Home » Spencer’s Writings

Category Archives: Spencer’s Writings

The Republic Will Endure

For the past several months, I’ve pretty much tuned out of politics. And it’s been glorious. It made me realize that for all the sound and the fury in the media, politics doesn’t really affect the vast majority of people in any meaningful way on a daily basis, aside from those greedy thieves at the IRS taking money out of my paycheck!

As John Stossel recently said: “after years of reporting, I’ve concluded that most politicians have little to say that’s interesting, and many are craven opportunists, desperate to rule over others. When we have a choice, Americans ignore politicians. That’s usually a good thing.”

I realize though that politics does affect us all in many, unseen, often insidious ways. Indeed, many libertarians are libertarians precisely because they have come to appreciate how the many invisible tentacles of the government can poison so many things. That, however, is less politics than it is government. The politics of an election–the day to day shitshow of politicians spouting lies, nonsense, and empty nothings The People want to hear and find comforting (“Build a wall”, “The 1%!”, etc.)–are entirely stupid, pointless, and worth ignoring, I’ve concluded. Elections are decided by idiots, and politicians pander to the lowest common denominator (something not reflected in the media coverage of elections, yet further reason to ignore the shitshow).

Indeed, if anything, the American people have it backwards: the majority of citizens only pay attention to politics and politicians when the politicians are running in elections, when we should actually pay attention to politicians when they aren’t running for office and are actually in power!

Of course, there is something inherent in my constitution that makes it impossible for me to entirely ignore politics, but ever since Donald Trump secured the GOP nomination–really, ever since I realized his triumph was inevitable–I decided I just didn’t care anymore.

When our “choices” are a lying crook and a con artist who clearly has no idea what he is talking about–and by the way, neither candidate says anything of substance or with a morsel of honesty–why bother? Why bother paying attention to an election that would be a tragedy if it weren’t a farce.

But the other day I had a ‘moment of clarity’. Despite all the doom and gloom–and it is very easy to think that “if my side loses, it’s the end of the world”, or indeed “no matter who wins, it’s the end of the world”–the Republic will endure.

The next 4 years will be a setback for the Liberty Movement–there is no avoiding that now, unless by some miracle Gary Johnson becomes president (and even that is no guarantee of success). In particular, the Supreme Court may be tipped towards the Statist end of the spectrum for a decade or two or three, as well as the judiciary in general.

This is depressing to me, and it will make our future work harder. Nevertheless, our work to advance liberty, preserve the Constitution, and restore freedom will continue, and the Republic will endure.

We will carry on as we always have: agitating for more freedom, protesting those who would deprive us of our liberties, and spreading the Gospel, as it were. This has long been a tiresome crusade bearing little fruit, but just as those who came before us carried on, despite their apparent lack of success, so we will too.

Our efforts are not in vain. Despite the abysmal choice we have before us this November, in the next 4 years good things may still occur. I think there is actually a decent chance marijuana will become fully legal in all 50 states; certainly it will become legal in more and more states as voters get the chance to decide for themselves. We may possibly see a slackening in the “war” on drugs. We may perhaps see a curtailment in America’s involvement in foreign affairs (though I suspect this will not happen, and our foreign policy will continue to be an overextended, incoherent mess, and may very well get worse). We may see an expansion of gun rights at the state level (Missouri just passed Constitutional Carry, overcoming a governor’s veto!). We may perhaps see market reforms in the healthcare sector, or deregulation of other parts of the economy. And we will all continue to reap the benefits of free markets where they exist. Perhaps most notably, energy will continue to be cheap thanks to the shale oil revolution and our transportation will continue to be provided by Uber and Lyft–the result of market competition, innovation, and free individuals making voluntary exchange!

And perhaps, as more and more Americans come to appreciate the benefits of free markets and de-regulation, the Word of Liberty will become more appealing.

Our Republic has withstood a Civil War, insurrections, depressions, two world wars, and plenty of bad presidents. The next 4 years won’t be pretty, and they will retard the cause of Freedom (remember: eternal vigilance), but they will hardly be the deathknell of the Great American Experiment.




A Quick Thought On Trump

Much could be and will be written about Trump at the Republican National Convention, but my contribution to the voluminous jabberings over the big nothing that is the RNC shall be but a brief one.

It seems to me that in accepting the nomination, Donald Trump has made himself somewhat obsolete. The speech he gave was a real stemwinder, I am forced to concede, and while I disdain The Donald, I won’t deny he gave a good performance. I disagree with the narrative that law and order is breaking down and America is in crisis (if it is, it is only because of its government and political class, something The Donald did not speak to nor will he throughout this campaign and even during his–God forbid–administration). But that’s why I will not be voting Republican this year, and likely not ever.

My critical observation though would be that any of the 16 Republicans who ran could have given that exact same speech and it would have had exactly the same (tremendous) effect.

Trump won the nomination on force of personality alone. The People wanted a strongman, and they liked a man who was unguarded, spoke off the cuff, and “was a straight talker”–even though he’s consistently shown himself to be wildly inconsistent and utterly without substance. Plain spoken like a not particularly bright 3rd grader, yes he was different, but to think he wasn’t a politician was a capital mistake.

Now though, is he still The Donald? Anyone could give prepared speeches, and the case against Hillary as a corrupt, lying warmonger is so airtight that a child–or indeed, even Donald Trump–could prosecute it in the court of public opinion.

What I’m getting at is this: any respectable figure in the Republican Party who is half-coherent could seize upon the political zeitgeist in America right now and storm into the White House based on a carefully laid out argument against Hillary and Obama, using prepared remarks and sensible policies. In the general election, what does The Donald bring to the table but a host of disadvantages unique to himself and none of the unique advantages he had in the Primary?

The Donald has fully transitioned to a regular, ordinary politician, like the rest of them, but unlike the rest of them, he is unstable, authoritarian, admires foreign autocrats, inconsistent, appears to believe nothing with any true conviction, and is as ignorant on the issues as the average voter.


SCOTUS: Abortion v Guns

Leftists will undoubtedly rejoice at the recent SCOTUS decision striking down burdensome regulations on abortion clinics. The Supreme Court ruled–correctly, I think–that burdensome regulations which serve no greater purpose and exist–indeed are written in the first place–purely to be an obstacle to obtaining an abortion constitute an infringement of our rights by the government.

Of course it is an infringement of our rights for the government to impose endless, senseless regulations in an effort to prevent us from exercising our rights. This is especially clear when the laws are passed explicitly, or very nearly so, with the intention of stopping people from exercising their rights and serves no greater purpose. I would argue even making it substantially difficult to exercise one’s rights is un-Constitutional, regardless of the law’s/regulations’ intent, and even if they do serve a greater purpose, infringing on citizens’ rights requires a very, very good reason, not merely a reason.

That point should be obvious, however, and this article is not about how the government infringes on our rights through the proliferation of regulations coming out of the myriad number of independent executive agencies, agencies with the power to write and enforce the law and even on occasion the power to adjudicate the laws they write. This is, rather, an article about Leftists and why they are full of shit.

Abortion is not a topic I feel very strongly about, but I think this was a good SCOTUS decision. While I see merit in both sides’ arguments on abortion, I am very wary when it comes to the regulatory power of the state and will welcome any check on this power, even if it means abortions will be easier to obtain.

What irritates me greatly though is that Leftists will today celebrate this most recent Supreme Court decision preventing the government from using its regulatory powers to prevent us from exercising our rights, yet tomorrow–or perhaps even later today–these same Leftists will be marching in the streets demanding the government use its regulatory powers to infringe on other rights, or cheering on Members of Congress engaged in a publicity stunt to ostensibly achieve the same thing.

In fewer words, I really hate the fact that Leftists are not bound by principle. Even though I’m no big fan of abortion, I welcome this Supreme Court decision because of the principle behind it, viz. that the government using pointless regulations to make it more difficult to exercise our rights is a violation of the Constitution. In this particular instance, the principle was protecting the right to get an abortion, yet the same principle should apply to our 2nd Amendment rights as well! Leftists: people who believe in the unrestricted right to kill a fetus, but anyone trying to exercise their right to keep and bear arms should be treated like a criminal because they are a threat to “public safety” merely because they want to own a gun to shoot paper targets.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will in the future recognize this, but our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is one of the most frequently and egregiously trampled upon by the government’s regulatory power. The number of petty, pissant regulations gun owners have to put up with should clearly run afoul of Hellerstedt precedent. Background checks, waiting periods, “safety certificates”—such as we have here in California, whereby one has to pass a government test before one may legally own a firearm, so-called “assault weapons” bans, registering one’s firearms with the government, and now (again, in California) the idea being proposed of requiring background checks for ammunition all clearly obstruct exercising one’s 2nd Amendment rights. At the same time they serve no greater purpose except as obstacles preventing people from easily and cheaply[1] exercising their Constitutional rights.

There are mountains of evidence that all of these restrictions and rules do nothing whatsoever to enhance public safety—their ostensible raison d’être. Gun registries were so useless in preventing/solving crime that Canada got rid of its registry. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 had no discernible effect on crime (and it is worth mentioning that rifles of all kinds, of which so-called “assault weapons” constitute only a small sub-set, kill only about 300 people in the US each year—less than the number of people killed each year with hands and feet). There is no evidence at all that waiting periods reduce or prevent crime. As for gun licenses, putting to one side the fact that requiring a license to exercise a right contradicts the entire underlying premise of a right (imagine for a moment a country in which only those who can get a license from the government can exercise their right to free speech), there is at least one documented instance of a gun license (or, rather, the bureaucratic delay in getting a license) costing a woman her life.

While background checks have repeatedly failed to stop determined mass shooters and terrorists, they have stopped wife beating, ignorant reporters from buying guns, so I suppose we can keep them. But will any of these restrictions—which clearly exist and are propagated merely to make it more difficult to exercise one’s Constitutional right to keep and bear arms—ever be struck down by the Supreme Court? If the Supreme Court operates on principle, then the answer should be an unequivocal “yes”.

But Leftists do not recognize this. They celebrate this latest Supreme Court decision not because it is in accordance with their principles (because they have none, I am increasingly coming to believe); rather, they celebrate the ends achieved. They are in favor of abortions but they are against guns, therefore a Supreme Court decision which makes the right to an abortion easier to exercise is good, but they disapprove of the right to keep and bear arms and therefore will support using the regulatory power of the state to regulate the 2nd Amendment out of existence.

Their hypocrisy is unmatched—any time even the smallest restriction on abortion is suggested (even restrictions eerily similar to restrictions they want imposed on gun owners), they fight tooth and nail to stop it and cry foul, that even the most incremental step towards limiting abortions is but the first step to overturning Roe V. Wade and doing away with abortion entirely. Yet they will then turn around and excoriate the Republicans for being so intransigent and make exactly the same arguments about guns.

In sum, they will fight according to principle if it yields favorable results for things they approve of while at the same time denying that same protection of principle to rights they disapprove of. The very idea of ‘rights’ is increasingly at odds with modern Leftism if they think they can pick and choose which rights citizens do and do not have.



[1] I say “cheaply” because, at least in California, a lawful gun owner has to pay a fee to the government for every background check, a fee to obtain the safety certificate and a separate fee for the test you have to pass to get the safety certificate, a fee to register your firearms with the government, and because of California law outlawing the purchase of more than 1 handgun per 30 days (a law some California law makers are trying to apply to all guns, not just handguns), if one does wish to purchase multiple guns, he has to pay all of the above fees for each, separate purchase and cannot legally make all of his purchases in one lump–a practice that amounts to legalized government extortion, in my opinion (imagine if ATMs only allowed you to withdraw $10 at a time and charged you a $2 fee for each withdrawal). And if the proposed law requiring background checks on every purchase of ammunition takes effect, this is fleece-by-fee, death of a thousand cuts is going to go on steroids. The combined effect of this is to fleece gun owners as well as disenfranchising the poor of their right to keep and bear arms. It also begs the question that if poll taxes and literacy tests are illegal because they infringe the right to vote, why are their equivalents perfectly acceptable when it comes to infringing the right to keep and bear arms?

Prepare for President Trump, Jan. 2017

I write this in a state of despairing despondency. Donald Trump, a political phenomenon I find utterly odious, has swept the latest of five primaries.

At this point, I do not think Trump can be stopped. I think there are now only two possible conclusions to this bizarre and depressing saga, barring Trump himself deciding to quit or somehow being incapacitated, both of which are extremely unlikely: either Trump wins the GOP nomination outright, or someone else secures the GOP nomination from a brokered convention. If the latter, however, I doubt that person, whoever he or she may be, would have any credibility among the majority of the Republican electorate, even if that nominee were a reincarnated Ronald Reagan bearing the endorsement of Jesus Christ himself.

Come November, after what will be an exhausting, shrill, horrifying, thoroughly unserious, substance-less election between Trump and Hillary Clinton, an election as non-cerebral as an argument over juice boxes waged by four year olds, I think Trump may very well win the White House.

This is not a sentence I write lightly, and I sincerely hope that in nine months I can look back at this blog post and say “What in the hell was I thinking?”, but everyone has so far failed to understand Donald Trump and has underestimated the force behind his political rise. I think it is entirely possible he can win the White House. When one looks at his likely opponent, I think it likely. Clinton is still the odds on favorite, but I do not think she is as strong a candidate as is frequently supposed. If she wins, it may well be a near run thing. Or perhaps she will win in a landslide.

I still cannot entirely fathom what has passed through the mind of the average voter in backing Trump, nor can I even begin to comprehend why anyone might find Trump appealing beyond his status as a giant middle finger to “the establishment”. Some combination of economic illiteracy, old fashioned nationalism, the latent appeal of authoritarianism, and simply having one’s own ideas being given a voice on the national stage after years and years of being not just ignored but also demonized are, I suspect, the main factors. I wish I could understand Trump’s appeal to ‘the common man’ though, because it is an appeal that will, I think, carry Trump to the Oval Office.

God help us all. And God save the Republic. But Goddamn the average voter.


The Reason You Suck, Donald

Trump must be stopped.

Several months ago, Trump was a joke whom I didn’t take at all seriously and dismissed out of hand. Several weeks ago—shortly before the first caucuses/primaries—I considered Trump to be a mixed bag; sure there were lots of things about Trump I disliked, but I thought he may yet do some good or, rather, the mass political uprising that Trump had aroused may do some good. Even then though I thought he was only capable of doing some good because I lazily assumed that he would never win—he would either get bored and leave before too long or else people would not vote for him. That did not happen and it is looking increasingly likely it never will.  I never for a moment thought Trump had a chance at gaining the Republican nomination. Now, things are different.

Trump is no longer a joke, he is a threat. He is a threat worse than “the Establishment” and as bad as the threat posed by Hillary Clinton, though for slightly different reasons.

To reiterate, I believe Trump is a fascist. No, I don’t think Trump is Hitler; Trump is more of a Mussolini character. Why I believe this is explained a bit further down, but the point of this article is that Trump must be stopped and soon. Whereas before I thought that Trump could not possibly win but instead his supporters would live on and elect in some future election another would-be fascist, now the possibility of Trump winning cannot be dismissed. We cannot let this happen.

It is now not only possible Trump will win the Republican nomination, it is likely. As Lawrence of Arabia might say, nothing is written. It is still possible that Trump will not gain the nomination, but the sober half of the electorate is going to have to rally around a single candidate of sanity and quickly.

Trump nearly won Iowa, won convincingly in New Hampshire and South Carolina with about a third of the vote in each state, and Trump has steamrolled his opposition in Nevada, winning nearly half the vote.

Nevada’s result is particularly ominous. Either Trump gained a lot of support from people whose first choices have dropped out of the race or those people stayed home on voting day and Trump’s supporters (though unchanged in number) wielded a greater heft in the smaller pool of voters–though that pool was still much larger than it was in 2012.

Either scenario does not bode well for those who oppose Trump. What can be said for sure is that the voter turnout in Nevada this year was far higher than it was in 2012—127% higher as a matter of fact. Mitt Romney won just over 50% of the Nevada vote in 2012 with 22,646 votes. Trump won 45% of the Nevada vote with 34,531 votes.

Although this could merely mean more Republicans see a point in voting this time around (whereas in 2012 Mitt Romney seemed the shoe-in), this could also mean that a lot of Trump’s support is coming from people who have not voted before or who don’t normally vote. Considering how few people vote in America in the general election and in party primaries in particular, if Trump can rely on a phalanx of new voters turning up to vote for him…I think Trump’s victory is already assured.

Even more worrying is the incredibly broad base of support Trump enjoys. Educated and uneducated, male and female, black, white, Hispanic, old and young—Trump either does well or very well among all these diverse groups. In short, his appeal is universal or nearly so, not just very strong from one particular group.

This is particularly worrying not only because it makes his victory in the Republican contest likely, but it could quite possibly deliver Trump the Oval Office itself. While I’ve only just come to accept that Trump will secure the GOP nomination (though I of course hope this can be avoided), the thought that he could actually win the whole contest is something I have never for one moment considered until now. But now things have changed. We can no longer dismiss the possibility that Trump could win the overall election. Though I still think he would be defeated in a general election, I am increasingly less sure that any of my thinking is anything more than wishful.

Donald Trump is a serious threat. He is a serious threat because he has inspired a mass, popular political uprising against “The Establishment” (which is good) based on absolutely nothing (which is bad). Since his meteoric rise in popularity is based on nothing, it may very well be impossible to orchestrate his downfall. After all, how does one attack a man who has as much substance as a mirage in the desert? How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?

To clarify, the uprising against “The Establishment” is not based on nothing; that has been long overdue and is well-deserved. What is based on nothing is the reason “the Rebels” have chosen Donald Trump as their leader. For the life of me I cannot understand the rationale of the average voter in choosing the Donald as “our guy”. Donald Trump enjoys a broad base of support—what I’m tempted to call “the Rebel Alliance”—yet Donald Trump as best can be determined shares none of the Rebel Alliance’s values, as superbly explained by Ben Shapiro.

In short, Trump is not a conservative, he’s not a Christian (probably; Christianity is a very broad tent, but the serial philanderer, multiple-divorcée and house of gambling profiteer is certainly not an evangelical, born-again Christian who regularly drinks the Blood of Christ), and he’s not “an outsider”.

He is simply a liar who is telling the voters whatever they want to hear in order to gain power–which makes Trump not only a paragon of insincerity but the single most dangerous kind of politician. Hillary Clinton is despised by Republican (and many Democratic) voters for precisely the same reason: she is a a deranged, power-hungry tyrant in the making, willing to say or do anything if it gets her closer to power. She is merely not as skilled a pretender as The Donald, and has a tin ear for normal human dialogue that would make Ayn Rand wince.

So why then is Trump the leader of this Peasant Revolt? I get why the peasants have revolted. The Republican Party leadership and politicians who have consistently demonstrated that they don’t believe what they claim to believe; they certainly don’t believe in the same things the average Republican voter believes. They are also just plain bad politicians and bad party leaders. Moreover, as we libertarians have been saying for a very long time, they are part of a political system where the differences between the two parties seem increasingly cosmetic. They are ensconced in a political culture that is utterly corrupt and they are the reason insurgent candidates like Sanders and Trump have caught fire.

People are sick of the usual witches’ brew offered up by the two main political parties, candidates who are corrupt and patently dishonest or so bland and milquetoast that voters feel no passion for them whatsoever. Sanders’ appeal I understand totally, but Trump?

Think about it. Why the hell does Trump have any credibility? What is he saying? He is no different from the politicians in the dreaded “Establishment” at all. Just like “Establishment” politicians, he is banking completely in vague platitudes and empty sayings, he’s just better at lying and pandering than most politicians. He is surging in popularity because he is able to appeal to the most people while saying the least (in terms of substance). In other words, Trump is a better entertainer and actor than most politicians and is thus better able to pull the wool over the eyes of voters.

Of course, most politicians are disadvantaged by the fact that they actually have some ideas they believe in and would like to see enacted, so their efforts at pandering are often frustrated by their need to balance pandering with what they actually plan to do or what they think can be done (politics is the art of the possible, as it is often said). Trump is entirely freed from any such disadvantages. He would promise to lasso the moon (personally, of course) and bring it down to earth so all the poor could have some Moon Cheese to eat if it would fool Republican voters into voting for Trump. And I have no doubt that about a third of them would be fooled.

At least, that’s what I think, though I will freely admit that I have consistently failed to understand the Trump phenomenon, so perhaps Trump is fooling no one.

Moreover, Trump’s main appeal, aside from the fact that he voices what voters have longed to hear in a very appealing rhetorical fashion (viz. the rhetorical stylings of a not particularly sharp nine year old), is that he is an “outsider” who would “burn down” the dreaded Establishment. But would he really?

Trump admits to “buying” politicians and has a demonstrated history of manipulating the levers of the State to benefit himself—the big, strong guy—by picking on the weak, the little guy. It’s called eminent domain, something which could actually stick if any of Trump’s competitors would ever accuse him of being the bully he is.

Trump is an unrepentant believer in State power to benefit people like him—cronies. On what basis is it believed he would “burn down” this State apparatus that his served him well through the years? On what basis is it believed he is not angling to get himself in power merely so it is his ring that is being kissed? Why do people believe that a multi-billionaire Manhattanite, life-long Democrat, and Mr. Monopoly Man Incarnate (minus the top hat) would do anything to harm the system that has served “his kind” so well through the years?

I find this conviction that Trump will somehow play the role of arsonist especially baffling in the face of overwhelming evidence that Trump holds no firm beliefs at all. Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, and even someone like Ted Cruz can easily be envisioned as the arsonist so many voters yearn for because they believe what they are saying.

Donald Trump clearly does not; so if he is (God forbid) thrust into the Oval Office, how could we possibly surmise what he would then do? Why would he not perform a complete 180 and become the largest, most blatantly cronyist president we have ever had? He is as likely to do that as “burn it down”. What motive, what incentive does he have to actually follow through on the voters’ wishes to burn the rotten edifice to the ground? Once in power, he doesn’t have to give a fig about what the voters want. We can’t judge him on his speeches, he has no political record to analyze, and we cannot say for certain he holds any beliefs set in stone, aside from a fanatical belief in himself.

The only thing he believes in is himself; we therefore can only assume that he will act as president only to benefit himself and his own interests, not the interests of the people who voted for him.

To the extent Trump believes in anything other than himself, he is an authoritarian-leftist, a collectivist and nationalist. I would not go so far as to call him a national socialist—though wouldn’t I love to—but his words about any topic economic more closely resemble a socialist than they do anything a Founding Father would say, leave alone Bastiat, Hayek, Mises, or Friedman. He does not believe in free trade, never speaks about the free market, nor does he ever speak about the proper role/size/scope of government in regulating the economy. He does not view the United States as an environment in which hundreds of millions of economic experiments can be attempted by individual entrepreneurs. He instead sees the United States as a single corporate venture and if we’re not “winning” against China or Mexico, we’re losing—a mercantilist view that simply will not die from the mortal blow dealt to it by Adam Smith in 1776.

Trump’s political rhetoric is almost pure fascism. He has promised to deport all illegals, provoke trade wars with China, bring back torture and a “helluva lot worse” than that “believe me”, Trump has promised to “bomb the shit” out of ISIS, he is willing to start wars explicitly for oil, he is willing to kill the (non-combatant) families of terrorists (he apparently doesn’t understand that it’s because terrorists kill innocents and we don’t is what makes the terrorists evil and is the reason we aren’t; The Donald also apparently doesn’t understand that killing the families would violate the Geneva Convention and the Constitution), he wants mosques under government surveillance, ban all Muslims from entering the country, force Apple to give the FBI a key to all encryption systems, or most worryingly of all, using libel laws to suppress free speech—is not the rhetoric of Locke, JS Mill, or Jefferson. It’s the talk of a man who believes in the unlimited power of the state and, more than that, a man who believes in the unlimited power of a strong leader to wield the power of the state judiciously, as long as that leader is himself.

Trump talks of himself as a very personal ruler—as if everything the government does would personally be done by Trump himself.

Now, any references to a certain mustachioed autocrat from the mid-twentieth century is liable to rob an author of any credibility, but I’d wager that if we were speaking German, we’d probably be calling Trump “der Führer” already. I think however one notch down from that will do nicely. If Mussolini—a man whose economic ideas eerily resemble Trump’s—was “Il Duce” then I think “Il Douchey” shall be Trump’s sobriquet.

Trump has whipped up a hateful, pig-ignorant mob of authoritarians who are (it seems) willing to elect a dictator for a four year stint. As best I can figure, the Constitution, Congress, rule-of-law be-damned; Trump’s going to deport dem immigants and stop those Muslims from coming into the country, he’s going to kick China’s ass, build a wall (and make Mexico pay for it), and start a nuclear war with Russia! Yippee-ki-yay motherfucker!

This is the problem with Trump and why the fact that he even has a sliver of a chance of sitting in the Oval Office should scare any sober minded, liberty-loving individual half-to-death. Even if Trump is not the free-wheeling madman he seems to be in his campaign rallies, the new style of presidential campaigning and the ugly forces he has aroused are deeply unhealthy for the Republic. Even if Trump loses this election, his presence (and his fascist mob) will haunt our politics for years to come.

Sadly however, I don’t think Trump can be stopped from getting the Republican nomination. I think he is going to sweep Super Tuesday and then that’s the ballgame. But that’s just my opinion; I could be wrong.


A Preview of Hypocrisy

“I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time…These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone. They’re bigger than any one party. They are about our democracy.”–Barack Obama

Democracy is an odd thing to cite considering that he is talking about appointing an unelected justice to an unelected court for a lifetime tenure and in so doing depriving the American people the chance to hold a quasi-referendum on who should replace Scalia.

Of course, if Obama is really so concerned with exercising his “constitutional responsibilities” and so torn-up about the possibility of a year long 8-justice SCOTUS, he could just nominate a dyed in the wool conservative who would actually restrain government. That guy (or gal) would be confirmed in a jiffy. If Obama doesn’t do this, then it’s not just the Republicans who are to “blame”. Rest assured, there is plenty of blame on all sides.



Bernie Sanders: A socialist, not a historian

“Now, what the American people understand is that our great country was based on a simple principal, and that principle is fairness.”-Bernie Sanders.

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”-Abraham Lincoln.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”–Declaration of Independence

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”-Preamble to the Constitution

Sanders, you lying, socialist, son of a bitch.