Funny how seemingly small or fleeting incidents stick in your memory throughout life. As hyper or runaway inflation is becoming a very real possibility to millions of Americans who heretofore were clinging to their weekly visits to Outback Steak House and the feel-good mantra of “American exceptionalism,” my memory takes me back to my teenage years.
Growing up on the eastside of town, the Townhouse Drive-In was a real-life American Graffiti hangout for cool and hungry teens who loved burgers, fries, and milkshakes. I thought nothing of having a midnight gorge of two double cheeseburgers, a large order of fries, and an extra-large shake. I don’t think I ever heard the words cholesterol or saturated fat — and had I, I doubt it would have fazed me.
A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll showed that 48 percent of Americans believe the U.S. economy is headed for an all-out depression within a year. This is great news, because it means that nearly half of all Americans are starting to awaken from their slumber and realize that Obama and his media allies have been lying about the existence of a non-existent recovery.
I say “starting” because I have no way of knowing how many of these people truly understand the underlying causes of the depression they believe is on the way. (I hasten to add that, in truth, we are, and have long been, in an invisible depression — a depression shielded from the public by easy credit and excessive money creation. But that’s another story for another day.)
While some conservative commentators are on the right side of most issues, they are careful to stay “in bounds.” The last thing in the world any political pundit wants is to be seen as an extremist by his colleagues.
Recently, I watched a panel of think-tank experts debate how best to solve our country’s fiscal problems. What caught my attention was that no one — not even the free-enterprise spokesmen from the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation and the Free Enterprise Institute — so much as alluded to the unconstitutionality of any of the myriad government programs that have caused these problems.
Just when you thought no one could top John Edwards, the Terminator unveils a ten-year maidcapade that has dramatically increased Pepto-Bismol sales nationwide. While Edwards is a callous, despicable human being, Arnold is simply a mentally disturbed android.
All of a sudden, Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton don’t seem quite as disgusting as they once did. After all, Clinton was merely a serial fondler and rapist, and Spitzer’s biggest crime is that he’s such a creepy looking guy that he probably tarnished the reputation of “Ashley Dupre,” his $1,000-an-hour prostitute.
Now that our dear leader has again shown his contempt for Israel and his sentimental attachment to radical Muslims, Israelis are feeling the heat from Jew haters worldwide more than at any time since World War II. Obama’s modern-day version of the final solution is for Israel to simply cooperate in its own suicide by giving up the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. (Predictably, he has since fudged a bit on the issue for political purposes.)
In exchange, the Israelis would get … you guessed it … absolutely nothing! The Muslims don’t even need the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. If Israel just gave the Golan Heights back to Syria (whom, we are reminded by Hillary Goofus, is ruled by a “reformer”), it would cease to exist in about a month. Nothing like looking down on your enemies from above and having the luxury of choosing the most efficient way to destroy them.
Of all the revealing things Barack Obama has said throughout his career — in print, audio, video, and live — perhaps the most revealing of all was something he wrote in Dreams from My Father:
“Eventually a consulting house to multinational corporations agreed to hire me as a research assistant. Like a spy behind enemy lines [my emphasis], I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal, checking the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages from across the globe.”
Since the Obamaviks descended upon the nation’s capitol in January of 2009, the government has dramatically improved its ability to carry out its two main functions — redistributing wealth and creating crises. However, lest you give them too much credit for their remarkable success in these areas, remember that much of that success was made possible by past actions on the part of progressive Republicans, philosophically confused Republicans, and RINOs.
The redistribution-of-wealth issue is almost at the point of no return, even though a number of principled Republicans are actually threatening to make a serious attempt to stop it by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. The odds against their succeeding, however, are about as long as the odds against Osama bin Laden’s showing up in Times Square tomorrow.
Putting the Osama bin Laden circus on the back burner for now, I wish Republicans would stop saying that Barack Obama is not serious about the budget deficit. It’s simply not true. He’s very serious about it. In fact, he is determined to increase it to the point that it brings about a total collapse of the U.S. economy.
Destroying capitalism in the United States is a “dream” that Obama got from his now-deceased father — the alcoholic polygamist and communist from Kenya who once touted the idea of a 100 percent income tax.
Politics is a game of lies — lies based on false premises and false assumptions. And, currently, one of the most talked about false-assumption-based lies is that Congress must raise the debt ceiling in order to save the “full faith and credit” of the United States.
Unfortunately, Republicans are doing a lousy job of explaining to the public that if the debt ceiling is not raised, there will still be plenty of money coming into the U.S. Treasury every month to make its interest payments on the national debt.
When I first wrote about the likelihood that Glenn Beck would be departing Fox News in a two-part article back on May 28/29, 2010, a lot of readers were surprised. After all, Beck had the highest–rated cable-television show in history in the 5:00 pm time slot.
In Part II of that article (“Glenn Beck’s Departure from Fox News“), I suggested four possible events that might trigger his departure. One of those four events was what I referred to as “The Godfather option,” wherein I said that Barack Obama was well aware that time was against him because so many liberal Democrats were going down to defeat in primaries and special elections. I suggested that Obama might just “send the boys over to have a little chat with Rupert Murdoch and make him an offer he can’t refuse.”
I’ve long wondered if Republicans can field a candidate who has the courage to ignore the unwritten rule that it’s politically incorrect to speak the truth about America’s current make-believe president.
When George Bush graciously turned over the White House keys to the mysterious man with the mysterious background, few realized he was handing America’s top secrets to the enemies from within. But given the swiftness with which Obama began implementing his collectivist, anti-America agenda, it didn’t take long for millions of voters to wake up. Sadly, however, many more millions still choose to ignore his anti-American words and actions and write off those who oppose him as racists or right-wing radicals.
Last week, Chuck Schumer gave a humdinger of a speech on the Senate floor – one that told you everything you needed to know about both the obliviousness and determination of the progressive crowd that still controls most of the power in the nation’s capitol.
Apparently, the terminally disingenuous Schumer was upset because even though the House once again voted for a continuing resolution to prevent a government shutdown until April 8, fifty-four Republicans voted against the measure. How dare they do what their constituents elected them to do?
When Chris Wallace interviewed Glenn Beck on Fox News Sunday the day after his stunningly successful Restoring Honor event at the Lincoln Memorial, he told Beck that in all his years as a journalist in Washington, he had never seen anything quite like him.
I could relate his statement, because in my article Glenn Beck’s Departure from Fox News (May 28, 2010), I said that Beck was “the biggest, fastest, most controversial star in the political commentary business in my lifetime” and pointed out that the White House purportedly referred to him as “the Beck problem.”
On March 4, Rasmussen Reports released a poll that showed 60 percent of Wisconsin voters disapproved of Governor Scott Walker and 48 percent “strongly” disapproved of him. The progressive campaign to destroy the Wisconsin governor is yet another sign that the radical left is growing ever more desperate.
They are rapidly ratcheting up their smear tactics, vile verbal assaults, and lies. Knowing that they may not have another opportunity like this for decades to come if they should fail to achieve their objective to paint America red, they consider every tactical trick – no matter how reprehensible – to be on the table.
As I watch events unfolding in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, et al, I wonder how many Americans realize that government employees are demanding rights that exist only in their progressive minds. They have been led to believe that their desires are rights, and that includes the right to have the government take someone else’s property and give it to them simply because they want it.
In Wisconsin, the protesters keep insisting that Governor Walker is trying to destroy their “collective bargaining rights.” I give Walker an A thus far for his courageous stand on this issue. But I stop short of giving him an A+ because he has not made it clear that there is no such thing as a right to collectively bargain. Only individuals have rights, and, whether a religionist or atheist, any honest, rational person knows that these are rights that are self-evident and inherited at birth.
With the angry uprising of pampered teachers in Wisconsin, the long-awaited Marxist revolution in the U.S. may finally be underway. It’s been clear for decades that a forced ending to America’s experiment with soft socialism would almost certainly trigger such a revolution.
Soft socialism was destined to fail from the outset, because it is the nature of life that a little bit of something bad tends to expand into a lot of something bad. That reality, however, has for decades been masked by the progressive’s best friend — gradualism.
The success of CPAC last week was enough to warm the heart of even the most cynical conservative. It was an incredibly festive, exhilarating atmosphere — the kind that tempts one to believe that there’s still hope for America. The aura of the crowd was a reminder that conservatives, especially libertarian-centered conservatives, tend to be friendly, helpful, and polite.
By contrast, on those few occasions when I attended far-left gatherings, such as the One Nation Working Together event in October, I’ve found that people generally tend to be unfriendly, rude, and angry. Which is not surprising, since the focus of such events always seems to be “down with the rich, up with the poor.” It’s a worn-out theme that is based on ignorance and envy.
In response to my ongoing discussion of a deflationary depression versus an inflationary depression, readers often ask me if a “soft landing” is possible. I guess the answer to that question depends on how you define soft landing.
If by soft landing, you mean we will somehow muddle through, things will calm down on their own, and we will not experience a great deal of pain, the answer is no. But if your definition of soft landing is an economy that declines slowly, without violent revolution, I would say such a scenario is possible.
Greece, Tunisia, Yemen, now Egypt … where does it end? Answer: It doesn’t. Throughout recorded history, protests have a habit of turning into riots, riots have a habit of evolving into revolutions, and revolutions almost always bring about bad consequences. In that respect, Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, and, most recently, Iran come quickly to mind.
“Peace on earth” has a nice progressive syntax to it, but through thousands of years of recorded history, mankind has yet to experience it. On the contrary, most people who have inhabited this planet have lived in poverty and misery, and done so under the iron fists of monarchs and a variety of other dictatorships.
From the standpoint of those who like the idea of the America the Founding Fathers envisioned, the polls continue to be discouraging with regard to Barack Obama’s popularity. Conservatives have been talking about “Obama’s rapidly deteriorating poll numbers” for two years now, and, although the numbers do move a few percentage points from time to time, the fact is that he has what appears to be a permanent lock on approximately 40 percent of the voters.
As I’ve said so often, you have to totally write off roughly 30 percent of the population, those who actually want the United States to be transformed into a collectivist utopia. And probably 10 percent or so of that 30 percent is radical enough to openly use the word communism in lieu of such euphemisms as progressivism and socialism. (Note: Karl Marx described socialism as “a transitional stage of society between capitalism and communism” and Vladimir Lenin boldly stated that “The goal of socialism is communism.”)
I purposely delayed writing about the recent tragedy in Tucson because I wanted to give myself time to get all the facts and observe the media reaction and political fallout.
Unfortunately, mass slayings are not a new phenomenon to the U.S. Two previous massacres that immediately come to mind are Charles Whitman’s killing of sixteen people at the University of Texas in 1966 using a high-powered rifle and Seung-Hui Cho’s murdering of thirty-two students and faculty members at Virginia Tech in 2007. In both cases, the perpetrator suffered from severe mental illness as is almost certainly true of Jared Loughner, the Tucson killer.
Unfortunately, as was expected, within hours after the Tucson tragedy those on the left started revving up their hate rhetoric. They quickly zeroed in on the “vitriol” of conservative talk radio, Fox News, Sarah Palin, and the tea-party movement. As polls show, however, most people realize that these claims are bogus since all evidence indicates that Loughner had no political connections of any kind. End of discussion. Read Full Article
I’m feeling lonely again. It’s that insecure feeling that comes from thinking that everyone knows something you don’t. After voters threw out enough big-government politicians to give Republicans a substantial majority in the House, the question that the media has been feasting on is: Did both the establishment and newly elected members of the Republican Party get the message?
For the establishment members, the first test came before the newly elected members were even sworn in. When confronted with the issue of whether to raise taxes (euphemistically referred to as “not renewing the Bush tax cuts”), Washington granted U.S. taxpayers a two-year reprieve. In addition, to let them know that they were going to have to pay for the favor of no new taxes for two years, the Democrats insisted on spending billions of dollars on a thirteen-month extension of unemployment benefits.
I recently discovered the excellent biography series on – of all places – CNBC. Reading and watching biographies on television is an incredible educational tool. Over the past few weeks, I’ve watched biographies about J.W. Marriott, Henry Ford, Colonel Sanders, and Richard Branson, among others.
Now that I’ve become a shameful CNBC viewer, I find myself clicking to that breeding ground of liberal fantasies from time to time to see if I can catch a good biography. Which means my eyes may briefly be exposed to such intellectual pornography as Mad Money with Jim Cramer or Hardball with Chris Matthews before I’m able to flip the channel back to Fox. Fortunately, to the best of my knowledge, I have suffered no permanent brain damage.
Thomas Paine said that “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” With decades of increasing criminality in all three branches of government, it would be pretty hard to argue with one of the great libertarian thinkers in our country’s history. And with Congress’s approval rating at a stunning 13 percent, it doesn’t appear that many people disagree with Paine’s analysis of government.
Now, with a new Congress ready to take charge, many are excited about the possibility that the accelerating, anti-Constitutional power of government over its one-time employers (now passively transformed into citizen serfs) will be reversed. But what is the likelihood that it will really happen?
Even though there has been an onslaught of conservative writers and commentators exposing the lie that raising taxes on “the rich” will lower the deficit, there’s an even bigger lie they have largely ignored. The lie I’m talking about is a false premise that goes virtually unchallenged, day in and day out, by even the most conservative members of Congress and the media.
It is the premise that is the very foundation of the fact-barren gibberish of the far left: that if you are financially successful, you are morally obliged to hand over an ever larger share of your earnings to those who are not as fortunate. The idea is that extreme wealth is an indefensible crime.
How refreshing it was to read Michelle Bachmann’s choice of words when she said, “I called for the current tax rates to be made permanent for all Americans.” Finally, a Republican who refuses to use the term “Bush tax cuts” when alluding to our current tax rate.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, when politicians and media pundits talk about the “Bush tax cuts,” they clearly are implying that the normal, acceptable tax rates are whatever they were before President Bush reduced them. Claire McCaskill recently summed up this warped far-left viewpoint when she said, “If they think it’s okay to raise taxes for the embattled middle class because … we don’t GIVE more money to millionaires, it really is time for people in America to pick up pitchforks.”
Rev. A.R. Bernard, founder and senior pastor of the Christian Cultural Center in Brooklyn, New York, recently gave a short but inspiring explanation of the difference between preference and conviction when he appeared on Glenn Beck. He pointed out that in 1972 the Supreme Court ruled that the only religious beliefs protected under the First Amendment are convictions. Preferences, the Court said, are not.
I was so intrigued by Rev. Bernard’s words that I did some digging on the Internet to find out more about the landmark case he referenced. Sure enough, in Wisconsin v. Yoder, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that regardless of what your belief structure is, every religious belief you have is either a conviction or a preference. Specifically, the Court said that if you are willing to even discuss the negotiation of your faith, then your faith is a matter of preference. By contrast, the Court said that a conviction is non-negotiable.
Since the TSA began its Barney Frank Anti-Terrorist Fondling operation, a whole lot of people who heretofore had appeared to be immune to the tea-party virus have begun to awaken from their Oprah slumber.
By Oprah slumber, I’m referring metaphorically to the Orwellian scene that occurred last week when Oprah Winfrey told her audience that each of them would be receiving a new Volkswagen Beetle. As the omnibenevolent queen of mass-audience hypnotism shrieked the good news to her adoring flock, both men and women went into a frenzy that made the reaction to the 1964 U.S. invasion of the singing Beatles seem like a church outing by comparison. Read Full Article
Glenn Beck recently did a show in which he talked about how he and his wife had decided to downsize their lives. As a result, he said they literally cut their possessions in half, and he urged his audience to do the same. He believes it’s an important step in preparing for the bad times ahead. As has been the case with Beck so often in the past, his little talk about the efficacy of downsizing inspired me.
That there are bad times on the horizon is a given. I was writing about the probability of a runaway inflation and subsequent collapse of the foundations of American society as early as the late seventies. I was far from alone in my thinking … Harry Browne, Gary North, Jim Blanchard, and a number of other “hard-money” newsletter writers come to mind. Read Full Article
Lady Ashley, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, expressed shock when Darwin’s Origin of Species was first published in 1859: “Let’s hope that it’s not true; but if it is true, let’s hope that it doesn’t become widely known.” Lady Ashley’s second hope has failed: Darwin’s theory is everywhere and has now become textbook orthodoxy.
But what about Lady Ashley’s other hope? Is Darwin’s theory true? All the geniuses of science tell us it is true. In fact, they tell us that only the ignorant and stupid masses reject Darwinism. But genius has lost a lot of credibility in our day. The geniuses on Wall Street and in D.C. have made a mess of the economy. And the geniuses who tried to sell us on man-made global warming have, through the Climategate controversy, demonstrated that scientists cannot be trusted to police themselves. Read Full Article
I was happy to see Ann Coulter’s recent article about the need to repeal the 26th Amendment (which gives eighteen-year-olds the right to vote), as it’s something I have long advocated. In some ways, it’s more harmful than the 14th Amendment, whose misinterpretation encourages ready-to-deliver Mexican women to scamper across our southern border and give birth to freshly-minted U.S. citizens.
In her article, Coulter focuses on research done over the past five years that has shown that human brains are not fully developed until age twenty-five and are particularly deficient in their frontal lobes until then. This is important, she says, because the frontal lobes control decision-making, rational thinking, judgment, and the ability to plan ahead and resist impulses. Read Full Article
I’m glad to hear Glenn Beck talking about the possibility of a catastrophic event taking place sometime over the next two years, which I’ve been writing about since Barack Obama ascended the White House throne some twenty months ago. On Monday, Beck’s focus was on the possibility of an Oklahoma City-type disaster (planned or unplanned?) that likely would cause the public to rally around the president.
Rallying around government leaders in times of crisis is a dangerous habit that is not unique to Americans. It seems to be a human genetic defect inherent in people worldwide. There’s no question that BHO would love to bring about a calamitous incident that would give him the opportunity to portray himself as protector of the people as he finishes out the last two years of his nonstop, four-year campaign for the 2012 presidential election. Read Full Article