Wednesday, July 26, 2017


Lana Del Rey has decided to stop flying the American flag at her shows, because Trump is in office and that makes her feel uncomfortable. 
What a bunch of bullcrap.  Never disrespect the flag or the nation it represents. 
A person's loyalty is to the nation, the Constitution, and the people of the nation. No one is required to swear an oath of loyalty to Trump or any other elected official. This is a Republic, not a Monarchy or a dictatorship. No president deserves an oath of loyalty.
I will continue to fly the flag and honor my country; regardless of the worthless celebrities out there.

Monday, July 24, 2017


On July 14, 2017 CNN featured a very disturbing article on its website, "Visa offers restaurants $10,000...if they stop accepting cash". For anyone familiar with economic theory and history, this is a terrifying development, but not completely unexpected. What the Establishment is really worried about is bank liquidity if the economy begins to sour. I have mentioned this before in a previous article, and nothing has changed since that time. Everyone should prepare themselves for the coming economic turbulence by getting away from Wall Street, and putting their money into physical assets.
Billionaire investor James Rickards, whom I have previously quoted in my articles, wrote a correctly named article  "The Elites Are Privately Warning About a Crash". Unfortunately, the geniuses at the Federal Reserve with their infinite wisdom, have created the perfect Doomsday scenario. As the author points out, the pace of currency production is not sustainable, nor was it ever. Over the past few decades the Federal Reserve has flooded the market with paper money, and cheap credit which acts the same as paper money. They have devalued the currency, so prices appear to be constantly rising; however, the truth is that they have impoverished the poor and middle class by reducing the buying power of our money.  

Columnist David Stockman also writes about the frightening economic future in his article "The "Chuck Prince Market" Redux — Only More Dangerous". This author focuses on the same issue from a slightly different perspective; however, the results are the same. Massive injections of new currency, and private and public debt that has surpassed $100 Trillion, will cause the economy to ultimately crash.

Tuesday, July 4, 2017


Today we celebrate the Founding Fathers' decision to free themselves for oppressive government.

Saturday, June 17, 2017


Once again, Lew Rockwell has featured a great article.
The US economy is on the brink of collapse, the gangsters at the Federal Reserve have all but ruined the economy. Cheap credit, limitless government handouts, and a permissive system that has allowed massive gambling by hedge funds, have created an inflationary bubble that is ready to burst.

Getting through the political stuff at the beginning of the article, the economic analysis begins at about the halfway mark. David Stockman does a marvelous job of breaking down the most recent economic indicators in a clear and concise fashion. The Keynesian fanatics that are now considered "experts", have no clue as to what is really going on. All they understand is that pumping the economy with money and cheap credit will somehow give GDP the appearance of growth, They can then declare that good times are here to stay, and we will all get rich together because in the increase of the national average.

Read the article here:

Thursday, June 15, 2017


On June 2, 2017 President of the United States Donald Trump announced the US would withdraw from the Paris agreement on climate change. The world media, and most of the political class, have reacted with shock, outrage, and predictions of doom and gloom. The conventional wisdom is that the world needs this agreement in order to save the planet from an ecological disaster. It should be noted, very few people have chosen to read the actual text of the Paris Agreement. In this article I have chosen to use the actual text of the treaty, instead of trusting the opinions of the uninformed.

There are many that remain skeptical about the whole thing, and some of those skeptics have impressive qualifications. Many scientists and political leaders have refuted the various environmental agreements as being a scam. This raises several questions, questions that need accurate answers. What is the Paris agreement all about? What is its intended purpose? How is it connected to the Kyoto Accords? Why are the Elite so eager to impose this agreement on nations around the world? Why is the greater part of the agreement concerned with finance and global monetary transfers?

Basic Environmental Goals
The Paris Agreement is a continuation of a long line of agreements, including the Kyoto Accord, made under the auspices of the United Nations. These various agreements supposedly will unite the nations of the world in improving the environment by reducing carbon emissions. The environmental goal (Paris agreement line 17) is to somehow reduce the planet's temperature to 2 degrees Celsius below pre-industrial levels, and to keep world carbon emission to about 55 gigatonnes by the year 2030. Each member nation will have nationally determined contributions to the plan (lines 22-31), and those plans must be submitted by the year 2030.

There are several questions that everyone should ask when reading the above paragraph. First and foremost, the Earth had experienced a "Little Ice Age" between the years circa 1250-1850. This Ice Age would have ended just as the Industrial Revolution was getting started. Using a bit of common sense, it would seem the Paris Agreement wishes to plunge the world back into an Ice Age.

A working group of the Third Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an agency of the United Nations, has published an extensive report for policy makers. This report is rather biased in that it attempts to downplay the naturally occurring phenomenon that affected climate change in the past and continue to do so in the present. Instead, the authors attempt to make their politically motivated theories "fit the facts" by focusing on human activities. This report, and others like it, are used by politicians to make policy decisions that will affect the planet. Perhaps the information in that report should have been presented in a more unbiased fashion so that policy makers can make better informed decisions.

Nationally Determined Goals
According to the Paris Agreement, and in keeping with the Kyoto Treaty, each nation affiliated with the climate accords must determine how they will contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions(Lines 22-31). There is no set value, nor any sort of standard, each nation can use whichever criteria they choose. This has led many to question the validity of agreements in which major polluters, such as China, can avoid responsibility.

Financial Manipulation
The biggest area of contention is the requirement that developed nations be subject to financial penalties if they miss their goals, and they must provide financial support to developing nations; regardless if those developing nations are major polluters. Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Treaty for this exact reason, and the US refused to ratify the Kyoto Treaty for the same reason.

The Paris Agreement calls for a collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries; (Line 54). In other words, the Paris Agreement would create a new class of "Super Welfare". This new welfare would be on a global scale, and the recipients would be any nation that is classified as developing. Many voices have been raised protesting this figure, saying it is not enough to support the needs of developing nations in their attempts to reach their Nationally Determined Goals. Some estimate that developing nations will require much more than $500 billion a year, by the year 2050. Taken to it's logical conclusion, this system of welfare would create a vast money pit in which trillions of dollars would eventually disappear. The only beneficiaries would be the leaders of underdeveloped "Third World" nations that would siphon off billions of dollars into their own private bank accounts, while their nations and peoples continue to be underdeveloped and poor. Regardless of how much money is made available, a society must have the ability and willingness to put forth the necessary effort in order to achieve whatever goals have been set for them. Unfortunately, in many countries around the world environmental issues are of little importance to people that must struggle to find food, water, and the basic necessities of life.

An Inescapable Conclusion
For the record, I support any legitimate effort to ensure a clean environment; however, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change is not legitimate. It is a scam. It sets no rules, no standards, and no real goals. It's only apparent purpose is to transfer money from "rich" countries to "poor" countries. Trump was correct in rejecting the Paris Agreement, it may be the smartest thing he'll do all year.

Thursday, May 11, 2017


I did not want to get into this political quagmire of President Trump and his decision to fire FBI Director Comey; there are several more important topics that can be discussed. But, everyone is all excited about it, as if their lives depended on the shenanigans that happen inside the Beltway. So, I am going to review the relevant facts, and then provide an analysis of the situation. I hope you will understand if a I take a rather lighthearted approach to this matter.

First and foremost, the President of the US has the absolute authority fire the Director of  the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, or any other individual serving in such a capacity. They serve at the pleasure of the President, it's his administration so he can run it the way he wants. Beyond that, there is nothing more to discuss about the legality of the situation.

Director Comey had it coming to him for a variety of reasons. He botched the investigation into the various misdeeds Hillary Clinton was accused of having committed. As an investigator, it was not appropriate for him to discuss an ongoing investigation, nor was it acceptable to turn it into a source of public entertainment. And it was certainly inappropriate for him to describe Hillary as an incompetent idiot during the election; regardless of how much I agreed with him. Besides all of that, in his recent appearance before Congress, he once again proved that he did not know when to keep quiet. He stated in a public forum that he was investigating his boss, and that is never a wise decision.

The Democrat party loyalists, and progressives of every stripe, began calling for Comey's removal from office as soon as he spoke out against Hillary. There was an undertone of real anger at the thought that his carelessness may have cost Hillary the election, and that was an offense for which they were willing to riot and burn down entire cities. As a matter of fact, the progressives and Democrat party hacks did engage in rioting, looting, and arson in several cities across the country.  However, when Trump fired Comey, all the progressives and Democrats that had been calling for his head, suddenly accused Trump of doing something wrong. With all the back and forth and indecisiveness, I'm surprised the Democrats in Congress have not given themselves whiplash.

Comey may be a nice guy, with intelligence and charisma and every other sort of good characteristic and qualification; but he did not know when to shut his big mouth. On the other hand, Trump has not exactly covered himself in glory, and he certainly loves to make big, broad statements.

On a personal note, I don't really care one way or another as to the outcome of this fiasco. Life will go, I will go to work tomorrow, the bills will come in the mail, and it will continue to rain.

Sunday, May 7, 2017


The election of Emmanuel Macron is a bit troubling, to say the least. He is the stereotypical highly cultured and educated Socialist/Progressive/Marxist that believes ALL social problems are caused by economic disenfranchisement.

The issue of radical Islam will not be resolved by giving everyone a job or by providing everyone with a decadent and comfortable lifestyle. It is a perverted belief system that must be combated through force of arms and by the destruction of those social structures which have allowed it to flourish. Indeed, there is a substantial body of evidence available that proves that several governments, that happen to be "allied" with the US, have provided direct aid to Al-Qaeda, ISIS(Daesh), and other terrorist groups.

Before any further discussion can be had as to the threat of radical Islam, the entire truth must come out. The secretive planning and support of radical groups must stop. Anyone found to have supported those groups should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity, in a public and open forum.
Emmanuel Macron, a "Useful Infidel," is not a supporter of terrorism or Islamism. It is worse: he does not even see the threat.

Louizi's article gave names and dates, explaining how Macron's political movement has largely been infiltrated by Muslim Brotherhood militants.

Is Macron an open promoter of Islamism in France? It is more politically correct to say that he is a "globalist" and an "open promoter of multiculturalism". As such, he does not consider Islamism a national threat because the French nation, or, as he has said, French culture, does not really exist.