Kiosks Replacing Kids

I saw my first ordering kiosk at a local McDonalds a few weeks ago. As I predicted, the Left's push for "a living wage" unsupported by economic reality will kill jobs. So now instead of high schoolers get their first job working at McDonalds, they are being replaced by machines. There's Progressive progress for you!

Tillerson and the Order of Friendship

For those concerned about Putin and Tillerson being too close based on the fact that Putin gave Tillerson the Order of Friendship, I say relax. The Order of Friendship from Putin is like a Christmas card from your insurance agent. Don't read too much into it.

Dems Project Own Bias On Trump Win

It's becoming more and more clear that Democrats and Progressives (but I repeat myself) don't understand the reasons behind the recent shellacking they took in the election. Further, their influence nationwide has collapsed during the Obama presidency. They have lost the White House, the House, the Senate and they are outnumbered 31 to 18 in state governorships. Additionally, they are 69 to 31 minorities in state legislatures. Even in the face of these results, they doubled down on their losing formula and re-elected Nancy Pelosi as minority leader. When talking heads and analysts on the left try to explain the reasons for Trump's win, we often hear that Trump effectively targeted white, blue collar, voters. I would argue this is completely wrong. Democrats see America as a collection of various voting blocks to target and then try to craft a message that somehow plots a least squares fit between all of them. However, there is an old saying that if you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one. It is my opinion that Trump didn't target anyone. He said what he thinks and his message resonated with a very diverse cross section of America including white, working class voters especially in the key rust belt states.

Hopefully Progressives will continue to project their biases on their Republican rivals because in doing so, they will continue to misunderstand them and fail to understand why they lose to them. The end result will be years of opposition, minority party status for the Democrats and a bright future for America.

Progressive Language Engineers Hard at Work

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, there are some 171,476 words currently in use in the English language Apparently, that just isn't enough for progressives to sufficiently disparage conservatives and conservatism so they have to turn to language engineers. What is a language engineer you may ask? A language engineer is a liberal who creates new words or terms which they get to define and then use against conservatives, individual liberty, market economics and traditional American values in order to push their socialist agenda. Language engineering is a branch of social engineering. It often borrows and combines real terms from law, science, technology and other disciplines in order to lend credibility to their made up terms. Some examples of terms created by language engineering are social justice, environmental justice, anthropomorphic climate change, white privilege, micro-aggression and most recently alt-right. Technically, progressives didn't coin the term alt-right but they quickly co-opted it and have started using it to unfairly associate those with whom they disagree with racism, anti-Semitism, and white nationalism.

Language engineering is dangerous because, like political correctness, it deflects from the real issues and inhibits free speech. It is incumbent upon all thinking Americans to reject engineered terms and not further perpetuate them by using them. By doing so, we can force progressives to argue their ideas based on the merits; something they hate to do because they lose.

Progressives Cry Like Ripped Off Drug Dealers

Progressives avoiding addressing the issues revealed in the Wikileaks emails are like drug dealers calling the cops over someone stealing their stash. Absurdly ridiculous!

Hillary - Woman of the People

Back in April, Democrat Presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton made a campaign appearance and talked about income inequality while wearing a $12,495 Giorgio Armani jacket. Well I guess you can do that when you received $250,000 per speech to Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs. I'm sure if she becomes president she will ensure all the rest of us are able to afford fancy duds like that,  one $15 minimum wage hour at a time. What a woman of the people; what a hypocrite! "Let them eat cake" anyone?

Scapegoat Bernie

As polls show a dead heat in a potential match up between Trump and Hillary and as Bernie and Hillary continue to split the primary contests, Democrats are attacking Bernie Sanders and telling him he needs to get out of the race. They are realizing the coronation of Hillary is not a given.

Could Democrats and liberals (but I repeat myself) be searching for a face saving explanation in the event they suffer a humiliating defeat in November? After all, it couldn't possibly be the people rejecting their severely flawed and weak candidate now could it? If that doesn't work, we can always count on their other "go to" tactic: blaming it on the stupidity of the American people.

Progressives Defined Violence Differently Based on Their Need

A few annoying Democrat agitators disrupt Trump rallies and get punched in the face. Liberals come unhinged and cry about the violent behavior of Trump and all his supporters. They compare Trump to Hitler and Pol Pot. Use hyperbole much? Democratic agitators cause a riot at the Nevada Democrat Convention requiring a police response and everyone on the left call it "passion." The White House and its mainstream media sycophants all magically come up with the same word, "passion." Remember how they all came up with the same obscure word gravitas? Now that Bernie is threatening Hillary's candidacy, it's back to being violence.
Progressives live in an Orwellian "1984"  newspeak/group think world. Kinda scary, isn't it?

2nd Grand Obama Policy Deception

Well we now have proof that a second of President Obama's accomplishments is based on a big fat lie. First we learned from Jonathan Gruber, the economist and consultant paid $400k to help create and sell Obamacare to the American people, that we were intentionally deceived. As reported by Marc A. Thiessen in the Washington Post on 17 Nov 2014, "...there are now seven Gruber videos, in which he mocks the “stupidity” of American voters and boasts of the Obama administration’s ability to take advantage of it. In a new video that surfaced Friday, Gruber explains that the Obama administration passed the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-value employer health plans “by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people, when we know it’s a tax on people who hold these insurance plans.” Americans would not support a tax on individuals, so “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on the higher prices . . . it ends up being the same thing.” The ruse, Gruber says, was “a very clever . . . basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

Now we have an Obama Administration official admitting that the people (and Congress apparently) were lied to regarding the Iran Nuclear Deal. In a New York Times profile of Obama Administration National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, Rhodes himself details the level deception and lies told to the country in order to get support for the deal.

If progressive ideas are so good, why do they so frequently require some initial lie? The power of propaganda!

Spit Take Averted; Computer Saved

A liberal progressive reader recently posted the following response to one of my blog entries regarding the reasons behind the success to date of Donald Trump's primary campaign: "I find it unbelievable that any American would even consider someone as crude and rude as Donald Trump as a presidential candidate. The president is the face of America. Is Trump's scowl and "potty mouth" the way we want America represented to the world? If so, then we are in deep trouble."
Fortunately, I wasn't drinking anything at the time or the resulting spit take would have ruined my computer. The comment is so ridiculous on so many levels I hardly know where to begin.
First, a progressive lamenting "potty mouth" is beyond absurd. Since Rhett Butler said, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." in Gone With the Wind in 1940, progressives have spent the last 76 years polluting our movies, literature, TV, music and culture with so much filth and violence, most of the rest of the world sees America as a cultural cancer on the planet. Today, virtually all PG-13 movies have to have an obligatory f-bomb. I doubt an American political candidate's occasional potty mouth will really have much impact on a world already being deluged with filth from the US courtesy of liberals.
Next there is the "crude and rude" concern. There are 196 countries in the world today and the vast majority are run by either murderous, brutal dictators, criminal thugs or leaders who are both. It would be quite arrogant of us to believe that much of the world has time to concern itself with the demeanor of an American politician when they are living in squalor and oppression or being brutalized by the government. Additionally, we spend millions every year for cultural sensitivity training. As someone who has attended more than my fair share of cultural training, I can tell you it is nearly impossible to generalize how an American's "crude and rude" behavior will be interpreted. Factor in language differences and I guarantee it.
Lastly and related to cultural difference is the concern over that scowl. I don't find world leaders to be a "smiley" crowd in general to begin with. Putin is not exactly a "Cheshire Cat". Further, many cultures equate smiling a lot as a sign of being a simpleton.

Look, there are many reasons to be concerned over Donald Trump as a presidential candidate but "crude and rude", "potty mouth" and that "scowl" are nowhere near the top of the list for me and I seriously doubt they are for most of the rest of the world who see the "face of America". Potty mouth? Really? Are you sh**ing me?

Pundits Left and Right Continue to Misinterpret Anti-Establishment Movement

One should not take what I am about to suggest as an endorsement of Donald Trump. I think the pundits are failing to correctly interpret the anti-establishment movement we are witnessing and the continuing primary success of Trump, so I'd like to pose a different take on what is happening. Here goes.

When the presidential primary process failed in 2008 as the political "eHarmony" Conservatives had hoped it would be and gave them a candidate who was not a perfect ideological match, they stayed home on election day. The result was Obama. The scenario repeated itself again in 2012 and President Obama was re-elected for a second term.

In the off-year elections, Conservatives tried to remedy the situation by electing senators and representatives who promised them 100% of what they wanted. Unfortunately, those they sent to Washington delivered 0% of what Conservatives were hoping for. They didn't oppose the progressive agenda at all. [Incidentally, when President Obama succeeds in closing the prison at GITMO (notice I say when not if), he will have secured his legacy as one of the most successful presidents in US history for implementing his agenda. Ultimately, history will show that these policies were terribly damaging to America and the rest of the world but this is a topic for another time.]

Conservatives learned a tough lesson from the 2008-2012 election cycles. If you need a 100% ideological match in order to support a candidate or stay home, you get an "Obama". They elected people in the off-year elections who promised 100% and delivered 0%. The result was they got 100% of what they didn't like and nothing they did. They should keep this in mind this November or they may get another Obama term in the form of Hillary Clinton.

Trump is obnoxious. He is abrasive. Trump speaks in generalities but Trump loves to win. Even if Conservatives, and even many Independents, only agree with 50% of what he says, they will get 50% of what they like and maybe only 50% of what they don't. That puts them miles ahead of where they are now. One must also keep in mind that nearly 40% of Americans self-identify as conservative as opposed to 20% who call themselves liberal or progressive.

The pundits from all points on the political spectrum can continue to explain away Trump's primary performance based on their hopes, biases, and faulty polling data but if they do not start factoring in the root cause of the anti-establishment ire I have suggested, they will continue to be wrong.

The Constitution Has Lost a Champion

Admittedly I'm not a Constitutional scholar but I have undertaken considerable effort to study it to try to make myself as knowledgeable as possible of its content, meaning and history. In the past, I have argued that the US Constitution is not a "living, breathing" document as the progressives of today contend. After more careful consideration, I have come to rethink this position - somewhat. The Constitution is a "living, breathing" document just as a Leyland Cypress and a Giant Sequoia are both living, breathing trees. Progressives are like gardeners who prefer the quick growing Leylands while Conservatives view the Constitution as foresters view Sequoias that change slowly but steadily over many, many years.

Since there is a slow, laborious process that was put into place by the Framers to allow the Constitution to evolve, I think the strongest argument for how the document was meant to exhibit a "living, breathing" nature is like sequoias managed by responsible foresters. Unfortunately, the quick growing Leylands approach advocated by Progressives produces weak, shallow roots that will not sustain a long-lived, stable government. We need the deep, strong root structure of the mighty sequoia tended by judicial "foresters".

Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was one such judicial forester. As an originalist, Justice Scalia believed that laws had to conform to the Constitution as written. He opposed "legislating from the bench" and an open interpretation of the Constitution that allowed trendy laws of today to change the original intent of the Framers. In his view, the Constitution could be changed but that change should come from the deliberate, methodical process prescribe in the document itself - through the amendment process. With his death Saturday morning at the age of 79, the US Constitution has lost a true champion. Rest in Peace Justice Scalia.

Recommended Reading for Insight Into Today's Political Climate

I'm currently listening to another book on audio CD, The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek during my daily commute and I'm finding it fascinating and surprisingly relevant to today's political environment. Not an easy read or listen but well worth the effort. I think both conservatives and liberals (progressives) will find things of interest contained in the words of Hayek.

I have been aware of this book for years but just recently decided to find and read (listen) to it. I had to wait 6 weeks for it to be available for download from the library but it was well worth the wait.

Even though the book was published in 1944 and was a political analysis of socialism from a "final days of WWII" perspective, the author provided new prefaces in 1976 to help make it more contemporary and if a reader keeps these updates in mind, the book provides some amazing insight into the current political scene. If one allows oneself to not focus on the specifics but rather the broader analysis, this book has much to say to the modern political observer.

History doesn't really repeat itself as the old cliche suggests but the ebb and flow of ideological themes, trends and ideas do seem to have their cycles. I hesitate to call this book prophetic because I think this term is over used and tends to sound a bit too dramatic and ominous. However, if you are up for a challenging read (listen), The Road to Serfdom is worth the effort.

Impressions on First Democrat Debate

Here are my impressions of the first Democrat debate by candidate.

Before I start with the candidates, I'd like to offer some general thoughts. First, I think Anderson Cooper did a good job as the moderator. His questions were tough and he really seemed to make an effort to get the candidates to answer them. Unfortunately, despite his best efforts, those being questioned often just refused to answer. Cooper could have done a better job with follow up questions and I was disappointed that he allowed Bernie Sanders to derail his question for Hillary Clinton regarding her emails. Overall, I was pleased with how Cooper and CNN conducted the debate.

As to the candidates themselves, much of what we saw was long on left-wing ideology and short on solutions. There was the typical politics of division and envy; populist appeal replete with promises of free stuff paid for by someone else and rants against the usual suspects: big business, capitalism, and of course the Republicans. What was offered was more government without much in the way of acknowledging that government played a significant role in causing most of the ills against which they railed. Further, many assertions made by the candidates were allowed to be offered as fact instead of being challenged. Chief among these was the continued claim that climate change is "settled science". This is mainly based on a survey that was conducted that states that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is real and it is caused by man. The facts behind this claim are far less convincing. The poll has since been shown to have been "cherry picked" more like a high school paper rather than a peer reviewed scientific study. It is produced by an activist woman with a master's degree, not a PhD researcher, who initially polled a large and diverse pool of the scientific community - physicists, geologists, meteorologists, climatologists and other earth scientists. When the first results returned a roughly 50/50 split in opinion, the pollster did what any respectable researcher would do: begin throwing out responses that didn't support her hypothesis. In the end, thousands of responses from the scientific community at large were reduced to about 79 responses from mostly climate scientists and wonder upon wonder, 97% of them believe in the work they are doing - a surprising result to be sure.
I also found it very telling that nearly to the person, all the candidates named groups of their fellow Americans as enemies with the exception of Jim Webb who actually named an enemy.

Now for the candidates. I'll start with the lessor knowns.

First, former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chaffee. He basically said, I have been in politics my whole life and I have never been involved in a scandal. In a sane world that should be a given not considered a selling point - so next!

Then there was former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley. He is polling 4th in Maryland which says something about how his own State feels about him. He left the State deep in dept and his gun control laws have resulted in a surge of gun violence throughout the State especially in Baltimore which is already well ahead of previous years in gun murders.

There was also James Webb. Webb is a fellow Naval Academy alumni so I have a bit of a fondness for him. He is what one would have traditionally called a Southern Democrat and he was truly the odd man out as the only one on stage who wasn't clearly far left. During the George W. Bush years, I lost some respect for Webb for his belligerence towards the president. He wasted much of his time to comment complaining about not getting equal time - time which would have been better spent making his points. Webb is highly educated, experienced, and accomplished which makes him more than capable of making compelling arguments for his views.

I'll discuss the two better known candidates, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Clinton next. Sanders is a self-described socialist. He promised loads of new domestic spending which the GAO estimates would cost about $17 trillion and said it would be paid for by the rich. The problem is the entire net worth of all the billionaires in the US would only amount to about $7 trillion and then that source is wiped out. Then what Bernie? He also proposed free college for everyone. As someone who has lived overseas and traveled extensively, I can tell you that highly educated people without jobs to apply the knowledge to results in unrest. You see it throughout the developing world where college educated young men sit in cafes all day long growing angrier and angrier because there is no opportunity. Additionally, much of what Sanders said about economics demonstrates he has no understanding of the subject whatsoever.

Lastly, there was Clinton, a progressive, who spent much of her time railing against business, the wealthy, of which she is one, and claiming as achievements among other things, the US action against Libya which has left that country in complete chaos. Much of the rest of the world is similarly far worse off now as a result of her tenure as Secretary of State. Her one big applause came when she refused to respond to the implication by Chafee that she is dishonest. Despite the thunderous applause by the audience, I have been very pleased to see that her debate performance has failed to lead to a bump for her in the polls. Character does still matter.

In all, those on the far left got what they were looking for - more promises of free stuff, vilification of other groups of Americans, global warming hysteria and America continuing to lead from behind in international affairs. For those of us on the right, there was a collective yawn.

Why the Appeal of Trump?

Don't interpret my attempt to explain Trump as me supporting Trump. I haven't made up my mind yet. There is still a long way to go until the Republican Convention and many debates in between so we will be a lot of opportunities to see what each of the candidates have to offer.
So here goes. I think the appeal of Trump is that he doesn't put up with the non-sense. I think he is the end of compassionate conservatism which is a bunch of crap. Nothing is more compassionate than the number of new jobs, economic growth and number of people, especially minorities, who entered the middle class under Ronald Reagan. What Trump refuses to do is allow the Leftists, especially in the media, to define the narrative about Republicans, Conservatives, or those in business. He doesn't stand for questions that start off with a false premise. The "I know all Republicans are racists but how will you be different?" or "Of course all Conservatives are anti-women, Hispanic, gay, science,..." or other more subtle implied lies. When a candidate allows those to stand or somehow tries to sound more middle of the road in response, it comes off as defensive or as a sign of lack of conviction.

I think Trump is the only candidate who has figured out what the Conservative voters have known for a while - Republicans have been doing political Tae Chi and the Progressives have been doing full on MMA. The other candidates better take off the gloves and discard the Marquis de Queensbury rules or we will lose and the rapid decline of the country will continue!

The Delusional Iranian Nuclear Deal

Apparently only the Obama Administration and a small band of "true believers" actually consider the Iranian nuclear agreement an actual deal. Hundreds of retired admirals and generals don't, most of Congress (just not enough to over-ride a presidential veto) doesn't, the Israelis don't, 81% of the American people don't and most importantly, the supposed partner in the deal, the Iranians themselves, don't think this is a deal. When asked about any aspect of the deal that could be considered beneficial to the U.S. (by definition, both sides of an agreement must receive some benefit in order to make something a deal.), the Iranians adamantly deny that it is part of the agreement. It baffles me how anyone can believe that there is an agreement when one of the parties doesn't agree to any of the terms of the agreement. That doesn't seem to deter the progressive, "we are just smarter than you are" crowd. Their delusion is complete.