Tuesday, March 28, 2017


For the past several months the American public has been entertained with a constant barrage of shocked outrage from the liberal media and Democrat partisans, in connection to various politicians and members of the Trump administration meeting with President Vladimir Putin, the Russian ambassador and other Russian officials. The problem is that if we stop and think about it for a minute, we will realize that all of this bitter indignation is pure hogwash. Almost every one of the people getting in front of the news cameras and screaming "foul" has engaged in similar contacts with Russian officials.

Every government in the world sends ambassadors and diplomats to every other government in the world, in order to keep in contact about a great many issues: from issuing visas and passports to extraditing criminals to making trade agreements to whatever else is needed. It would be impossible for the government of a civilized nation to function in the modern world without embassies and ambassadors. It is expected that the Russian ambassador will hold regular meetings with different US officials in order to discuss the many issues that are of mutual concern. The British, French, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, Brazilian, South African, Icelandic, and every other ambassador from every other nation has the same expectations.

This artificial scandal began before Trump was sworn into office, Obama was still in the White House. First, it was all about mysterious Russian hackers that had somehow influenced the presidential election. The public is still waiting to see any sort of proof or evidence of these alleged hackers. Next, General Micheal Flynn supposedly met with Russian officials at some point. General Flynn also met with officials from many other nations, but that doesn't seem to have been noticed by anyone. The Trump administration cut ties with General Flynn, after it was made aware that Flynn was getting paid to act on behalf of the Turkish government. Next, the plot thickened considerably, anyone and everyone that is not a Democrat that had even the slightest contact with the Russian ambassador(or any other Russian) has been vilified by both the press and Democrat party affiliates.

We have reached the point that anyone across the fruited plain enjoying a glass of vodka will be subject to mean looks, Congressional inquiries, a visit by the Spanish Inquisition, and will perhaps get burnt at the stake by political devotees hoping to surpass the Salem Witch trials. It seems that nobody is willing to take a stand and denounce this nonsensical scandal that is based on completely spurious accusations. It remains to be seen how much time and effort will be wasted by Congress and the press in an effort to prove that the Russian ambassador has been doing his job and that US officials have regular contacts with foreign officials.


Saturday, March 25, 2017


Speaker of the House (and ultimate insider) Paul Ryan admitted to defeat after Congress failed to repeal the Obamacare Act (Affordable Care Act). The fact that the Republicans were not able to repeal the act,  regardless of how much they spoke about it during the election, is hardly a shock to anyone that is the least bit aware of American politics today. Obamacare is still the law of the land because the Washington Establishment never had any intention of repealing it. Under the leadership of Speaker Paul Ryan, Congressional Republicans sponsored a bill that would "fix" Obamacare, instead of repealing it as was promised. This caused a number of Conservatives associated with the House Freedom Caucus to revolt and oppose Speaker Ryan's proposed bill.

Picture taken during the 2016 State of the Union

The Obamacare bill is a very misguided law; it fails to reduce the rising cost of medical care as it was originally planned. However, the Elite, people of both parties that are connected to Wall Street, the big banks, and industry, are fully in support of this bill. Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winner for his research in Economics, has sung the praises of Obamacare; while admitting it has several major flaws. It is a bit disconcerting to realize that Socialist groups such as the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), are very much opposed to what they call the "right-wing" health care bill. The Socialists claim it does little to nothing in terms of providing health care to the poor, while enriching health insurance companies by forcing everyone to purchase health insurance. Conservatives and Libertarians oppose Obamacare for a number of reasons. It should be carefully noted that the rising cost of medical care is directly related to monetary inflation, as are the rising costs of college tuition, real estate, and everything else. The reasons for this vast inflation can be found in one of my previous articles. Obamacare's attempt to sugar-coat the problem with increased subsidies, or whatever it does, has already proven to be futile as costs are still rising.

During his election campaign President Trump promised to force the Mexicans to pay for a wall on the Southern border, repeal Obamacare, and spend tax money we don't have on things we don't need. So far, Trump is batting a 0.0 average, he's not been able to deliver on any of his grand promises. We will have to wait and see if this Obamacare fiasco reignites the animosity Trump and Ryan had for each other during the campaign. I think people that voted for either Trump or Ryan, based on their promises, are in for some terrible disappointment.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017


David Rockefeller died on Monday, March 20, 2017, at the age of 101. A grandson of the great oil tycoon and robber baron John D. Rockefeller, David Rockefeller would make his mark in the world of banking and globalization. Educated at elite schools such as: Harvard, the London School of Economics, and the University of Chicago, he was a no doubt a very brilliant man. Entering into the family banking business at Chase Bank in the international department, which eventually would become Chase Manhattan, he rose to the level of CEO.

His business accomplishments were considerable; however, it is in the realm of politics and international relations in which he had the greatest impact. Joining the Council of Foreign Relations and the nefarious Builderberg Group, he would go on to create the Trilateral Commission. As president of Chase Bank and chairperson of the CFR, Rockefeller traveled the world extensively and had contacts with every nation, including the USSR at the height of the Cold War during the 1960-1970's. A lifelong Republican, he was part of the so called "country club" arm of the party. 

The subject of his greatest endeavors was the creation and implementation of a system of global regulations and global governance, in other words World Government. In his autobiography Memoirs, page 405, he admitted that he and his entire family have been working towards the creation of a One World Government. 

“Some even believe we  are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” 

It is normally considered to be in bad taste to speak ill of the dead; however, in this case I will make an exception. This man and his cronies have caused immeasurable suffering around the world with their secretive manipulations, therefore, I can honestly that the world is better off without him. 
Good Riddance.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017


In recent years there has been a disturbing phenomenon on college campuses across the US, which in turn reflects a growing trend within the nation as a whole. This phenomenon can be described as “un-American” at best; different groups of overly sensitive people demanding an absolute conformity of opinions, behaviors, and personal beliefs. Anyone failing to conform (or assumed to be failing) is immediately demonized as hateful, prejudiced, narrow-minded, immoral, unpatriotic, or whatever else seems appropriate. Unfortunately in recent times the response to unwanted persons, including university guest speakers that have been invited by faculty, is for people to loudly and rudely protest or even hold a school hostage by rioting.

This article will examine the beginning of this disturbing trend of aberrant behavior, and how it has evolved over the past few decades. Several questions will be raised which are relevant to university life and to the productivity of the population as a whole. How did academia lose its historic goal of free and open debate? Why are university students seemingly eager to protest, riot, and in general make nuisances of themselves? Will this affect the creativity of the average citizen?

In 1987 University of Chicago Professor Allan Bloom published an unexpected best seller bearing the title “The Closing of the American Mind”.  In his book the author argued that "higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today's students”. His argument was that today’s colleges have put too much emphasis on relativism and have thus given students a misguided understanding of history, culture, and society. The book is lengthy and can be difficult to comprehend; however, the problems the author is discussing have only gotten worse as time has progressed. This book is even more relevant today than it was in 1987, the close-minded perspective has only gotten worse over the decades, and it is of benefit to review some of the major points.
The author begins by discussing the purpose of education and its desired goals. The discussion continues by describing how different societies seek different outcomes from an education system. He uses the example of the early American republic seeking people with certain characteristics: honesty; industriousness; love of family; knowledge of the “natural” rights embedded in the Declaration of Independence; and an understanding and appreciation for the form of government designed by the Founding Fathers. He compares this with more traditional autocratic societies in which myth, fantasy, severe discipline, and extended family or tribal connections, produce a fanatical loyalty to the nation which is in contrast to the rational, reflective, and even self-interested loyalty to a democratic form of government and its rational principles. The difference in the two is the understanding of natural rights. The American public is united in a certain brotherhood by its common appreciation for the rights and freedoms enjoyed by all citizens; regardless of race, class, religion, or ethnicity.
The author makes the argument that the modern educational system focusing on openness and relevancy has rejected all such ideas; it ignores the idea of natural rights and the historical development of the nation. In more recent times, three decades after the book’s printing, many in academia have gone so far as to condemn most of the Founding Fathers for various reasons other than their efforts to form a new nation: some were slave owners, others kept mistresses, others had illegitimate children, some were Roman Catholics while others were deists, all were “rich old white men”,  and none had the foresight to live in accordance with the narrow-minded political correctness which has come to dominate the nation two-hundred years later.

In recent years the mentality on university campuses has become increasingly insular and often petty. Many students and university administrators have come to reject the idea of Freedom of Speech and Expression, in an effort to stamp out anything which may be in some way construed as hate, racism, sexism, or possibly offensive.  There are examples of students demanding the removal of plaques, titles, or memorabilia, because the name of the associated person sounds prejudiced or unpleasant; regardless of the person’s history, contribution, character, or complete innocence of any wrongdoing. Theater performances, works of art, statues of significant historical figures, and other works of design or beauty, have also received similar treatment. 
This trend towards increasingly insular thinking has taken a turn to the worse, towards violence and rioting; but it is not always the students at fault. In 2015 a student photographer filming a student gathering on school grounds was accosted by a professor of Journalism demanding he leave the premises. The professor made national headlines when she was caught on film while shouting “I need some muscle over here”. After a strong response from the community, the local prosecutor filed charges against the professor and the university terminated her employment. However, there is a deeper issue at stake. What prompted this professor of journalism to behave in this outrageous and criminal manner?  Did she believe that she would have been justified if the student journalist was assaulted or injured? Fortunately, in this instance, there was video evidence of her behavior. What would have happened if the video was not available?
There have been many cases in which students have turned to violence, in order to keep invited speakers from entering campus grounds. Milo Yiannopoulos, an admittedly controversial individual, was greeted by rioters on his way to deliver a speech at Berkley. However, in the case of Charles Murray, a respected researcher and well known political scientist whose only crime has been to express carefully researched ideas, Middlebury College became the site of rioting and mayhem, without any sort of reasoning or justification. The violent response was egged on by some of the faculty, but it turns out that neither the faculty nor protesting students has actually read any of Mr. Murray’s work. Their actions were based purely on rumors, assumptions and ignorance. One of the faculty members accompanying Mr. Murray was attacked by the rioters and required hospitalization. Is this the “tolerance” which is championed by the very people that wish to silence anyone accused of “hate”?
The repression of this extreme political correctness is constantly evolving. A perfect example of this repressive behavior is a recent incident in which a student of Latin-American origin publicly denounced “white girls” for wearing hoop earrings, which in her mind are associated with ghettos and poor people of color. She described this as “cultural appropriation” on the part of white women. This may seem like the righteous indignation of members of a victimized minority: however, upon the most rudimentary research it’s discovered that hoop earrings have no connections whatsoever to slavery, ghettos, or any particular ethnic group. Even well-known comedians, whose names are household items, have been avoiding college campuses out of the fear that they may inadvertently cause offense and set off a riot.
As can be imagined, given the seemingly hair trigger temper of overly sensitive college students, free and open academic discussion has taken a severe blow. Academia should be the one place where everything is open to discussion, and all opinions are respected. If debate is constrained and only certain opinions are permissible, then society becomes as stagnant and monolithic as certain repressed nations where the entire society is based upon fanatical interpretations of Islam.

The current climate of repression has been developing for many years, at least thirty-five years given the copyright date of Professor Bloom’s work. If the current batch of students was born to those on college campuses during the 1980’s, what sort of people will be raised by the current students? It is a frightening thought that future generations may become even worse. Some schools are fighting back against this repression of speech, but it may be too little and too late.

There is another issue which must be considered. What happens when these violence prone students attempt to enter the workforce? One of the hallmarks of America’s greatness has been the unrestricted creativity and ingenuity of the public. That creativity which has kept America great is now jeopardized and is in danger of disappearing. There is not an easy solution to this problem; it has taken decades to develop and it will take decades to correct. However, for the sake of the nation, and the success of future generations, society must recognize the inherent danger this phenomenon of repressive thoughts and behaviors represents.

Sunday, March 5, 2017


Let's have some fun, beginning with Emma Watson's decision to expose herself.

I'm not sure where to start. The former Harry Potter actress, and avowed feminist, decided to go bra-less in a white, ropy Burberry top that revealed much of her breasts. The picture was for the latest issue of Vanity Fair, Anyone that reads that particular magazine should be well accustomed to softcore porn. My first instinct is to say "so what?", and brush it off as another piece of silliness from the crazies of Hollywood. It's a good thing I've learned to trust my instincts.

Of course there has been some backlash from angry women that have denounced Watson's decision, using very shrill sounding rhetoric. Perhaps they have a point. A good portion of modern feminists angrily decry the "sexualization" of women by leering, lecherous, and creepy males. I like Watson's response to the naysayers "They were saying that I couldn't be a feminist and have boobs", she later continued "Feminism is about giving women choice. Feminism is not a stick with which to beat other women with. It's about freedom. It's about liberation. It's about equality. It's not -- I really don't know what my t*ts have to do with it....... The more I have spoken about feminism, the more I have realized that fighting for women's rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. ... For the record, feminism by definition is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities." 
Naturally, someone had to dig up Gloria Steinem (I hope they didn't have to dig too deep). Her response, coming from the grandmother of all feminists, is unique and filled with all the extravagance everyone expects from a 1960's free-love and rock and roll feminist. "Feminists can wear anything they f****** want," Steinem told TMZ. "They should be able to walk down the street nude and be safe." I still think this story belongs in the "so what?" part of the news. 

This next issue is of Russia discussing a possible ban of the remake of "Beauty and the Beast". 

The reasoning is that one of the characters is openly gay and this is seen as immoral Western propaganda by cynical and socially conservative Russians. I've never been a believer in censorship of any kind; anyone that wants to watch the film will eventually watch it. I've seen the trailers, and that was enough to convince me of the fact that this is not my type of movie. It's a remake, and remakes have a tendency to disappoint everyone. Perhaps the producers and directors put in some genuine TLC  and have made a genuinely good movie. If they have, please let me know and I'll go judge for my self.

Our last bit of news comes from the Trump White House, and I get the feeling this will be a constant source of good comedic material.

Trump is undoubtedly the most unique person to take up residence in the White House in a very long time, perhaps of all time. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, the issue of who spoke to which Russian ambassador, when, and why, seems to be a rather dubious attempt by the Washington media to create some kind of story. However, I could be wrong; there's no way to tell at this point. Then Trump made the accusation that the Obama administration had wiretapped his offices and was spying on him. Huh? Why would anyone want to spy on Trump? His life has been an open book for decades, all of his secrets and personal habits have been well covered by the tabloids for the past thirty years, there's nothing new to be learned. Is there something we didn't know about the man that he wishes to keep secret? He is an older man, the oldest to ever get elected president, perhaps his brain is starting to go soft. That would be something to keep secret. Perhaps he's been cheating on his wife. He's rich, has lots of nice toys, has been married three times, and is a very powerful man, its not inconceivable that he's getting some on the side, if he can ever comb his hair. If he is cheating at his advanced age he may need to use a bit of Viagra or something like that, and that is something any guy would want to keep secret. I think Trump is just making the whole thing up to distract everyone from what's really happening, and whatever that may be, it has escaped my notice.

Thursday, March 2, 2017


Caracas burning 

I am discussing Venezuela, one of my pet peeves. Venezuela going bankrupt  Beginning with the infamous Hugo Chavez in 1999 and continuing with his chosen successor, the bungling and poorly educated Nicolas Maduro, the once thriving Venezuela has been turned into a disaster zone.  Theses two close-minded Marxist fanatics have torn their country apart in their desire to forcefully implement a Socialist fantasy that has failed every time it's been tried!  Chavez was an educated man and made some effort to keep his country from falling to pieces, he made an effort to keep at least the appearance of good governance. Perhaps, I've given Chavez too much credit; when he came into office there was still some wealth and industry in Venezuela, which he promptly began destroying. On the other hand, Maduro is a barely literate Communist fanatic that doesn't know much about anything, but he rules with an even harsher iron fist than Chavez.

Part of the problem is that Chavez enjoyed great popular support from a large percentage of the voters. Many of the poor, especially the indigenous "Indian" peoples, felt abandoned by the world and saw a hero in Chavez with his populist rhetoric. When Chavez began dismantling institutions: the courts, the legislature, the press, industry, and private property, many people believed it was all in an effort to bring justice and equality to everyone. After the death of Chavez, people began to view Maduro with a different light. Maduro is not as charismatic as his predecessor, nor is he even half as competent..  He has stumbled, fumbled, and bungled his way through his time in office, and Venezuela is now in serious trouble..

The best thing that can happen is the immediate removal of Maduro from office, and the dismantling of all the failed and nonsensical Socialist policies that have brought the nation to the brink of ruin. Socialism does NOT work as an economic system; it never has and it never will. It removes the incentive for people to work hard or excel, and eventually an economy will collapse from people not being productive. This is what happened in Eastern Europe and the USSR, and this is what has occurred in Venezuela.