concerns.

For the Gen X’ers, Millennials and beyond, I hope that you take note of the Cuban-American celebration in Miami and elsewhere in response to the death of Fidel Castro.  These are the people with first hand knowledge of a "Progressive" government.  Despite the failings of such governments, the marketing of socialist dictators as freedom fighters has been very successful to the point that we can find Black pop stars like Jay Z wearing the "Che Guevara" t-shirt even though Che was a documented racist.

Fidel Castro was a Communist killer (but I repeat myself), although he would argue, at times, that he was a Marxist.  In other words, he controlled everything in Cuba:  healthcare, education, food, energy, housing, speech, media, the internet, etc.  It was great for Castro, his family and those loyal to him, but it was a disaster for the Cuban people.  Total control is the Progressives wet dream.  So when you hear the term “Progressive” in this country, take note that in terms of individual freedom, it means “Regressive” for the people.  Please be sure to take note of the politicians and commentators in our country who speak or write glowingly of this monster or cut him slack for his crimes against humanity.  Think long and hard about whether or not you really should be aligned with them and their goals.  The Progressives in the USA have been indoctrinating students for generations and following it up with strong entertainment industry marketing.  In recent interviews at the University of Maryland, students who thought Barack Obama had been a successful President were asked to list his accomplishments.  The best answer they could produce was that Obama was "COOL".  That, folks, is the power of marketing.  No factual evidence of success, but he was a "real funny and cool cat".  Good grief, Charlie Brown!

Lastly, if you want to know how fantastically enjoyable it is to live under a big centralized Federal government, realize that it worked so well for the Cuban people that many were willing to jump on ramshackled rafts made up of old refrigerators, doors, scrap wood and inner tubes to risk crossing 90 miles of shark infested waters to escape it.  So much for safe spaces.  Open a book.  The history is all there to be read.

Castro is dead.  The world is a better place today.  I'm looking forward to the day when his brother, Raul, joins him.  Change is coming.

We Won't Get Fooled Again or Will We?

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss” – Pete Townsend

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q

Donald Trump was elected to be the 45^th President of the United States on November 8, 2016.  In the days since, there has been a complete melt down of Hillary Clinton supporters in both their personal lives and their public lives.  I promised myself in June 1994 that I would never be shocked by anything ever again after watching OJ flee across LA in the White Bronco.  This week came close.  It was truly a surreal feeling watching Trump march into the White House to meet with President Obama as has been standard protocol following an election.  I would not have been surprised if when he was asked to comment on the visit, Trump turned to Obama, pointed at him and said “You’re fired!”

For the curious voyeurs and schadenfreude enjoying Trump supporters, it has been a delicious week.  Witnessing people in their 50's, 40's, 30's and even 20's crying over spilt milk is entertaining, yet troubling.  I want to address those who are the meltees.  I am a Baby Boomer and have pretty much given up on Baby Boomer Progressives and older as it is just not worth the energy to try to open their closed minds at this point.  However, they cannot be completely ignored since they run the national media and have tremendous power with respect to how issues are framed.  My hope here is to reach the Gen X’s, Millennials, Gen Z’s and maybe even some Gen Alpha’s with this commentary.  My hope is that you realize there is still hope for you.

Why the intense fear of a President Donald J Trump?

Let’s get in the “way back” machine and travel to 2009 when the “TEA Party” became prominent in the news.  The Tea Party was a grass roots movement which mobilized specifically in response to the Federal government’s attempt to implement universal health care, but they were generally against the expansion of the Federal government which crawls into one’s personal space and then charges one for the privilege.  In hindsight, you will agree that they had legitimate concerns, yes?   Do you recall how the Tea Party members were portrayed in the media?  They were “stuck in the past”, “cranky old white people”, “wearing tri-corner hats”, “fearful of changing demographics” and “clutching their sacred copies of the Constitution”.

Why was mockery and disparagement aimed at this group?  They were portrayed as a bunch of old fools and the country would be better off the sooner they were dead.  Progressives wanted to speed up the clock on that one and be done with them.  That being said, the Tea Party PEACEFULLY protested as is allowed under that Constitution, but what were they trying to stop?  They were attempting to stop a Federal government from forcing them to act a certain way in their private lives.  In other words, they did not want their individual liberties infringed upon.  The Constitution was ratified after long deliberation among the States and two of the main concerns were:

1) the balance of power between the large populous States versus small populous States and

2) the risk of tyranny by a centralized, all too powerful Federal government

The “separation of powers” within the Federal government structure were designed to ensure that a tyrant could not come to power and rule over subjects – like a King.  So, by design, that old document written by slave holders prevents my choice for President from using coercive powers against you and your choice for President from using coercive powers against me.  In addition, it allows for change, but change is supposed to be deliberative and difficult such that changes are not made on a whim.  Any President proclaiming he/she “has a pen and is going to use it” to bypass an elected Congress is a danger to the country.

I expect and hope that Trump will use the pen to reverse the frequent times that Obama used the pen enacting rules via executive over reach.  After those reversals, I will oppose any such action because it is a danger to the USA for any President to wield this type of power.

So, why do people actively work to diminish the Constitution by pointing out that it was written by slaveholders and could not possibly foresee today’s technologies, etc?  It is because they want to Lord power over you and me.  They are not preaching freedom, but tyranny.  You will by health insurance even though you do not need it.  You will not smoke.  You will not say words which I find offensive.  You will not set your thermostat above 68 degrees.  You will not burn wood in your fireplace.  They are fascists.  So please, instead of learning history from the likes of “insert a celebrity here”, please do some research.  Read about the arguments among Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, etc, etc.  Yes, some of them owned slaves, but that does not diminish their knowledge of human history and man’s desire for liberty.

The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of Donald J Trump just as it was designed to limit the powers of Barack H Obama.  Who is against that document?  Progressives!  Who wants to preserve that document? Conservatives!  This political battle is not about race, gender, etc as the Progressives would like to imply.  It is about liberty of the individual and tyranny by a government.  If anything is to be learned over the next 4 years, please understand that the Constitution is the individual’s friend – regardless of which side wins. 

Warning: The IRS May Be Hazardous To Your Health

The dialogue that follows is from a poignant moment during the 1981 comedy classic, "Arthur" where Linda (played by Liza Minelli) converses with Arthur's butler, Hobson (played by Sir John Gielgud).

Linda Marolla:  That sounds bad, have you seen a doctor?

Hobson:  Yes, and he has seen me.

Prior to this conversation, their relationship had been adversarial, but this brief interchange is a subtle personal moment where Hobson acknowledges that he is terminally ill.  How on Earth does this tie in with the IRS scandal?  Let's explore!

Looking at the current scandal, the worst case is that we have an administration reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s - trying to punish “enemies” via the power of the Federal government.  Some might make the argument that Barack Obama is the smartest man to ever assume the Presidency, yet he is unaware of the operations under the Executive Branch.  I'm not going to make that argument.  At a minimum, we have rogue bureaucrats singling out citizens for coercive treatment simply because they do not agree with the citizen’s political beliefs OR because the citizen’s political beliefs conflict with the bureaucrat’s and/or the Administration's beliefs.  For argument sake, we will accept that this scandal was carried out by rogue bureaucrats.

Regardless of party affiliation, using the IRS in this manner is an abuse of government power.  If  we know anything about the Founders, their desire was to limit the power of the government and they feared a government that oppressed the citizens.  After all, they had just fought a war against a King who treated them as subjects, not citizens.

Let’s move ahead into the future where bureaucrats will be deciding who gets medical care.  For example, say you are in need of a kidney transplant and a Conservative is in charge of the transplant list.  This specific Conservative checks into the political affiliation of everyone on the transplant list and moves all Republicans to the top of the list and all Democrats to the bottom of the list OR off the list completely.  We all can accept that this is WRONG.  It could happen vice versa where the bureaucrat is a Liberal and the potential kidney recipient is a Republican.  My point is not about who is the perpetrator and who is the victim of this dynamic, but about the existence of the dynamic.  Is this how we want our healthcare to work?  A sane person would want a doctor involved in this decision.  Well, the dynamic I just described is not a hypothetical.  A bureaucrat will be in charge courtesy of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) and that is just ONE of many reasons why it was opposed so vigorously.

For those who have not paid attention, the IRS is the enforcement mechanism for Obamacare.  I know, I know, we had to pass it so that we could see what was in it.  We now have overwhelming evidence of why IRS bureaucrats should not be in charge of medical decisions.  Keep in mind – the ACA was deliberately written this way, not by accident.  Makes one wonder why?

So, if Linda Marollo were to ask Hobson this question in 2014 and a bureaucrat sympathetic to the Occupy movement was responsible for his case, Hobson might respond,

"No, an IRS agent saw that I am a butler for a 1%'er and denied my request to see a specialist".

This scenario could play out differently where someone who may be highly religious could be reviewing the case of someone who lives a more hedonistic lifestyle and denies that person access to needed treatment.  I don't believe we want a system set up where this arrangement can be played out as it is bad for all US citizens.

Independent of political stripe, I believe we want Hobson to respond:

"Yes, and he (the doctor) has seen me".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uTO30ONRbg

One Flew East, One Flew West...

An interesting way to differentiate great movies from good movies is to have events occur in real life which draw one back to a specific scene where a certain facial expression, hand gesture or wordplay rings the memory bell.  One of my favorite movie scenes is from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest where the patients are attending a morning therapy session in which R.P McMurphy (played by Jack Nicholson) learns that most of the patients have not been committed to the asylum by the State, but are voluntary residents.

R.P. McMurphy:  "Cheswick, you're voluntary?
Cheswick:  (nods yes)
R.P. McMurphy:  "Scanlon?"
Scanlon:  (nods yes)
R.P. McMurphy:  "Billy, for Christ's sake, you must be committed, right?"
Billy:  "N-n-no".
R.P. McMurphy:  "You're just a young kid!  What are you doing here?  You ought to be out in a convertible bird-dogging chicks and banging beaver.  What are you doing here, for Christ's sake?  (laughter)  What's so funny about that?  Jesus, I mean, you guys do nothing but complain about how you can't...stand it in this place, and then you haven't got the guts to walk out?  What do you think you are, for Christ's sake, crazy or something?  Well, you're not.  You're not.  You're no crazier than the average asshole walking around on the streets.  And that's it.  Jesus Christ, I can't believe it!
Nurse Ratched:  Those are very challenging observations you made, Randall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc0_Xnvl3t4


This scene came to my mind as I learned of the terrorism attack at the Boston Marathon today.  Do I feel badly for the people who were injured, maimed or killed? Yes, very much so.  Was I surprised by the news?  No, not at all.  I'm not in denial about threats to our country. I know who and what we are up against.  When I first heard the news report out here on the West Coast, I expected the "normal" media exploitation of the victims and bystanders and the media did not disappoint because, after all, "if it bleeds, it leads".

I remember the coverage of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and how the media made it look like San Francisco burned to the ground and that the land was rubble. Yes, there was some real damage in the area, but most of what the country saw through their TVs were a few events which were shot from different camera angles and the requisite eyewitness stories.

The coverage today made me think of the people of Boston and I wondered if they really were as frazzled as the media made them appear.  You see, I grew up in the suburbs of Boston.  My town wasn't the wealthiest of suburbs, but it also was not a ghetto.  It was a typical blue collar town which I left in 1987.  The Boston I knew was Bobby Orr and the Big, Bad Bruins.  It was the J. Giels Band and Aerosmith.  It was Larry Bird and the Boston Celtics.  It was the curse of the Bambino and Bill Buckner. It was one corrupt Kennedy after another always riding the myth making machine only to eventually expose their true human characters.  It was before Michael Dukakis ran for President.  It was before the Big Dig.  It was before Whitey Bulger went on the lam.  It was before Ben Affleck and Matt Damon won Oscars.  Before the Tom Brady Superbowls.  Before the 2004 Red Sox embarrassed the Yankees. Before Chara hoisted the Cup. It was rough and tumble Boston.  If the people of Boston are still the way I remember them, they are not frazzled.

To the contrary, they are rightly pissed off, ready to kick ass and take numbers. However, my guess is that we have had a few generations who have been on the receiving end of Conflict Resolution 101 courtesy of our mommified education system.  Instead of being pissed, identifying the enemy and seeking to take them out, there's a good chance many will seek to understand WHY someone could hate us and our way of life and what WE can do to make our behavior more acceptable in order to prevent future attacks by our enemies.  This second approach will be championed by our feckless political leadership which will try to show command presence in the near term, but will do very little in the long term as they seek out conflict resolution on a global scale. Sophistry on parade!

How is this like Cuckoo's Nest?  Well, I definitely identify with McMurphy - incredulous that the people around him would self inflict their time in prison.  I feel our society is following this same model by shackling ourselves via political correctness and avoiding to state the obvious.  Evil exists and it always will.  We cannot ignore it.  We must deal with it.  Conflict resolution, political correctness and speech codes are driving societal passivity.  Nobody wants to get out of line and disappoint the dear leader.

Folks, we are in big trouble if we do not wake up, call the threat what it is, terrorism, and aggressively respond.  This is not an "overseas man-made disaster", it is terrorism.  The terrorists who are coming after us do not plan to stop if the US continues to show weakness with its responses.  Weakness to them is opportunity. Please realize that some day, the target will be Mickey Mouse.  The Boston I grew up in would, no doubt, go right to the source of the problem and "solve" it.  The current Boston leadership is a reflection of the electorate and if Bostonians sit by and watch the political leadership wash over this event like the administration washed over the Benghazi terror attack, then they are voluntarily committing themselves to the metaphorical asylum. I will then echo McMurphy:  "What do you think you are, for Christ's sake, crazy or something?"

Rolling Down Hill Like a Snowball Headed for Hell!

The title of this post is a borrowed quote from the great Merle Haggard.  The USA is bounding down such a hill and there is little to stop it given the lack of interest in history by a majority of our citizenry and the willingness of our media to put self interest and self survival above the health of the nation.  The economy was bad in 2008 - no argument there.  However,the problems were exacerbated in 2009 and continue at dismal levels to this day.  The price to "achieve" this level of short term failure was a guarantee of the long term financial collapse of our capitalist system.  I come to this solemn conclusion after 4+ years of hearing platitudes and fabrications emanating from the executive branch in Washington, DC and the collaboration of nearly all of the media in propping up fiction and ignoring reality.  The willingness of our electorate to accept ignorance of history and economics and channel their energy towards a depraved pop culture has allowed for their exploitation.

We are in trouble.   President Obama is a disciple of Saul Alinsky and this is not a secret.  The media is fully aware of Alinsky political tactics and fully aware that the President's team employs them, yet the media coverage of the President intentionally ignores these tactics.  So, we cannot rely on the media to help in the education of our citizens, but we need to take the initiative to inform the people around us who have been far too busy entertaining themselves to death.  Let's see if we can describe one of the more recent prevarications touted by President Obama and then provide an example which, hopefully, everyday men and women can digest.

Recently, during the State of the Union, the President claimed that he had cut the deficit by $2.5 Trillion dollars and was on his way to cutting the deficit by $4 Trillion.

To that claim, I call "Bullshit"!!

To clarify, the surplus/deficit is a measurement of the annual budget, whereas the Debt is cumulative, ie adding together each year's surplus/deficit.  Surplus occurs when Revenues to the Treasury (taxes & fees, etc) are greater than government outlays, ie Spending.  Deficit means the opposite - spending exceeds revenue.  Let's look at the deficits since 2008:


2008 $    487B  (GWBush)
2009 $ 1.484T delta +$997B (BObama)
2010 $ 1.344T delta  -$140B (BObama)
2011 $ 1.322T delta  -$  22B (BObama)
2012 $ 1.128T delta  -$194B (BObama)

These numbers are from the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) from Aug 2012 and have probably been adjusted slightly, but will NEVER make Obama's claims close to the truth.  The 2008 number means that the Fed Government spent $487B more than it collected and/or earned.  There are different tricks which President Obama employs in order to deceive our willfully ignorant public.  The first sleight of hand is that he ignores his first year in office (2009) which is where the real damage (the STIMULUS) was perpetrated.  For a moment, let's accept his premise.  Even if I went with this flawed 3 year window analysis, the deficit would only be reduced by $356B from 2010-2012, not $2.5T.  So, the $2.5T claim is pure fiction.  In addition, Obama is ignoring his initial budget buster when he implemented the $1T stimulus, hence the increase in the deficit of $997B.  Looking at all 4 years, the deficit has grown under Obama by $641B, so his claim is off by $3T.  Only a compliant media would refuse to report on this outright lie.

Exploring this a little further, we get to the crux of the charade being played by Democrats in Washington, DC where our Debt has grown by more than $5T since Obama became President.  The reason the Senate refuses to pass a budget is because it allows them to spend $1T stimulus over and over without having to explain it each and every year.  This is done by operating under Continuing Resolutions (CRs).

It’s not an accident.  It's not late.  It's not uncertainty.  IT IS INTENTIONAL.

By not passing a budget in the Senate, the stimulus is included in the annual baseline.  President Obama can claim, with some legitimacy, that government is growing at its slowest rate in history.  It completely misrepresents his stewardship of the budget since he doubled the size of government spending in his first year.  We have had the $1T stimulus called out only once in 2009, but $4T in stimulus has been added in total because CR's continue spending at the previous year's level plus a small %.  Another $1T stimulus is being added as I write this post, with $3T more to come during the 2nd term.

Let's try to find an analogy that every day Americans can understand.  Imagine, that in 2008, you and your family went on a modest vacation.  Wherever you are located in the country, you packed up the caravan and drove to the ocean, lake or mountains, etc, etc... for a week.  You paid for gas, rental, food and beverage.  Each year leading up to 2008, you had added a little benefit - maybe an upgraded room or suite or a fancy dinner.

In 2009, despite economic uncertainty, you once again went on the driving vacation for 7 days, but you also flew the family to Australia for 2 weeks, then to Europe for 10 days and another 10 days out at Fiji.

In 2010, you decided to cut back, so the driving vacation became a weekend, Australia was cut to 10 days, Europe and Fiji to 7 days each.

In 2011, you skipped the driving vacation, but still went to Australia for 10 days and Europe and Fiji for 7 days each again.

In 2012, you cut Australia to 7 days to match Europe and Fiji.

Technically, you could say that you have been reducing vacation expenses at historic rates since 2009.

You might still be spending 5 times as much as you did in 2008, but in Washington, DC speak, this is a cut because you are not still spending 6 times as much.

Just like the oxygen mask demonstrations prior to take-off, please put your mask on first and help others in need of help.  Please wake up and study the game and the do your best to help others to understand what is happening.  The country is going to collapse if we continue to elect liars, frauds and demagogues.  We know that we cannot depend on the media to expose them.  It really comes down to us.

As Merle asked:  "Are the good times really over for good?"

Oprah's Business Savvy and Political Folly

You can count me among the many shocked observers when I saw a headline today that proclaimed:

"Oprah confirms OWN layoffs necessary for 'long term' success".

Now, don't get me wrong - I have never been a customer of her very successful offerings, but I have always admired her as one of the greatest capitalists in the history of the United States and, to go further, even in the entire history of the world.

Here is a woman who emerged from a poor upbringing, both economic and socially, YET, she built a media empire on her keen business acumen as she figured out how to draw viewers to her programming and monetize it.  It is a true Horatio Alger story.  Anybody who does not admire her business success cannot be a believer in Free Market Capitalism.

Oprah is quoted in the story as stating:  "It is difficult to make tough business decisions that affect people’s lives but the economics of a start-up cable network just don’t work with the cost structure that was in place."  Like any CEO running a business, she understood the dynamics of the economic environment and made the tough decisions to ensure long term viability.

My shock derives from trying to reconcile her ability to navigate her personal business life and her undying support for Barack Obama.  One could say that her endorsement of Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008 was the straw that broke Hillary's back and turned Oprah into the king maker.  Now, if Oprah understands that tightening the belt and restructuring is necessary when the economics call for it, how can she still support a person who continues to spend, spend, spend to try to improve his business - the United States economy.

If Oprah were to be consistent, she would have tripled her workforce, not cut it.  Barack Obama has already spent in 3 years, what George W Bush spent in 8 years, while his business has only worsened.  Let's be clear - this is not an endorsement of W's spending.  Meanwhile, Oprah continues to support the worst CEO to ever run the United States government.

Maybe the difference for Oprah is that she had no interest in pissing away her personal wealth, whereas, Obama is only pissing away our money, our children's money, our children's children's money and their children's money.  Am I really shocked?  Not really.  For wealthy liberals, the historic myth of Barack Obama trumps any sane and objective idea of accountability.

The rest of us can eat cake.  That is, until Michelle takes that away from us too!