We Are Ten Years from Complete Conservative Victory

Huh?  How’s that?  Wait a second, Noonan – are you nuts?  The Supreme Court just decreed that the law doesn’t matter. Furthermore, Hillary is the odds-on favorite to replace Obama so we’ll have four to eight more years of lawless liberalism imposed from on high…and even if we vote GOP, those spineless cretins will just roll over for it. You, sir, are ’round the bend – we are on the cusp of the Union of Socialist States of America.  Get used to it!

Well, not so fast. First off, it is well-known to all who study history (which pretty much excludes everyone on the left – but also a goodly portion of those on the right) that in human affairs what appears to be most strong is usually an inch away from crushing defeat while that which seems to be nearly extinguished is just about to flame into sublime victory. Looks are, indeed, very deceiving. The apparent triumph of liberalism ushered in on January 20th, 2009, is looking, upon close examination, rather rocky.  Think about it:  if liberalism was really the way things are going, then the Obama Administration would not have relied upon screwball re-writes by the Supreme Court to save their signature achievement – they would have brought it back to Congress, firm in the knowledge that liberalism is so popular that the Congressional GOP wouldn’t even dare tinker with it other than to enact what Obama demanded. Didn’t quite happen that way, now did it?  Liberalism can only win these days when there is a President who will just ignore the law and go ahead and do it…or when a bunch of lawyers find some way to twist the plain meaning of the law to suit their desires. People heading for triumph don’t act like that – people fighting a desperate rear-guard action to save themselves act like that.

To be sure, the forces of inertia in politics are dead set against us – but, then again, they always are dead set against those who wish to reform and restore. Remember, once we win, they are off the gravy train and, also, even if they are just insipidly playing their parts in a mindless fashion, all they know to do is to go on as they have been. But it is those with a dogma and a plan who win in the end – and we have the dogma (conservative principals).  What we’re lacking is a plan.  And the plan is lacking because we haven’t completely reconfigured our world view to understand the battlefield we must fight and win on.

First and foremost we must understand who are enemies are – they aren’t just nasty, little Progs hurling insults on social media. In fact, such people are just a triviality. Our real enemies are all those elements of the Establishment – from corporations to government to non-profits…all of them are at the trough and don’t want to be shoved aside. They want us silenced. They want us to leave them alone so they can continue to live high without having to earn it. They cut special deals; they harass us with new laws and regulations; they set us against each other: anything is fair game as long as it works out that the Ruling Class Establishment gets to keep on ruling. We have to identify our enemies and destroy them all.  This will take a shift in view – especially as we on the right often hold the mistaken view that, say, a large corporation and a government bureaucracy are enemies and as our biggest enemy is government, we have to ally ourselves with the large corporation. That sort of thinking has to stop.

What benefit have any of us obtained from the fact that GE and Goldman Sachs are large and profitable?  Is our economy strong?  Are our wages rising? Are the goods we buy of higher quality? Do they help us when we’re attacked for our views? Do they rise up in defiance of Big Government or, instead, make a deal with it?  You know the answer – and the answer should make you move such corporations from the “friend” side of your ledger to “enemy”.

We know our government is hopelessly incompetent. The recent hack of the Office of Personnel Management happened because the nitwits there outsourced the computer codes to people actually working in the People’s Republic of China! This is not just an honest mistake – this is not just one of the things that humans do. This is sheer idiocy. This is the act of people who just don’t give a darn about the United States. And yet, we conservatives who know this and understand how downright stupid our government is look at the 2,400,000 Americans who are incarcerated and presume that the police and prosecutors got it right. Come on! Do you think our government can get it right 2.4 million times? They can’t even keep our most important secrets out of the hands of the Chinese! But let’s be generous and say that in the case of criminal justice, our woefully dunderhead government got it right 90% of the time. That means that 240,000 innocent Americans are wasting away in jail, my friends. And even with that, what are they in jail for? Nearly half of them are in for drug offenses.  The executives at HSBC were caught red-handed money laundering for drug cartels – none of them went to jail. Some poor slob in the inner city has a few ounces of coke on him and he’s off to jail for a decade or more. This is right? This is just?  This is something we should defend?  And this doesn’t even get into the massively increasing number of people sent to jail for failure to pay a fine – unemployed guy gets a ticket for driving without insurance and is fined $500…he doesn’t have any money and when he doesn’t pay the money he doesn’t have, off to jail he goes!

This has become a terrible burden on the poor – and if you wonder why our poorer communities feel hostile to law enforcement look no further than this: if you are poor it is easy to get caught in the criminal justice system and you’ll never have the money to get out of it. Sure, a lot of these people are just not being sensible about it – you and I know that if we get a $500 fine we’d better find some way to pay it. But not everyone is competent – but being incompetent isn’t sufficient cause, in my view, to spend vast resources arresting them and jailing them. And why are we fining people so much money for such trivial offenses? We definitely want to drop the hammer on someone who is driving drunk…but driving with an expired license?  Ten bucks, if you ask me, is sufficient for that; if we are to fine people, at all, for doing that. We have too many laws on the books and the more we place there, the more we are just going to aggravate people  – and if we are perceived as the people cheer leading for the aggravation, how do we expect those being ground up in the system to listen to us at election time?  Don’t be anti-cop – but don’t just roll over and say that everything done by the law enforcement agencies is good. Defend the cop on the beat…but don’t defend a legal system which is becoming increasingly unjust.

Do you have money to sue in court to force someone to do your bidding?  To force the government to change the law so it suits you?  No, you don’t. But our Progressives do, now don’t they?  Except they don’t – but they do have vast numbers of private, non-profit “charities” which you and I subsidize with our tax dollars. Buckets of them are out there – and they spend all the live, long day working up lawsuits and complaints in order to just twist and push and pull the system the way they want it to come out. Most of the private non-profits are to one extent or another controlled by the left – for every American Center for Law and Justice fighting a forlorn battle for us there are a dozen Progressive tax-free groups fighting against us.

Know your enemies – large corporations, the government and private groups with tax-free status. They are all ranged against us – and we have to fight and destroy all of them in order to win. We have to punish them for daring to exist – and eventually remove them from the body politic. We don’t have the power at the moment to do that, but we can have the power – and have it within ten years, if we just reach for it.

The bottom line is that we are the people of freedom, of tolerance, of rationality. We are the good guys. We want to take over so we can leave everyone alone to live their lives as they see fit. Our position can’t be argued against – but it isn’t really being argued for. And it isn’t be argued for because we have not figured out who are enemies are and clearly enunciated to the people who we are fighting against. In a great deal of the public mind we stand for “no” as regards freedom; we stand for “the rich” as regards the economy; we stand for the government as it harasses people and eats out their substance. We have to make a clean break – say we’re against them all, and then start doing everything we can to make life perfectly miserable for them. Think of a program which would be, at bottom, to tax and regulate large corporations into non-existence, laws requiring that the Welfare State spend 80% of its money on recipients and removes the tax-exempt status of “charities” which never provide a dime or an ounce of food to a poor person. A program which calls for laws to be repealed rather than extended. A program which demands that people be left alone and no one gets a special deal, ever. That is the sort of program we need.

But we’ll only get such a program – and such a victory – if we stop thinking in terms of us being just against the particular Progressives who are irritating us today. The thing which irritated me most this past week wasn’t the Supreme Court, but nitwit conservatives out there defending the Confederate flag. For crying out loud – while we we’re uselessly fighting Progressive dimwits over that flag, the government sold us out to Obama’s trade deal! The exact thing which is most wrong with our nation – Big Corporation and Big Government coming together to shaft us in the name of more bribes for government and a hefty quarterly profit statement for the corporations…and yet people were out there defending the flag of the Confederacy. Black people being justly offended by that banner are not our enemies, folks. And, yes, it is also stupid on the part of Progressives to demand we ban it – but that is just Progressive stupidity. We should be used to that, by now, and no longer allow it to distract us from the real issues we face. And its a fight we can’t win anyways – and a fight which just makes it a little less likely that we’ll be able to get all the votes we’re going to need to win. Haul down the flag – heck, dig up Forrest and rebury him somewhere else…and let’s keep our eyes on what is important.

Our enemies are legion – and are incredibly weak. Weak because they don’t represent anyone but a corrupt clique feeding off of us. We can shove these people aside. 2016 is, of course, about keeping Hillary out of the White House (which I think we have an even-money chance of doing) – but for 2018 to 2026, the goal is to erect an electoral coalition of people who will command 60% of the vote. That means bringing into our coalition a lot of people who have never been part of it. And we do that by fighting our enemies – all of them, all at once. Big Government which we hate is also hated even by those who are getting benefits from it – because it is slow, incompetent and gigantic sums of the money aren’t being spent on the people, but on the bureaucrats. Big Corporation is hated by a lot of people who we need, but not hated by enough of us. Big Corporation is this: using the power of government to cut special deals for themselves at our expense. Just in the trade deal we see it writ large: now our large corporations will not only be able to easily outsource our jobs to China, but will be able to import Chinese to do our jobs right here in America, at lower wages…thus making some of us unemployed and all of us with continued downward pressure on our wages. Big Non-Profit should be hated by everyone but most people pay it no mind – but we’ve got to start talking about the vast sums of money we are spending on it (and our liberals have done our work for us – calling all tax rebates “corporate welfare” so that it is already drilled into the public mind) and how that money could be better used.

Here are some specific proposals I have:

1.  Back to my Wealth Tax – but put even more teeth into it. Any net wealth a person has over $100 million is subject to a 20% annual tax.

2.  Kill the large banks. Have a market capitalization of more than $25 billion? We take everything over that. Time to start spinning off into smaller institutions. So long, Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo – it was nice. Well, no, it wasn’t. You’ve been screwing us over for decades and we’ll be glad you’re gone.

3.  Kill the large corporations. Have a market capitalization of more than $50 billion?  We take everything over that. There can be a Wal-Mart, but only after they’ve sold off Wal-Store, Wal-Shop, Wal-Discount and a half dozen other parts of the firm which now instead of being a market-killing behemoth, is a series of regional retailers which can be competed against. Basically, such a move means the end of not just Wal-Mart, but also of Apple, Exxon, Berkshire-Hathaway, GE, etc. Oh, they would exist – just not as obscene concentrations of wealth which are used to bribe government to screw all of us.

4.  End tax exempt organizations which don’t provide direct, tangible, food, housing, healthcare and clothing to actual people. In other words, if you aren’t a charity, you don’t get a tax exemption. Pony up, liberals – you’ve been using tax exempt laws to organize your political actions for a long time.  Comes to an end. No more using taxpayer subsidies to pay for lawyers to sue us into doing your bidding.

5.  Increase the Supreme Court to 15 members – select 6 new Justices who will pledge in advance to rule in a specifically conservative manner. Oh, you’re shocked?  Why?  We know that the four liberal Justices will always vote the way political liberalism demands. They don’t consider law or justice – if liberalism wants it, those four Justices vote for it. I merely propose that we add enough rock-solid, conservative votes to the Courts to ensure that liberals will actually stop trying to use the Court as a super-legislature. They’d hardly ever bring a lawsuit in such a situation because they’d know in advance that, at best, they’d lose the vote in the super-legislature by 10-5. There is nothing in the Constitution which mandates 9 Justices folks – it was just a number drawn out of a hat, as it were, by a previous Congress. Making it go from 9 to 16 is just a matter of passing a simple law.

6.  End the filibuster in the Senate. It merely makes it difficult for the GOP to undo liberalism…while liberals ignore it at will. Get rid of it. 51 votes to pass whatever in the Senate. Sure, it means we can’t even slow things down when were in a minority…but it means that when we’re in the majority, we can rock it…and, guys and gals, the demographics pretty much ensure that most of the next 20 years will have a GOP Senate majority.

7.  Start taxing the endowment of private colleges which accept federal funding. Use the money to provide cash to less privileged schools. Higher education is a bastion of the enemy, folks – and they don’t even really educate.

8.  Criminal justice reform. No more jail time for mere failure to pay fines. No more minimum mandatory sentences except, perhaps, for first degree murder and a couple other heinous crimes.

9. Start repealing laws. Pick two or three laws which have proven very onerous in practice and repeal them…let liberals try to defend idiocy. We’ll defend the people.

10.  Require that if we are to spend money on welfare that at least 80% of the funds spent must be given to the recipients. Make the bureaucracy howl – and make our liberals defend the bureaucracy while we get to stand there in the poor person’s living room explaining how we want more money for the poor, less for the bureaucrats.

These are just some ideas – and some you’ve seen from me before. I started writing this article on Sunday and let is simmer for a while…meanwhile, Ace got his version of this out before me. Glad he’s on board with killing large corporations.

The end of it all is: do we want to win? If we want to win then we have to think anew and act anew. If we want to live in an America where we are free then we have to live in an America with no large concentrations of power and wealth. A Republic cannot tolerate bigness – because what is big by nature shuts out that which is small. And small is you. Small is your family. Small is your local community. Small is the locally owned businesses you like. You can either have all that smallness you love, or you can have GE, the Department of Education and the American Civil Liberties Union. You can’t have both. Pick what you want and fight that which against it. I know what I pick – I pick me; my family, my faith, my community…and I’ll fight everything and everyone ranged against these things.


19 thoughts on “We Are Ten Years from Complete Conservative Victory

  1. Retired Spook June 30, 2015 / 9:35 am

    Here’s a 21-year-old who shares your optimism. IMO, the millennial generation represents the battleground for the future of planet Earth. They will either save civilization or destroy it for generations to come.

    • M. Noonan June 30, 2015 / 10:31 am

      Its the way to do it – the entire Establishment is against us, and so the entire Establishment must go down. I’ve got a liberal Facebook friend who posted this past weekend how he was going to be on the Wells Fargo-sponsored float at a Pride parade. Wells Fargo was bailed out in 2009 to the tune of $25 billion. Given that 70% of Americans identify as Christian, that means that $17.5 billion of that was Christian funds. Do you think that Wells Fargo will take a stand for Christians who defy the new cultural norms? Heck no. Why, then, should we Christians defend them? Indeed, why shouldn’t we attack them? Why leave a bank around which is so large that it needs a $25 billion bail out?

      To be sure, I don’t mind if the specific, legal entity called Wells Fargo is around for another 100 years…but I don’t want it to be so large that it can bribe our politicians sufficient for them to bail out Wells Fargo for $25 billion. I also have no interest in seeing it be so large that when it takes a soft-stand against us (meaning they don’t campaign against us, but they cave into the left and take their 230,000 employees with them) it amounts to a massive political defeat. Ten regional banks being carved out of Wells Fargo works a lot better for us…and if any one of them fails, it is less likely to cause a massive financial shock.

      Essentially what we need is a society of no special deals and then we’ll win by default – because it is only by special dealing that the left has any power, at all. By setting us all against each other, they become the arbiter and by passing out special privileges, they buy the necessary support at election time. All of that has to go – and to get rid of it means that all the building blocks of the Establishment have to be cut down to size.

      • Retired Spook June 30, 2015 / 11:47 am

        I’m not sure sure Wells Fargo is the best example, but I get your point.

        The bankers had been ordered to show up at the meeting, but were given no details in advance. And, expecting uproar over the plan, government officials secretly planned to break off the first meeting, giving CEOs time to vent, talk to their boards, clear their heads, and reconvene at 6:30 p.m.

        Wells Fargo’s Kovacevich was, according to the WSJ, the most animated: Why was this necessary? he asked. Why did the government need to buy stakes in these banks?

        Paulson, who yesterday made clear his own distaste for the bail-out plan, told the Wells Fargo chief and his fellow bank bosses that it was for their own good, and the good of the country. If they didn’t sign up now only to find they needed cash further down the road, they would not find the government so “generous” second time round, he warned.

        Around the table were some of America’s best dealmakers. But there was no negotiation. As the first meeting drew to a close, each bank boss was handed a term sheet detailing the scheme, including the new restrictions on executive pay and dividend policies.

        The meeting ended at about 4pm and by 6.30pm all the sheets had been signed. No second meeting was held.

      • M. Noonan June 30, 2015 / 6:33 pm

        But I don’t buy the even slight resistance this story claims the banks had – they wanted the money. You and I both know that it would have been better had everything been allowed to really bottom out in 2008-2009…just as in 1929, things should have been left alone. The dead wood cleared out, we could have started to rebuild our economy. By trying to help, all government did in both 1929 and 2008 was keep the dead wood around, to clutter up the economy…and, also, to reward abject failure. It’d have been like keeping McClellan in command after he blew Antietam.

        But aside from the poor economics, I just don’t like or trust large corporations or, indeed, any large concentration of power or wealth. There is a truth in the old Greek ideal that a small polis is the only political entity which can really be free. I note with great care that in our modern, behemoth societies we don’t produce many Michelangelo’s or da Vinci’s. And we also don’t have any local variety – or increasingly less of it. As Chesterton pointed out, modern industrial States only ensure that we can get the same sub-standard ginger-beer no matter where we go. Now, to be sure, there is a place for the larger entity – but really only for emergencies and national defense. United we do, indeed, stand and divided we will eventually fall. But the only way you and I get to be free is if most of our political activity is limited to 100 miles or so around us – and most of our living and economic activity, as well. We might not ever be able to get to an ideal situation, but I’m all about hacking away at what is large…if I can break off just one piece of a giant, I’ve done a good thing.

      • Bob Eisenhower June 30, 2015 / 6:55 pm

        I don’t think I understand your logic. If Wells Fargo should act in accordance with the Christian majority of their clientele wouldn’t that mean pretty much EVERY business in America – sharing the same demographics as WF clients – is beholden to the Church’s stance? If so, wouldn’t that subjugate U.S. industry to religious dogma?

      • M. Noonan June 30, 2015 / 7:28 pm

        I don’t care what Wells Fargo does – I only care that it is large. Large concentrations of power and wealth are bad. And don’t get too hung up on just Wells Fargo – I only brought it up because of that notice I saw from a Facebook friend. Chase and Bank of America and Goldman Sachs are just as bad. All large institutions are bad. And they aren’t bad because they choose things I don’t like, but that they choose them for so many people, all at once. If Wells Fargo were just a regional bank in the Pacific Northwest playing up to their customer base, then no sweat – what in heck would I care, as I live in the Southwest? But what Wells Fargo does to please those in the Pacific Northwest puts pressure on the people of, say, Topeka, Kansas to also go along. Additionally, when you’ve got something that large out there, when it screws up it screws up things for everyone. A regional bank failure is bad – but it only affects a region and the rest of the nation can just move along…ginormous, multinational banks can take down a whole economy at once when the screw up…and each and every one of them will eventually screw up because they are run by people.

        I’m not demanding they act in accordance with my views – just pointing out that most of their bail out came from people just like me and I’m absolutely certain that if I’m ever disturbed in my liberty, they won’t be there to defend me…and so why should I bail them out? In fact, why should I – or anyone – bail out any private, for-profit enterprise? Or even a government entity which screws up their finances? I’m trying to show just why we, on the right, should drop the hammer on entities like the large banks…they aren’t on our side. They aren’t there for us. They do tend to go along with our political opponents. So, let’s attack them.

        Early today I was out and about with the Mrs doing the shopping and we had Rush on for a bit and a caller was complaining about the recent Obama Administration plan to extend over time to salaried employees. Of course it is a stupid idea – but if we fight against it, then we are de-facto coming down on the side of large corporations, thus further cementing in the public mind that we on the right are the allies of the fabulously wealthy…which is exceptionally annoying because most of the fabulously wealthy are on the side of the Progressives (there aren’t a lot of billionaire TEA Party types out there…and there is nary a conservative to be found in Cannes or Martha’s Vineyard). My idea is that rather than fighting this economic populism kabuki theater put out by the left (the absurd proposal is just so liberals can campaign in 2016 as if they were for the little guy), I propose we show the world what a real fight against the wealthy and the powerful is like…and thus demonstrate just who is on what side of the argument.

      • Amazona July 3, 2015 / 3:30 pm

        Bob, what is your point? Just to sit back and wait till a wheel is spinning so you can dart in and shove a stick through the spokes?

        Mark said “Wells Fargo was bailed out in 2009 to the tune of $25 billion. Given that 70% of Americans identify as Christian, that means that $17.5 billion of that was Christian funds. “ Your response was: If Wells Fargo should act in accordance with the Christian majority of their clientele wouldn’t that mean pretty much EVERY business in America – sharing the same demographics as WF clients – is beholden to the Church’s stance? If so, wouldn’t that subjugate U.S. industry to religious dogma?

        Wow–what a massive and irrational leap from a comment that might have related, for example, to a comparison of the objection of the American colonists to taxation without representation to some oddball perception that not using the money of Christians to support agendas that are antithetical Christian teachings would, somehow, mean that the company in charge of those funds would be “subjugate(d)……to religious dogma”.

        Hmmm. For starters, let’s delve into the verbiage so beloved by the Left. Wouldn’t restraining from using the money of Christians to support things hated by Christians really reflect TOLERANCE of Christian views? RESPECT for the DIVERSITY of different points of view? Isn’t using the money of a group to support what the group finds objectionable the very definition of INTOLERANCE?

        What actually happened here, what has flown completely over your head, is that the federal government made taxpayer funds available to support a movement and an agenda opposed by a majority of the people. Just as the federal government wants to, and has been, making taxpayer funds available to fund the slaughter of millions of innocent human beings, in spite of the fact that the majority of American taxpayers find the practice reprehensible.

        You claim that you want to “discuss” things. What about discussing the idea that the distribution of taxpayer money should be determined by those who pay the taxes?

        Or that it should be spent, at the federal level, ONLY on those few duties enumerated in the Constitution reaffirmed in the Tenth Amendment?

        Those would be discussions where you might even offer up an idea, instead of just sneering at what someone else has said.

        BTW, I’m on for the 10th Amendment discussion, if you think you can handle it.

  2. Amazona July 1, 2015 / 9:27 am

    A recent article by Ira Mehlman:


    Indira Esparza, a Mexican illegal alien who attracted some attention when she accepted her University of California San Diego (UCSD) diploma draped in a Mexican flag, really knows how to show appreciation to the country that financed her education, even though she was an illegal alien.
    During the four years she spent at UCSD (occupying a seat that could otherwise have been filled by a legal California resident), Ms. Esparza benefited from California’s in-state tuition policy for illegal aliens. The current in-state tuition fees for full-time UCSD student total $13,456 per year. Full tuition runs a hefty $47,733 per year, meaning that California

    But that’s just the start of the public and private benefits that have been lavished on Ms. Esparza, reports Investor’s Business Daily (IBD). While many students struggle to meet the in-state tuition costs, Ms. Esparza was getting as close as one can get to a free ride at UCSD. She was awarded $10,000 in cash under the Chancellor’s Associate Scholars program. IBD reports that, “The program essentially provides a full-ride and loan-free UC San Diego financial aid package to eligible students from several underserved high schools.”

    It doesn’t stop there. On top of the in-state tuition break and the Chancellor’s Associate Scholars cash bonus, Ms. Esparza was also received a scholarship from the Patricia and Christopher Weil Family Foundation. Like the recently announced scholarship fund being established by Mark Zuckerberg, the Weil Family Foundation provides private money that further rewards illegal immigration.

    So while citizens and legal residents and their families were working, scrimping and taking on debt to pay for college, Ms. Esparza was, in her own words, having a “ridiculously awesome” time at UCSD.

    But wait, there’s more! Even before she got to UCSD, Ms. Esparza was getting a ridiculously awesome education at the expense of San Diego taxpayers. She attended the elite Preuss charter school, described as “a unique charter middle and high school for low income students who strive to become the first in their families to graduate from college.” The Preuss website also prominently features Ms. Esparza on its home page.

    So, what better way to show your appreciation for the opportunities and the hundreds of thousands of education dollars American and California taxpayers have provided you than to parade onto the podium to receive your diploma proudly cocooned in a Mexican flag?

    I am sure someone will now argue that we should take the next step and hand out citizenship to this ingrate.

    • M. Noonan July 1, 2015 / 12:04 pm

      But why shouldn’t she drape herself in the Mexican flag? It was the mere fact she was born there rather than here that provided her privileges…now, to be sure, you might think she’d at least have a kind word to say to the United States…but if she did that then she’d have a problem getting even more privileges in the future…

      • Amazona July 3, 2015 / 10:18 am

        But why shouldn’t she drape herself in the Mexican flag?

        After all, the Mexican flag is the only flag ALLOWED in many public schools these days, the American flag being identified as “too divisive” and the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia now demonized.

        And that was MY reaction to the story. What if other students had “draped” themselves in the Stars and Stripes? Would that have gotten swooning approval?

        The story also should have brought up some other questions, such as why she chose to celebrate a nation which not only did NOTHING for her but which is governed by a class so corrupt and venal that her family was forced to flee to another country, in which her talents were not only allowed to flourish but were subsidized and encouraged. In other words, what has Mexico done for HER?

        I see the flaunting of the Mexican flag in a ceremony in which a person in this county illegally, benefiting from a multitude of opportunities available to her in spite of her flaunting of our laws, as gloating over having put one over on the stupid, gullible, and oblivious citizens of the United States.

      • Cluster July 3, 2015 / 11:38 am

        These are my thoughts exactly in regards to Mexico. Conservatives need to change the dialogue from “what has America done for you” to “what has Mexico done for you”. If people like Jorge Ramos are so quick to judge and find the faults with America, how about if we force him to examine Mexico a little more closely. In fact everyone should be examining Mexico more closely. If people are risking their lives to leave it, there is obviously something very wrong that should be analyzed.

      • M. Noonan July 3, 2015 / 10:25 pm

        I think we do need to have a discussion about Mexico and points south – after all, people only rip themselves up from kith and kin if things are pretty bad. America is chock full of people who couldn’t stand their homeland. There is something fundamentally flawed with a nation when about a tenth of your population has moved to the United States.

  3. Retired Spook July 2, 2015 / 10:20 am

    Not a big David Stockman fan, but his research on unemployment appears to be pretty solid and confirms what many Conservatives have suspected for quite a while.

    Likewise, the Fed’s current “soft” target of 5.2% on the U-3 unemployment rate is downright ridiculous. When in the year 2015 you have 93 million adults not in the labor force—-of which only half are retired and receiving social security benefits(OASI)—-and a U-3 computational method that counts as “employed” anyone who works only a few hour per week—-then what you have in the resulting fraction is noise, pure and simple. The U-3 unemployment rate as a proxy for full employment does not even make it as primitive grade school economics.

    At the present time, there are 210 million adult Americans between the ages of 16 and 68—to take a plausible measure of the potential work force. That amounts to 420 billion potential labor hours, if we accept the convention that all adults are at least theoretically capable of holding a full-time job (2,000 hours/year) and pulling their share of society’s need for production and work effort.

    By contrast, during 2014 only 240 billion hours were actually supplied to the US economy, according to the BLS estimates. Technically, therefore, there were 180 billion unemployed labor hours, meaning that the real unemployment rate was 42.9%, not 5.5%!

    Yes, we have to allow for non-working wives, students, the disabled, early retirees and coupon clippers. We also have drifters, grifters, welfare cheats, bums and people between jobs, enrolled in training programs, on sabbaticals and much else.

    But here’s the thing. There are dozens of reasons for 180 billion unemployed labor hours, but whether the Fed is monetizing $80 billion of public debt per month or not, and whether the money market interest rate is 10 bps or 35 bps doesn’t even make the top 25 reasons for unutilized adult labor. What actually drives our current 43% unemployment rate is global economic forces of cheap labor and new productive capacity throughout the EM and dozens of domestic policy and cultural factors that influence the decision to work or not.

    I think the average person is so absorbed in scoring the latest smart phone and who’s getting voted off the island next, they’re pretty much oblivious to the actual state of the country and the world around us. I think that’s all about to change.

    • M. Noonan July 2, 2015 / 10:49 am

      I was reading a bit of Hansen and it was about the book With the Old Breed – which is a rather gruesome account of what the war in the Pacific was like. That, in turn, got me thinking about how it is claimed that of the 12 million we mobilized in World War Two, only about a million saw serious combat – I’ve never been too sure of that figure of one million because we lost a third of a million and with times two wounded, it means every combat veteran was killed or wounded. So, I think that someone screwed up a number and no one really ever bothered to check…but, let’s face it, of the 12 million mobilized only a fraction saw real battle…maybe two or three million. And they shielded the vast majority from having any conception of what war is like…pretty much every other nation on earth felt it right at home – Americans didn’t. And because we got off so easy, I think we more easily forgot about what it all means…what the world is really like. We have been so sheltered from the reality of the world for so long that we have forgotten that we are sheltered and the mass of Americans presumes that the American life is the norm – and the right of all people.

      And I do believe that our period of being sheltered is coming to an end. I wonder how we’ll deal with that?

      • Retired Spook July 2, 2015 / 10:57 am

        I wonder how we’ll deal with that?

        That IS the $64 billion dollar question. It could go in one of several different directions. It could bring us all together like WW2, or it could rip us apart like the late 60’s — or something in between. Regardless, I don’t see how we escape without a lot of people experiencing a lot of pain.

      • M. Noonan July 2, 2015 / 9:38 pm

        But I don’t think WW2 really brought us all together – the article I’ll be posting later gets into that a bit. I think during WWII the left only “came together” because fellow Progressives in Russia were in danger of being defeated…and once we had pulled Stalin’s fat out of the fire, the left reverted to its normal opposition to America as we know her.

        We’re going to have to fight and fight pretty soon – the world is bubbling towards World War Three as Russia tries to rebuild the Russian Empire, Iran pursues Middle East hegemony and China demands control over east Asia and the western Pacific. And its not just against us that these three powers are surging – India doesn’t want China in charge any more than we do (and please note that Japan is suddenly getting back into the aircraft carrier business). Only an overwhelmingly powerful United States which the world is convinced will stand by its commitments to allies will stop the war from coming – and we simply aren’t that nation at the moment…and even if we elect a hawkish GOP President in 2016 that won’t go near far enough to convince the world that the United State is a serious player.

        Keep in mind that when Germany started WWI and WWII, in both instances the nations in opposition to them had overwhelmingly more power than Germany did, even with Germany’s allies added to the mix. It was sheer suicide on the part of Germany to launch war in 1914 and 1939…but launch it they did, because in both instances the Germans were convinced that their enemies would not join together to fight them.

        Most people don’t realize that in 1914 Britain was an ace away from civil war over the Irish Home Rule question while Czarist Russia was wracked with strikes and riots reminiscent of the situation in 1904 before the revolutionary explosion of 1905. The Germans figured that the Austrian-Serbian conflict gave them their chance to strike down France without too much risk of serious war with Russia and Britain – and so they struck. In 1939, Hitler was very justifiably convinced that if he invaded Poland that Britain and France would cave in as they had done less than a year previously as Munich – and so he struck. All it takes for Russia or China or Iran to strike is the conviction that we won’t intervene. It will happen – eventually, one of them will set off the powder keg which starts the Third World War.

      • Amazona July 3, 2015 / 10:27 am

        Mark, you are right in that the Left in this country rallied behind the war effort only because their beloved Communists were at risk, though it did require some mental hijinks to redefine their beloved fascism as, suddenly, “right-wing” to allow them to divide their loyalties.

        But the war DID unite the vast center, the squishies who are always with us, the ones who find politics boring and vote with their emotions instead of their brains, the politically vague and drifty. And the aftermath of the war was at least a temporary realization of the evils of totalitarianism and the Left, and a sense of loyalty to the United States.

        This lasted for almost twenty years, until it was finally undermined by the War On Poverty and the attacks on our system that followed. Even JFK, the darling of the Democratic Party, was an unabashed patriot, no matter what we might think of his character or ability, and when he was elected the word “socialist” was a dirty word (which is why it had to be mothballed in favor of Progressive and Liberal).

      • Amazona July 3, 2015 / 10:35 am

        “Only an overwhelmingly powerful United States which the world is convinced will stand by its commitments to allies will stop the war from coming – and we simply aren’t that nation at the moment…”

        I have to wonder just why the Left is so determined to maintain and increase this unbalance, which is pretty much guaranteed to end in disaster. There may have been a time when they thought that after the mass graves are filled they will end up in power, and the carnage would have been necessary for them to achieve their goal of absolute control. But in today’s political climate, they no longer have that assurance, as one of the players in the game of World Dominance has the same disdain for the Left as they do for the Right, for Communists as well as Christians, and furthermore they are not only not restrained by the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction they are motivated and energized by its promises.

      • M. Noonan July 3, 2015 / 10:50 am

        What really amazes me about the modern left is how little they’ve learned – its like they don’t know that the way the Progressives do is to first get rid of conservatives, and then the moderates…and then their own Progressives. All of a sudden, Comrade Stalin isn’t returning your phone calls…people who like to oppress like to oppress, period. They glory in the mere exercise of brutish power over other people…and it doesn’t matter if one has been the Good Little Prog…when GULAG needs to be filled, it will be filled.

Comments are closed.