Sunday, July 31, 2016

Hillary’s Speech in a Nutshell

By A.F. Branco July 31, 2016

Nut-Shell-600-CI

Destructive forest fires are due to – WHAT?

Climate change is all-purpose excuse for Big Green and federal misfeasance and malfeasance

Paul Driessen

First the Obama EPA came for coal mines, coal-fired power plants, miners, workers, investors, and all who depend on reliable, affordable electricity. Then the EPA, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service and other agencies came after oil and gas drilling and fracking, and the workers, industries and families that need petroleum. They’re also targeting farming, ranching, airlines and manufacturing.

It’s all to stop “dangerous manmade climate change,” rising seas, warmer and colder weather, wetter and drier seasons, and other “unprecedented” calamities. Now the Feds want us to believe worsening forest fires threaten communities, wildlife and wildlife habitats because we burn fossil-fuels.

Thousands of fires have already torched millions of acres, amid yet another dangerous and costly fire season. It happens every year, and has for centuries. But now, the Department of the Interior misinforms us, “climate change is making it worse. Wildfire seasons are now hotter, drier and longer than in the past.” Sure they are. Wanna buy a bridge?

I lived out West for a decade, back in the 1970s, and saw wildfires and dozens of burned-over forests. I hiked, camped and skied during extra wet and ultra dry years. During a flight from Denver to Seattle, I watched multiple fires rage across tens of thousands of acres in four states. I’m in Whitefish, Montana this week, where hundreds of trees are just a few inches in diameter, packed in clusters of a half dozen or more, inches from one another – perfect kindling for vicious wildfires. Over time, most will get crowded out and die, leaving just a few hardy specimens to grow into hefty 50-100 foot beauties – assuming they are not engulfed in a super-heated inferno first.

Vast stands of densely packed, water- and nutrient-starved trees – skinny matchsticks waiting for a spark – are far too common in our western states, because land mis-managers refuse to thin the trees.

The resulting fires are not the “forest-rejuvenating” blazes of environmentalist lore. They are cauldron-hot conflagrations that exterminate wildlife habitats, roast bald eagle and spotted owl fledglings alive in their nests, boil away trout and trout streams, leave surviving animals to starve, and incinerate every living organism in already thin soils … that then get washed away during future downpours and snowmelts. Areas incinerated by such fires don’t recover their arboreal biodiversity for decades.

Homes in and near the forests become ashes, chimneys and memories. Residents die in their homes or trying to flee the infernos. Firefighters perish trying to extinguish them.

The fires can certainly be far worse in drought years. But droughts are nothing new, either. We all recall the seven-year drought that brought Joseph to prominence in pharaoh’s Egypt, and the eight-year-long Dust Bowl during the 1930s. Historians describe a 50-year “water famine” that drove Anasazis out of the American Southwest, the 200-year drought that ended Mayan civilization, and other parched periods in China, Africa, Mesopotamia and other regions.

In short, whatever “hotter, drier, longer” forest fires we are witnessing today have nothing to do with fossil fuels, plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide or “dangerous manmade climate change.” They have a lot to do with incompetent forest mismanagement policies and practices.

Far too many environmentalists, bureaucrats, politicians and judges would rather let forests burn, than let anyone selectively cut timber, thin out overgrown trees – or even let loggers harvest usable timber left from beetle kills, devastating fires or volcanic explosions like Mount St. Helens. (Do you suppose they’d alter their policies if loggers promised to use chain saws powered by little wind turbines or solar panels?)

Eco-purists want no cutting, no thinning – no using fire retardants in “sensitive” areas because the chemicals might get into streams that will be boiled away by conflagrations. They prevent homeowners from clearing brush around their homes, because it might provide cover or habitat for endangered species and other critters that will get incinerated or lose their forage, prey and habitats in the next blaze. They rarely alter their policies during drought years.

The Obama Administration spends billions of dollars annually on manmade global warming “research,” billions more on renewable energy boondoggles for crony corporatist campaign contributors, billions more to convert more private land to federal control. But it never seems to have enough money for expanded or modernized fire control.

Meanwhile, the Administration is gearing up to plant thousands of wind turbines across these areas, to slice and dice whatever raptors and other birds aren’t obliterated by fires.

In line with environmentalist ideology and Democratic Party ideals, it’s also expanding efforts to eliminate the last vestiges of drilling, mining, timber harvesting, ranching, farming and property inholdings (private lands allowed to remain within subsequently designated parks, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas) on government-controlled lands in America’s western states and Alaska. Many call it cultural cleansing, to create private recreational domains for the rich and famous.

The Feds have guidelines that say fires in certain areas can be extinguished if they are of human origin (arson or untended campfires, eg) – but must be allowed to burn if they are “natural” (caused by lightning, for example). One must take it on faith that “experts” can make that distinction in the midst of an inferno, and pray that small fires won’t become raging infernos. The Federales even have jurisdictional policies that can prevent aircraft from dropping water on a fire, if the crew cannot tell whether the blaze is on Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service land.

A relatively new product called FireIce smothers fires, by taking heat and oxygen away from combustible materials. Dropped directly onto a fire from airplanes, it penetrates through smoke, fire and treetops down to burning timber and trees and brush in a fire’s path. It can also be carried to blazes in standard fire and tanker trucks, or blended on location using dry FireIce powder and on-site water. Homeowners can brew up their own batches, adding water to the dry chemical, and use the concoction to coat their houses, shrubs and other property – protecting them against onrushing flames.

Unfortunately, state and federal officials have employed this highly effective fire killer only sporadically. The results are predictable, as recounted above.

The Justice Department has prosecuted farmers and ranchers for trying to protect their property from current or potential fires, by starting “controlled burns” or “backfires” that got out of control and burned a few hundred acres of US forest. But when intentional Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service fires in Oregon or South Dakota got out of control and burned thousands of acres of US and private forestland, forage and livestock, no repercussions, prosecutions or compensation were forthcoming.

As to the Interior Department’s convenient claim that today’s forest fires are due to US greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, let’s not forget that rapidly developing countries are emitting increasing amounts of carbon dioxide every year – numerous times what the USA can possibly eliminate – and there is still no Real World evidence that humans have replaced powerful natural forces in climate change.

It’s time to give America’s forest management and fire control policies a thorough review and revision, before we lose more habitats, wildlife, homes and human lives. And while we’re at it, let’s end this insane obsession with manmade climate Armageddon.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

Venezuela Is Heading for the Fourth Circle of Statist Hell

July 30, 2016 by Dan Mitchell
 
Maybe it’s just because I’m a wonk, but it seems that comparing long-run growth rates in various nation sets up a slam-dunk argument for the superiority of free markets and small government.
Whether it’s North Korea vs. South Korea, Cuba vs.

Chile, or Ukraine vs. Poland, nations with bigger governments and more intervention inevitably decline compared to market-oriented alternatives.

That’s very compelling evidence, in my humble opinion, but I wonder whether it’s not overly persuasive because it’s too dry and analytical.

Maybe I should focus more on the human cost of statism. And not just by sharing data about low levels of per-capita GDP. Perhaps it would help to explain what that means for the lives of ordinary people.
Venezuela certainly would be a perfect (in a bad way) example.

The Associated Press explains that big government and statism aren’t working very well, particularly for the most vulnerable members of Venezuelan society.
Tens of thousands of Venezuelans poured into neighboring Colombia to buy food and medicine on Saturday after authorities briefly opened the border that has been closed for almost a year. A similar measure last week led to dramatic scenes of the elderly and mothers storming Colombian supermarkets and highlighted how daily life has deteriorated for millions in Venezuela, where the economy has been in a freefall.
That certainly sounds grim, but that story doesn’t fully capture how bad life has become for ordinary people.

Here are some excerpts from a BBC report on the government-created misery in Venezuela.
Travelling through the country this month I saw endless queues of people trying to buy food – any food – at supermarkets and other government-run shops. I was stopped at a roadblock in the middle of the countryside by people who said they had eaten nothing but mangoes for three days. I saw the hopeless expression of a mother, who had been eating so little that she was no longer able to breastfeed her baby.
What a miserable tragedy.

The reporter shares information on his own family and other people he met.
…it was my family who really brought it home to me. My brother told me all his trousers were now too big. My father – never one to grumble – let slip that things were “really tough”. My mother, meanwhile, confessed that sometimes she only eats once a day. They all live in different parts of Venezuela, but none of them is getting enough to eat. It’s a nationwide problem. …a young mother, Liliana, …admitted to going to bed in tears on days when she had been unable to give her two children any dinner. In western Venezuela, in the oil-rich province of Zulia, I visited several small towns where people didn’t know what they would eat the following day.
What a horrifying life.

Imagine if you were a parent in Venezuela and you couldn’t find food for your children? That shouldn’t be happening in the 21st century.

Unsurprisingly, deprivation and economic chaos are now the norm.
A study by three of the country’s main universities indicates…that “extreme poverty” has jumped by 53% since 2014. …The country’s official inflation rate was 180% in December, the last time a figure was made public, but the IMF estimates it will be above 700% by the end of the year.
Considering that Venezuela is in last place for Economic Freedom of the World, none of this should be surprising.

But remember that we want to focus today on the human cost of statism, not just broad measures of economic mismanagement.


And this chart from the BBC on food riots certainly is a persuasive piece of evidence.

Here’s the part that shows the mess was created by bad government policies, with price controls being a major culprit.
…the government years ago fixed the price of many basic goods, such as flour, chicken, or bread. But Venezuelans can only buy the goods at these fixed prices once a week, depending on the final digit of the number on their national identity card. …Because there is a risk of the goods running out, people often arrive at supermarkets in the early hours of the morning, or even earlier. At 6am one morning in Caracas, I met a man who had already been in the queue for three hours. …”I’m hoping to get rice, but sometimes I’ve queued and then been unable to buy anything because the rice runs out before I get in,” he said.
In a sad example of Mitchell’s Law as the failure of one bad policy leads to the imposition of another bad policy.
President Nicolas Maduro[‘s]…latest step has been to create Local Committees of Supplies and Production, better known by the Spanish acronym, CLAP. The CLAPs essentially mean that the government will stop sending imported food to supermarkets and start handing it over to local community councils. …The ultimate aim of the CLAPs is to create self-sustaining communities, where people grow their own food. …a member of a colectivo – a group of hardcore government supporters, often armed, …agreed in the end to show me what the CLAP was aiming to achieve. I was taken to see a barren field – “which we aim to have ready for crops in eight months” – and several chili plants waiting to be planted. It was, to say the least, disheartening.
In other words, Venezuela apparently is creating a sure-to-fail mixture of autarky and collective agriculture.

Even Ayn Rand didn’t think to include something that crazy in her dystopian novel, Atlas Shrugged.
Let’s wrap up with a CNN story about a new “jobs” program from the thugs in Caracas.
In a vaguely-worded decree, Venezuelan officials indicated that public and private sector employees could be forced to work in the country’s fields for at least 60-day periods, which may be extended “if circumstances merit.” …President Nicolas Maduro is using his executive powers to declare a state of economic emergency. …According to the decree from July 22, workers would still be paid their normal salary by the government and they can’t be fired from their actual job. …Venezuela…is grappling with the lack of basic food items like milk, eggs and bread. People wait hours in lines outsides supermarkets to buy groceries and often only see empty shelves. …Venezuela is the world’s worst economy, according to the IMF. It’s expected to shrink 10% this year and inflation is projected to rise over 700%. Beyond food shortages, hospitals are low on supplies, causing many patients to go untreated and some to die.
Wow, I’m not even sure where to start. The fact that people are dying because of horribly sub-standard care? The fact that the government is engaging in a form of quasi-slavery by forcing people to work on farms? Or the fact that bad government policy is the reason for the disaster?

As I contemplated these questions, it got me thinking about the varying degrees of statism and the harmful impact on ordinary people.

So, with apologies to fans of Dante’s Inferno, I put together the Five Circles of Statist Hell. The first layer is relatively benign, featuring nations such as France that sap an economy’s vitality with lots of feel-good programs. Then you get countries that belong in the second layer, which is characterized by economies that are actually declining rather than merely stagnating.

And the next layer is where Venezuela is today, with systemic misery and poverty. In other words, the nations in this layer already have declined and have lots of suffering.


But it’s always possible to decline even further. If Venezuela doesn’t reverse some of the awful policies that are causing chaos today, it’s just a matter of time before the country joins North Korea is a state of pervasive deprivation and even starvation.

And the only thing worse than that is the final layer of statist hell, which features countries that actually butcher their own citizens.

By the way, let’s not forget the “useful idiots” who have justified and/or praised Venezuela’s brutal government. I’ve previously cited the misguided words of Joseph Stiglitz.

Well, Joe Kennedy also deserves our scorn and disdain. The former politician actually mourned the death of the evil slug who is most responsible for the mess in Venezuela.
Former congressman Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) is mourning the death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez today, praising Chavez as someone who made a difference for poor people. …Kennedy also said that “some of the wealthiest people on our planet have more money than they can ever reasonably expect to spend.” Kennedy joins Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.) among the few American politicians to praise Chavez after his death Tuesday.
How disgusting and unseemly. Makes the Che sycophants seems like moral giants.

Saturday, July 30, 2016

Hillary's Hate

The Saul Alinsky devotee crystallizes who will be anointed -- and who will be damned.

Matthew Vadum 47 

The legendary congenital liar Hillary Clinton accepted her party's nomination for the presidency last night mercifully bringing the boisterous, chaotic freakshow that was the 2016 Democratic National Convention to an end.....Inside the convention hall, Democrats railed against border walls, the supposed systemic racism of police and the justice system, and having to show any kind of identification to vote.

Chelsea Clinton introduced her mother on the stage. It was an unremarkable speech not worth detailing here. Next followed a slick video about Hillary that was narrated by actor Morgan Freeman. The final words Freeman says are "How many ways will she light up the world? This is the woman."........She promised to make government bigger and bigger and bigger. A communist at heart, she promised to suck up to the hardcore socialists in her party. She promised to empty the prisons. She promised to create worse-than-useless green jobs with big taxpayer subsidies. She promised to flood the country with aliens, illegal or otherwise, and hard-to-assimilate Muslims. With her grating voice, she attacked Republican nominee Donald Trump shrilly and relentlessly......To Read More..

Welcome to the Communist Party, U.S.A.

How Hillary’s scary speech revealed her mistake in wearing a white pants suit to her coronation.

Daniel Greenfield 232 

Wearing a white pantsuit, Hillary Clinton plodded out on stage to accept the nomination that she had schemed, plotted, lied, cheated, rigged and eventually fixed a series of elections to obtain.

Then she claimed that she was accepting the nomination of a race she had rigged with “humility”.
Humility is not the first word that comes to mind when thinking of Hillary Clinton. It is not even the last word. It is not in the Hillary dictionary at all. But this convention was a desperate effort to humanize Hillary. Everyone, including her philandering husband and dilettante daughter, down to assorted people she had met at one point, were brought up on stage to testify that she really is a very nice person.

This wasn’t a convention. It was a series of character witnesses for a woman with no character. It was an extensive apology for the Left’s radical agenda cloaked in fake patriotism and celebrity adulation....To Read More...

The Daily Signal

The History of the United States, as Told by Young Democrats


"This country's built off the backs of native, indigenous people, the genocide of such. This country's built off the backs of black people … this country is built on the backs of immigrant labor," says Catalina Velasquez. Read More
News

ISIS or Climate Change: Which Worries Democrats More?


As delegates and other attendees came and went outside the Democratic National Convention, we asked some of them what issue they are more concerned about this election season—climate change or the threat of terrorism. Watch the Video
Feature

At Party's Convention, Democrats Reflect on the Liberal Revolution That Split Them


In interviews with more than 25 Democrats in Philadelphia, The Daily Signal sought to understand the heart of the conflict, and what it means for the party's future. Read More
Commentary

Why Musicians Can't Stop Politicians From Playing Their Songs


The surviving members of the rock group Queen objected to the playing of its 1977 hit "We Are the Champions" when nominee Donald Trump took the stage at one point during the Republican National Convention. Read More
News

Justice Department Knew of IRS Scandal 2 Years Before Congress but Did Nothing


"This is par for the course and frankly the stench is overwhelming," says Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., about the scandal involving former IRS Commissioner Lois Lerner. Read More
News

White House Defends Obama's Claim That It's Easier to Buy a Gun Than a Book


PolitiFact determined the comment was "mostly false." The Washington Post Fact Checker gave Obama "Three Pinocchios," while FactCheck.org was the most charitable, stating that Obama "simply goes too far in his analogy." Read More

GOPUSA

DNC interrupts moment of silence for fallen police officers with shouts of 'black lives matter' - Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez addressed the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, leading delegates in a moment of silence for the law enforcement officers killed there last month and pleading for.....

Racist, Anti-Semitic DNC Opens Convention by Denouncing Trump's 'Bigotry' - What a way to begin the Democratic National Committee’s convention in Philadelphia. And where to start with the WikiLeaks leak of nearly 20,000 DNC emails? The emails by and between members of the DNC....

Philly police say uniformed cops were barred from DNC floor -   Some Philadelphia police officers say they were barred from patrolling in uniform on the floor of the convention while it was in session — spurring claims that Democrats are anti-law enforcement.  The Post interviewed three police officers who confirmed they were ordered to steer clear of the convention floor during the proceedings while wearing their uniforms......

McDonald's employee fired for refusing service to police officer -   A McDonald’s employee in Brenham northwest of Houston has been fired for refusing to serve an off-duty police officer, according to news reports.  The officer had gone into the restaurant at 500 Highway 290 with his two kids and was turned away by the employee at the counter who told him she didn’t serve law enforcement officers, Brenham Police Chief Craig Goodman told KHOU.com. Another employee stepped in to serve him.  “Nobody deserves to be treated like that,” Goodman said. “We know that these kinds of problems exist elsewhere in the country — did not expect it here.”....

Debunking Leftist Mythology on Sweden and Denmark

July 29, 2016 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

I’m still in China, as part of a week-long teaching assignment about markets, entrepreneurship, economics, and fiscal policy at Northeastern University in Shenyang.

One point that I’ve tried to get across to the students is that China should not copy the United States. Or France, Japan, or Sweden. To be more specific, I warn them that China won’t become rich if it copies the economic policies that those nations have today.

Instead, I tell them that China should copy the economic policies – very small government, trivial or nonexistent income taxes, very modest regulation – that existed in those nations back in the 1800s and early 1900s. That’s when America and other western countries made the transition from agricultural poverty to industrial prosperity.

In other words, pay attention to the polices that actually produced prosperity, not the policies that happen to be in place in 2016. With this in mind, I’m delighted to share a new National Review column about the ostensibly wonderful Nordic Model from Nima Sanandaji. He starts by noting that statists are big fans of nations such as Sweden and Denmark.
Ezra Klein, the editor of the liberal news website Vox, wrote last fall that “Clinton and Sanders both want to make America look a lot more like Denmark — they both want to…strengthen the social safety net.” … Bill Clinton argues that Finland, Sweden, and Norway offer greater opportunities for individuals… Barack Obama recently…explain[ed] that “in a world of growing economic disparities, Nordic countries have some of the least income inequality in the world.”
Sounds nice, but there’s one itsy-bitsy problem with the left’s hypothesis.
Simply stated, everything good about Nordic nations was already in place before the era of big government.
…the social success of Nordic countries pre-dates progressive welfare-state policies. …their economic and social success had already materialized during a period when these countries combined a small public sector with free-market policies. The welfare state was introduced afterward.
Here are some of the key factoids about fiscal policy.
…in 1960, the tax rate in [Denmark] was merely 25 percent of GDP, lower than the 27 percent rate in the U.S. at the time. In Sweden, the rate was 29 percent, only slightly higher than in the U.S. In fact, much of Nordic prosperity evolved between the time that a capitalist model was introduced in this part of the world during the late 19th century and the mid 20th century – during the free-market era.
And here’s the data about equality (though I think it’s far more important to worry about the degree of upward mobility rather than whether everyone has a similar amount of income).
…high levels of income equality evolved during the same period. Swedish economists Jesper Roine and Daniel Waldenström, for example, explain that “most of the decrease [in income inequality in Sweden] takes place before the expansion of the welfare state and by 1950 Swedish top income shares were already lower than in other countries.” A recent paper by economists Anthony Barnes Atkinson and Jakob Egholt Søgaard reaches a similar conclusion for Denmark and Norway.
Our friends on the left think that government-run healthcare deserves the credit for longer lifespans in the Nordic world.

Nima explains that the evidence points in the other direction.
In 1960, well before large welfare states had been created in Nordic countries, Swedes lived 3.2 years longer than Americans, while Norwegians lived 3.8 years longer and Danes 2.4 years longer. Today, after the Nordic countries have introduced universal health care, the difference has shrunk to 2.9 years in Sweden, 2.6 years in Norway, and 1.5 years in Denmark. The differences in life span have actually shrunk as Nordic countries moved from a small public sector to a democratic-socialist model with universal health coverage.
Not to mention that there are some surreal horror stories in those nations about the consequences of putting government in charge of health care.

Here’s the evidence that I find most persuasive (some of which I already shared because of an excellent article Nima wrote for Cayman Financial Review).
Danish Americans today have fully 55 percent higher living standard than Danes. Similarly, Swedish Americans have a 53 percent higher living standard than Swedes. The gap is even greater, 59 percent, between Finnish Americans and Finns. Even though Norwegian Americans lack the oil wealth of Norway, they have a 3 percent higher living standard than their cousins overseas. …Nordic Americans are more socially successful than their cousins in Scandinavia. They have much lower high-school-dropout rates, much lower unemployment rates, and even slightly lower poverty rates.
Nima concludes his article by noting the great irony of Nordic nations trying to reduce their welfare states at the same time American leftists are trying to move in the other direction.
Nordic-style democratic socialism is all the rage among Democrat activists as well as with liberal intellectuals and journalists. But in the Nordic countries themselves, this ideal has gradually lost its appeal. …During the past few decades, the Nordic countries have gradually been reforming their social systems. Taxes have been cut to stimulate work, public benefits have been limited in order to reduce welfare dependency, pension savings have been partially privatized, for-profit forces have been allowed in the welfare sector, and state monopolies have been opened up to the market. In short, the universal-welfare-state model is being liberalized. Even the social-democratic parties themselves realize the need for change.
The net result of these reforms is that the Nordic nations are a strange combination of many policies that are very good (very little regulation, very strong property rights, very open trade, and stable money) and a couple of policies that are very bad (an onerous tax burden and a bloated welfare state).

I’ve previously shared (many times) observations about the good features of the Nordic nations, so let’s take a closer look at the bad fiscal policies.

Sven Larson authored a study about the Swedish tax system for the Center for Freedom and Prosperity. The study is about 10 years old, but it remains the best explanation I’ve seen if you want to understand the ins and outs of taxation in Sweden.

Here’s some of what he wrote, starting with the observation that the fiscal burden used to be considerably smaller than it is in America today.
Sweden was not always a high-tax nation. …the aggregate tax burden after World War II was modest.
But then things began to deteriorate.
…over the next four decades, there was a relentless increase in taxation. The tax burden first reached 50 percent of economic output in 1986 and has generally stayed above that level for the past 20 years.
Though Sven points out that Swedish politicians, if nothing else, at least figured out that it’s not a good idea to be on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve (i.e., they figured out the government was getting less revenue because tax rates were confiscatory).
A major tax reform in 1991 significantly lowered the top marginal tax rate to encourage growth. The top rate had peaked at 87 percent in 1979 and then gradually dropped to 65 percent in 1990 before being cut to 51 percent in 1991. Subsequent tax increases have since pushed the rate to about 57 percent.
In the interest of fairness, let’s acknowledge that there are a few decent features of the Swedish tax system, including the absence of a death tax or wealth tax, along with a modest tax burden on corporations.

But the bottom line is that Sweden’s overall tax system (and the same can be said of Denmark and other Nordic nations) is oppressive. And the system is oppressive because governments spend too much. Indeed, the welfare state in Sweden and Denmark is as large as the infamous French public sector.

To be sure, the Swedes and Danes partially offset the damage of their big welfare states by having hyper-free market policies in other areas. That’s why they rank much higher than France in Economic Freedom of the World even though all three nations get horrible scores for fiscal policy.
Let’s close by circling back to the main premise of this column. Nima explained that good things happened in the Nordic nations before the welfare state exploded in size.

So I decided to see if we could ratify his hypothesis by checking the growth numbers from the impressive Angus Maddison database. Here’s a chart showing the average growth of per-capita GDP in Denmark and Sweden in the 45 years before 1965 (the year used as an unofficial date for when the welfare state began to metastasize) compared to the average growth of per-capita GDP during the 45 years since 1965.
 
 
Unsurprisingly, we find that the economy grew faster and generated more prosperity when government was smaller.

Gee, it’s almost as if there’s a negative relationship between the size of government and the health of the economy? What a novel concept!

P.S. All of which means that there’s still no acceptable response for my two-question challenge to the left.

P.P.S. Both Sweden and Denmark have been good examples for my Golden Rule, albeit only for limited periods.

Valerie Jarrett was our First Female President

By Daniel John Sobieski

Hillary Clinton has become the first female nominated for President of the United States but, should she win the election, she will not be the first female to occupy and control the Oval Office (insert Monica Lewinsky joke here). That honor arguably goes to Valerie Jarrett, currently Senior Adviser to President Obama.

Jarrett, born in Iran to American parents, has been with the Obamas since her days as Deputy Chief of Staff in the office of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, the elder. She hired Michelle Obama, then Michelle Robinson to fill an opening in the mayor’s office. As Wiikileaks describes the beginning of a long relationship:.........The rest, as they say, is history. Not only did Valerie Jarrett  become a mentor to the young Barack Obama, she soon became what Investor’s Business Daily called Obama’s Rasputin, someone who had more security than our personnel did in Benghazi.....Read more

My Take - Although the author is correct in his understanding as to whose in charge - he's wrong if this is the basis for his judgment Jarrett is the first female president.  The first was Edith Wilson, wife of Woodrow Wilson.  After he had his stroke  "Edith Wilson took over many routine duties and details of the Executive branch of the government. She decided which matters of state were important enough to bring to the bedridden president. "I studied every paper sent from the different Secretaries or Senators," she wrote later of her role, "and tried to digest and present in tabloid form the things that, despite my vigilance, had to go to the President. I, myself, never made a single decision regarding the disposition of public affairs."  There were those who believed - and I think correctly so - she did what she wanted to do - and that was to be President of the United States, and acted accordingly.  But either way - based on Sobieski's reasoning - Edith Wilson was America's first  female President.   

DNC: Emanating a Putrid Smell Across America

By Lloyd Marcus

Just when you thought the depravity of the Democrats could not descend any deeper came the 2016 Democratic convention.  At my local gym using an aerobic machine, I saw on TV Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, speaking at the DNC. Seeing this despicable, cold, calculating, and evil woman at the podium defined the Democrat party as the source of the putrid smell spreading across our country.

The DNC emanated the foul odor of America's moral decline. Richards is running a national dead-baby-body-parts chop shop. And yet, this vile woman had the audacity to deceptively portray herself as an advocate for women and Trump as anti-woman. After the release of numerous undercover videos exposing the horrors and illegality happening behind the walls of Planned Parenthood, why on earth would the Democrats gift the abortion factory's president with hero status at their national convention?.............More

Want to know Hillary's only qualification to be president?

By J. Marsolo   

It's a doozy!  The Hillary strategy to win is to destroy Donald Trump. This was the theme of the convention, with each speaker attacking Trump. Doug Schoen, who has run many Democrat campaigns, said on Fox that Hillary will spend two billion dollars in negative ads. Hillary has nothing positive to offer. 

 Her record as secretary of state is a failure, from supporting the killing of Gaddafi, which caused Libya to descend into anarchy and become a haven for ISIS, to failing to provide the requested security at Benghazi, then doing nothing on the day of the attack and lying about its cause. 

She actually, without shame, told the mother of Sean Smith that the attack was cause by a video. This alone should be enough to disqualify and defeat her. She should have been indicted for lying about the emails and endangering national security, but the director of the FBI gave her a pass. Now we learn that the DNC worked with her to defeat Bernie so she could win. Her record as a senator is that she voted for the Iraq War, which she now is trying to explain away..... More

What Hillary believes

By Frank Johnson

We do not know how much more Hillary and Bill plan to accumulate if she becomes president.
Now that the performances at the DNC are over and the scripts have been retired to the memory hole, it is worthwhile reviewing what Hillary believes as we go into the election campaign...

  • She believes that the police are occupying black communities and that they need reeducation to stop shooting black men for no good reason
  • She believes that all of white America is at fault on race and needs reeducation
  • She believes that the needs of teachers’ unions come first in managing public education
  • She believes that Common Core is a good program
  • She believes that the southern border should be left open and that illegal immigrants here now should be amnestied
  • She believes that the immigration of Muslims from radical countries in the Middle East should be increased by five.
  • She believes that ObamaCare is good policy.
  • She believes that BLM is a legitimate movement.
  • She was in favor of TPP. It appears that Trump has forced her to recant on this.
  • She believed it was not necessary to send the cavalry for our guys in Benghazi and instead went home, thus abandoning them in the field when they were in a jam and calling for help and when, as we now know, the DoD had equipment “spinning up” on the tarmac (the fact that only the president could make the final decision does not make any of the foregoing incorrect).
  • She was in favor of having the USAF take out Gaddafi, creating chaos in Libya.
  • She believes the Iran deal is a good one.
  • She is the leading progressive in the country. The progressive narrative is that the history of the United States is one of racism, sexism, homophobia, aggression and genocide and that the founding was an illegitimate activity of rich white slaveholding men. If she rejects this narrative, there is no evidence of it.
  • She feels it is appropriate to conduct the high affairs of state on an unsecured private server and does not expect to be called to account for it even though experts now conclude that her servers was hacked by foreign intelligence agencies.
  • She believes that she and Bill are entitled to enrich themselves to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars -- so far -- by being unfaithful servants of the public interest and selling out the country’s policies.....To Read More....

Hillary Is a Menshevik

E. Jeffrey Ludwig

The Bolshevik/Menshevik crisis we saw in the first stages of the Russian Revolution is bubbling to the surface in our country through the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party today reflects an updated version of the Bolshevik/Menshevik split of the early 20th century.  In 1903, the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party (communist) split into two opposing groups, the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks.  Vladimir Lenin, leader of the pro-dictatorial Bolsheviks, defined the difference between the two groups, as one being "hard" (Bolsheviks) and the other being "soft," led by Leon Trotsky, Georgi Plekhanov, Julius Martov, and others.  Both were for the overthrow of capitalism and of the Tsarist regime, but the Mensheviks would allow for a somewhat broader range of views within the communist apparatus.  Ironically, the meeting that sealed this split was held in London, a center of capitalism, where differences could be aired, and even revolutionary groups could meet without fear of reprisal.   More

The Day the Bernie Dream Died

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 8 Comments @ The Sultan Knish Blog

Near Philadelphia’s City Hall, an obese woman wearing a marijuana leaf bikini was telling a television reporter why she supported Bernie Sanders. City Hall, once the tallest building in the world, is a gloriously magnificent edifice whose pillars are held up by representatives of all the races of the world and whose clock tower is topped by a 37-foot statue of William Penn, was besieged by Sandernistas.

The Democratic convention was underway. Bernie Sanders had endorsed Hillary Clinton. But his followers still believed. If not in Bernie, then in the radical movement that had coalesced around him.

A cheerful woman wearing a “Bernie or Bust” t-shirt told me that even if Bernie won, she would be voting for Jill Stein and the Green Party. It was unclear how Bernie Sanders could possibly win. Let alone how Jill Stein could win. But Bernie and Jill were against drones, banks and GMOs while Hillary Clinton was for them. And the mood grew uglier as the temperature approached one hundred degrees.

The crazier elements had converged around the historic Arch Street United Methodist Church which was “training” activists to protest non-violently. There were illegal aliens in green t-shirts laughing uproariously and scowling elderly Trotsky fan club members wearing BDS buttons surrounded by posters denouncing America for its “ongoing war” in Iraq (against ISIS) not to mention Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and most of the rest of the world. The Revolutionary Communist party marched angrily past.

There were also “Bernie Peacekeepers” wearing plastic placards proclaiming that they do not support violence of any kind. If anyone doubted their seriousness, the placards had a rainbow peace sign.

But the core Bernie elements had gathered around City Hall. They had marched the day before when there was no convention. And they were going to march today. A giant banner denounced the “racist drug war”. The ragged crowd carrying it had clearly found themselves on the wrong end of that war. Younger fans wore Bernie t-shirts. Entire families with dreadlocks held up handmade signs.

There was something millenarian and apocalyptic about the scene. Everyone knew that Bernie was going to announce that the revolution was over. And no one wanted to go home.

Officially the Democrats were here to coronate Hillary. MSNBC had set up a giant stage outside the Independence Visitor Center where tickets were being distributed to Independence Hall and its recreations of the rooms where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were signed. MSNBC personalities leered at viewers from giant video monitors and NBC staffers had swamped the Independence Hall bathrooms. But on the ground, it was all Bernie, Bernie and more Bernie.

There were no Hillary shirts in the streets. It was all Bernie. Silhouettes of Bernie’s glasses, Bernie and his bird, Bernie as a strapping young socialist and Bernie speaking to the masses. He was their Stalin or Saddam. His image was on shirts, signs and banners. Meanwhile elderly DNC delegates wearing blue lanyards nervously shuttled between bars eagerly catering to delegates. The painted donkeys in the squares, a tired gimmick, mostly went ignored. Even an “I’m With Her” button was a rarity.

In a hushed voice, a DNC delegate told me that it was important to elect someone in the middle. But the message in the streets was dramatically different. It wasn’t even about Bernie anymore. Bernie Sanders had tried to address his supporters asking them to behave and they had booed him. And that made the booing of Hillary’s name at the convention inevitable. Bernie the politician had sold out. But the radical left had already created Bernie the character who would go on fighting even when the politician wouldn’t. Bernie could start the revolution. But he couldn’t stop it. Because it was never
about him.


The most extreme Sandernistas had converged on Philly certain that they would win. And for all of Hillary’s elaborate organization, her networks of influential cronies, she couldn’t stop them from ruining her coronation. The DNC was on the run. Debbie Wasserman Schultz had resigned. And DNC delegates were outnumbered by angry radical leftists waving signs denouncing capitalism.

The radical left was trying to devour the Democratic Party ahead of schedule. And it wasn’t a pleasant sight. Sandernistas crowded the 30th Street Train Station holding forth on a rigged election. They had arrived on stuffy Amtrak trains clutching wadded up cardboard signs. There were angry grad students down from Yale upset about income inequality and anti-war activists from New York City toting models of drones and photos of crying children. Meanwhile the temperature kept on climbing.

Philly was an oven. The locals apologized for the weather as if they had somehow caused it. But the sullen unforgiving heat seemed to echo the mood of Sanders supporters. The hotter it got, the louder and crazier the chants became. At the heart of what was supposed to be a celebration of Hillary, a passionate portion of her party’s base was demanding that she be sent to jail. It was a secret wish that Bernie Sanders had been forced to swallow and abandon, but his supporters had not forgotten. And they would not forget.

Even before Bernie Sanders could sell out his followers at the DNC, the rising tension reached a crescendo and broke. The heat that had been growing all day could continue no more. Torrents of rain gushed down from the sky. Lightning flashed past skyscraper scaffolding and thunder boomed louder than the loudspeakers. Furious gusts of wind blew rain past a handful of umbrellas that had been used as parasols against the sun. The MSNBC stage was quickly deserted. And the Sandernistas, like drowned rats, raised up their cardboard signs as makeshift umbrellas against the rain.

Hours later, the final betrayal took hold. Bernie Sanders spoke at the DNC and sold out his loyalists. But they too had been preparing for the end.

More than one Sandernista spoke wistfully to me of Jill Stein and the Green Party. One leftist messiah had failed them. Bernie Sanders had put the Democratic Party ahead of the radical left’s agenda. But there were always uncompromising leftist radicals who would never be practical no matter what.

Sanders’ own supporters booed him. They booed any mention of Hillary. And they rode Amtrak home clutching wet signs calling for socialized medicine and an end to capitalism. Whether it is the Soviet Union or the Sanders Union, the left never recognizes that its revolutions have failed. It never learns anything from history except how to hate harder.

The Democratic Party had allowed the left to take over. And the left has no sensible stopping point. It is an endless cycle of revolutions, of mad political agendas and madder personalities that will not stop. Leftists like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders unleash revolutions that they cannot control.

That is what always happens to the left. It is what happened at Berniegeddon in Philadelphia.

The Bernie dream is dead, but the dream of a totalitarian revolution of the left lives on. Next to the great historical monuments of America, the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall, Benjamin Franklin’s grave and the Tomb of the Unknown Revolutionary War Soldier, the left vented its hatred for this country and its desire to erase its existence and its freedoms from the earth.

America blighted by industrial wind

Green gangsters rip us off while enriching the 0.1% and trashing the environment
 
Mary Kay Barton  
                                                                                   
“America is being auctioned off to the highest bidder.” Donald J. Trump
 
A recent Joe Mahoney article, NY looks to the wind to replace its fossil fuel diet, was full of half-truths and misinformation.
 
There is nothing “free,” “clean” or “green” about industrial wind.  Quite the contrary: the true costs of industrial wind development are astronomical. Yet, the wishful thinking of Governor Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, “green” ideologues, and “renewable” energy hustlers and subsidy seekers who benefit from this massive taxpayer and ratepayer rip-off has been repeated by countless “journalists” without question for years now.
 
Mahoney’s article highlighted Cuomo’s approval of the proposed wind factory off Montauk, NY. It claimed: “The offshore ‘wind farm’ could be a symbol of how the state can meet Cuomo’s ambitious goal of getting half of New York’s energy from carbon-free sources by 2030.  Now those sources represent about 23 percent of the state's energy draw.”
 
The statement is grossly misleading and inaccurate.
 
New York State’s emissions-free hydro power (including what it imports from Canada) already supplies approximately 23% of New York State electricity generation all by itself. New York State’s emissions-free nuclear power supplies approximately another 30% of the state’s electricity generation. “Other Renewables” (wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal) now provide a measly 3% (US Energy Information Administration or EIA)
 
Clearly, current hydro and nuclear power supplies in New York State alone already exceed Cuomo’s emissions-free target of 50 percent. But for some reason emissions-free nuclear is not counted toward NY’s “emissions-free” goal.
 
Most infuriating for New York State taxpayers and ratepayers is the fact that New York State was already getting approximately 50% of its electricity from emissions-free sources (19% from hydro + 29% from nuclear + 1% from “Other Renewables”) way back in 2000 – before Governor Cuomo & Co. began throwing billions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars into the wind, plastering rural NY with these bird-slaughtering lemons, as reported by MasterResource.org.
 
Scientific proof MIA
 
As our government officials continue to throw billions of dollars into the wind, the key question that needs to be asked by everyone is this:
 
Where is the Scientific PROOF that wind energy is a net societal benefit?
 
The answer is that there is no such scientific proof. Zero. Zip. Nada. None. 
 
However, there is much proof that development of sprawling, unreliable, subsidized, mandated industrial wind factories has been vastly detrimental across the nation and the world. So much so that President Obama and his Fish & Wildlife Service had to approve 30-Year EAGLE-KILL permits specifically to accommodate the bird-slaughtering wind industry – letting it off scot free for butchering our wildlife.
 
Governor Cuomo’s pie-in-the-sky ‘green’ energy policy is bereft of any realistic assessment of the expensive lessons already learned in Europe and elsewhere as a result of pushing these ‘renewable’ energy policies.
 
Results include, but are not limited to:  “skyrocketing” electricity rates, industries fleeing, 2 – 4 jobs lost for every ‘green’ job created, destroyed habitats and countryside, birds and bats slaughtered, lost property values, health issues, utter civil discord among people forced to live with these behemoths, and increasing numbers of people being thrust into ‘energy poverty.’  
 
All this as a result of the same ‘green’ mess that Governor Cuomo, President Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party continue to push.
 
While they demonize fossil fuel use and promise to rid us of this vital energy, the truth is that the availability of reliable, affordable power thanks to fossil fuels is directly correlated with greatly improved health and longevity here in the USA, as Alex Epstein explains in his book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
 
It’s all about the money!
 
WHY do they continue to push such an obvious failure as industrial wind, you ask?  Simple: “It’s all about the money!’
 
Manhattan Institute scholar Robert Bryce recently reported that the wind industry has garnered $176 BILLION of crony-capitalist cash here in the United States. It’s no wonder the American Wind Energy Association spends over $20 million per year lobbying for more of the same!
 
Big Wind and the Big Banks who back them are playing the system to tap into taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ wallets, while the crony-politicians who enable the whole dastardly deal get hefty ‘campaign donations’ in return. The greatest Ponzi schemes of all time pale in comparison to the eco-heist these Green Gangsters are pulling off.
 
Industrial wind was initiated in the United States by ENRON as a tax shelter generating scheme. Nothing about that has changed. Big Wind enriches the 0.1% at taxpayers' and ratepayers' expense.
Just ask Warren Buffett, who said: “We get tax credits if we build ‘wind farms.’ That's the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credits.”
 
Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump was absolutely correct when he underscored the critical need to address our nation’s economic demise, saying: “America is being auctioned off to the highest bidder.” The Industrial Wind Blight across America exemplifies this sad reality!
 
TAKE ACTION!
 
Contact your Congressional Representatives. Tell them to stop wasting our money on the environmentally destructive consumer fraud that is industrial wind energy.  If they won’t, vote the bums out!
_______________
Mary Kay Barton is a retired New York State-certified Health Educator, Cornell-certified Master Gardener, and a tireless advocate for scientifically sound, affordable, reliable electricity for all Americans. She has served over the past decade in local water quality organizations and enjoys gardening and birding in her National Wildlife Federation-certified “Backyard Wildlife Habitat.”
 

Regulations Are the Ties That Bind

Federal rules amount to the fourth largest economy in the world.

Allyne Caan


It might not have its own government, citizens or flag, but the world’s fourth largest economy has become a force — and a threat — to be reckoned with. What constitutes this mysterious economic might? None other than the $4 trillion in federal regulations imposed by the U.S. government. You read that correctly. If the cost of government regulations were its own country, it would boast the fourth-largest GDP in the world — bigger than the economies of Germany, France, Brazil, Russia, Italy, and the United Kingdom. And it’s just a couple of hundred billion away from matching the entire federal budget.

This bombshell comes courtesy of a new study by the Mercatus Center, which analyzed data from 1977 through 2012 to discover the cumulative costs of regulations (or, more accurately, taxes by a different name). While most studies of the economic impact of regulations have focused on select industries and/or specific regulations, the Mercatus study looked at data across 22 industries.

The picture ain’t pretty......To Read More...

I Make No Claims. I Report Facts

By Rich Kozlovich

First of all - I make no claims about Global Warming, or as it's now being touted - Climate Change since the warming has been stopped for 20 years, which is being called "the pause".  I merely report the facts. 

Warmists make claims, extrordinary claims.  Extrordinory claims with no scientific foundation.  All their "data" has either been based on computer models, speculation, data dredging, minipulated data or a misrepresentation of the data.

Having said that - the satellite data show no amazing warming for 2015.  Here's a recent and well done article by James Dillingpole dealing with the false claim about 2015 being the hottest year on record.  But his article isn't singular, the internet is replete with this information.  How did anyone interested in this issue miss it? 

His article also deals with the fact global warming and government grant money has made scientific integrity an oxymoron.   There's been innumerable articles dealing with the exposue of the Hockey Stick Graph, the Climategate scandal, and Mann's loss of his SLAPP lawsuit against Tim Ball in Canada because he wouldn't turn over data required by the court. 

Science with hidden, unforthcoming data isn't science - it's a demand for faith!  And anthropogenic global warming isn't universally embraced by scientists all over the world, except those in the power structure.  Phillip Stott called this scam subprime science, subprime economics and subprime politics.  How did you miss all of that? 

As for the feelings of resentment against those who point out such a lack of integrity in the scientific community: I have to ask why? It's being reported - everywhere - how did they miss it? 

Resentment isn't the emotion they should be feeling.  The feelings they should be expressing are dissapointment and embarassment that so many "scientists" are dishonest.  Perhaps you should take a look at this article in Nature where "Faked peer reviews prompt 64 retractions", and a really exciting site called Retraction Watch.  Here's one of my postings about the retractions they listed in the first six months of 2012.   Amazingly large don't you think?  And this goes on every year.  How did anyone interested in scientific integrity miss that? 

In fact, according to this post, "Studies show only 10% of published science articles are reproducible." Then there's this, The Trouble With 'Scientific' Research Today: A Lot That's Published Is Junk, and then there's this, Trouble at the lab, and Scientists' Elusive Goal: Reproducing Study Results.  That's just the tip of the iceberg.  Then there's my article, The 97% Lie

What's happening?  How did any of the Global Warming fellow travelers miss all of that?  They miss it because anything that detracts from the Global Warming litany is a direct attack of their neo-pagan secular religion - environmentalism.  We really do need to this right - environmentalism is the secular religion of the urban atheist.  Once we understand that understanding everything else they do us much easier.

When human cost of 'going green' can be far too high

Buncrana tragedy shows the banning of some unpopular chemicals, such as those which could have cleared pier of slippery algae, can be catastrophic.

By Phelim McAleer

The Buncrana pier tragedy should give us pause. It's a moment to consider life, hug our loved ones, and contemplate how we might prevent such horrors happening in the future. A major piece missing from the Buncrana pier discussion is how empty platitudes and feel-good environmental policies may have contributed to the death of five family members. We owe it to the McGrotty and Daniels families – and our own families – to take a hard look at the culture of dogmatic environmentalism. You can't ask basic questions of environmentalists anymore without being labelled a "denier", or "anti-science" or, worst of all, a "conservative". We're supposed to "go green" without a second thought. But when we turn off our brains for the sake of dogma – any dogma – we lose sight of the consequences of our choices. It's likely the McGrotty and Daniels families weren't thinking about environmental policy on their St Patrick's weekend outing………To Read More

From Paul Driessen - This article reminds me of another outrageous situation, in the USA, where a similar tragedy is only a matter of time. Completing a narrow 11-mile gravel road in Alaska would give King Cove residents a reliable link in bad weather to the large World War II-era airport at Cold Bay, when they face a medical emergency. As it stands, they are forced to take patients by boat through often dangerous waters to reach the airport, putting patients, nurses and boat crews as risk. But environmentalists and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service oppose the road, on the ground that it would run through a wildlife refuge and might migratory bird habitats. Meanwhile, of course, they don’t give a hoot about lethal impacts from wind turbines on birds and bats, or on human health. Rabid environmentalists also oppose Golden Rice that would prevent millions of children from going blind or dying from Vitamin A Deficiency. And they say ‘No’ fossil fuels for Africa, where 730 million people still don’t have electricity or have it only sporadically and unpredictably a few hours a week. It’s outrageous and unconscionable. It has to be stopped. (And would any fish actually have been harmed by the algae removing chemicals???)

SSI, Politicians and the Public.

Courtesy of Ed B. via Maury and Dog

Alan Simpson, the senator from Wyoming, calls senior citizens 'the Greediest Generation' as he compared Social Security to a milk cow with  310 million teats.

Here's a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS in Montana ... I think she is a little ticked off but she also tells it like it is!

"Hey Alan, let's get a few things straight!!!!!
  1. As a career politician, you have been on the public dole (tit) for FIFTY YEARS.
  2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old.  I am now 63).
  3. My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.
  4. Recently, just like Lucy and Charlie Brown, you and "your ilk" pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age, 67.  NOW, you and your "shill commission" are proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN!
  5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One, and now "you morons" propose to change the rules of the game.  Why?  Because "you idiots" mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal our money from Medicare to pay the bills.
  6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why?  Because you "incompetent bastards" spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money.  Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.  To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bullshit" to your incompetence.
Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a few questions for YOU:

  1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?
  2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?
  3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?
  4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or as  usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?
It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the "greedy" ones.  It is you and your fellow nutcase thieves who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers.

And for what? Votes and your job and retirement security at our expense, you lunk-headed leech.

That's right, sir.  You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic political careers.

You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it. And you can take that to the bank, you miserable son of a bitch.

NO, I did not stutter!

P.S. And stop calling Social Security benefits "entitlements."  WHAT AN INSULT!!  I have been paying in to the SS system for 52 years!  "It's my money" - give it back to me the way the  system was originally designed and stop patting yourself on the back like you are being generous by doling out these monthly checks!

EVERYONE!!!  If you like the way things are in America delete this.  If you agree with what Patty Myers says, please PASS IT ON!!!!