Trump’s legacy

It sucks. Here were his big 3 issues:

Less immigration: He did nothing to limit it in any significant way. If it does slow down it will be because governors have destroyed the economies of the states most attractive to immigrants. It won’t be because of anything Trump did.

Trade war with China. It doesn’t matter what tariffs or other policies that were, or were not implemented. China seems to be open for business and has moved on from COVID. Meanwhile, trump allowed Fauci to convince local politicians to implement policies in the USA which have shut down much of the economy. China is in a much stronger position relative to the US than it was when Trump assumed office.

Ending the wars. He hasn’t ended any. Troops are still in all the countries they were in when he was inaugurated.

So basically it was a disaster. He allowed his political enemies to institute totalitarianism on a level never before seen in the USA while not following through on any of his campaign promises. He also killed even the idea of fiscal responsibility once and for all. We now have unlimited spending/inflation as the standard operating procedure of government.

Were there any positives? Yes.

He exposed the media for the propagandists they are. Half the country refuses to believe anything they say and that’s a good thing.

He refused to escalate the situation in Syria and avoided a large war that would have involved Russia and Iran.

He convinced the right in this country to be antiwar. Let’s hope that lasts.

Is there anything he can do over the last few weeks to make his legacy slightly better? Yes.

Pardon Snowden and Assange. Pull all troops out of Afghanistan.

Will he do anything over the last few weeks that make his legacy slightly better? Not likely.

Sometimes I don’t understand Americans

To be fair, I’m never sure I should trust a USA Today/Ipsos Poll. But if these results are an accurate reflection on what Americans think about Trump’s handling of Iran, I simply don’t understand the thought process of many people in the United States.

The poll states the following: 52% of respondents said Trump was acting “reckless”. 42% of Americans supported the assassination of Qasen Soleimani while only 33% opposed it. 63% said it was more likely to lead to terrorist attacks on the USA and 62% said it made war with Iran more likely.

So this means you had some people say the assassination made war and terrorism inside the USA more likely but they didn’t oppose it. Are there really that many people out there who want war with Iran so bad they’re glad Trump is provoking it? They’re also ok with terrorist attacks as long as it means the US and Iran are at war?

You also had some people say Trump was reckless but didn’t oppose the assassination so they’re not even sure what he was being reckless about.

Anyway, if this poll is accurate, it is a case against Democracy.

Fed Chairwoman “afraid” of Donald Trump

So says some “strategist” on NBC.

I’m sure she is.  He’s not the typical brain dead puppet like Bush or Obama who just goes along with whatever the Banksters tell him.  He seems to actually have at least a basic understanding of what the Fed does and how it affects the economy.Image result for yellen crazyMy prediction: The Fed will raise rates after the election.  They’ll have to.  It will crash the markets and we’ll have a bad recession.

If it’s President Trump, the Fed will have nothing to lose so they’ll do it sooner than if Hillary wins. Trump will be blamed for bringing “instability” to the economy.  He’ll nominate someone else and eventually replace Yellen.  Whether he gets someone in there that will be at least somewhat responsible with the interest rates remains to be seen.  I honestly can’t even guess what he’ll do.

If Killery wins they’ll do a very small rate increase.  They’ll say we were “due for a recession” so it’s not her fault when the markets crash and people start losing their jobs.  If things don’t turn around to where the government can claim GDP growth or lower unemployment in time for her re-election campaign, they’ll fuel another bubble with negative interest rates.  Clinton will renominate Yellen if Yellen still wants the job. Otherwise she’ll nominate whoever is next in line from the board of governors.

How’s that for a prediction!

Why DC conservatives are uesless

Here is what Joseph Antos, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, had to say about Obamacare, now that major insurance carriers like Aetna are dropping out:

“The idea of somehow repealing it is far-fetched,”

For those not familiar with it, the AEI is a conservative think tank located in Washington, D.C.

This law went into effect less than three years ago.  Once something’s been enacted by Congress and gotten past the two year mark, does that mean we have to live with it forever??? It must be “conserved”???  According to establishment conservatives, the answer is yes.

Let’s hope Trump’s takeover of the GOP either pushes political conservatism in new directions or just kills the movement completely.  What good is it doing now?  The DC think tanks accept any new programs passed by Democrats.  They simply want to “tweak” things a little bit so that maybe they cost a little less.

And they want to start more wars.  And give more money to Israel.

Americans need an actual opposition party to the regime in Washington.  Not the McCain-Romney-Ryan axis of stupidity we’ve got now.

Why Trump is better than Hitlery

I haven’t decided whether I’ll actually vote for the Donald in November.  I generally vote third party or abstain completely.  But it’s not like one vote is going to sway the election anyway, and I clearly have a rooting interest.  Donald Trump is hands down less bad than the Hildabeast.  Obviously I come at this from a libertarian perspective so here are my reasons:

Taxes: As far as I can tell, Trump’s basically an old fashioned Northeast Rockefeller, Limousine Republican when it comes to taxes.  So my best guess is a slight reduction on income taxes and maybe a lower Corporate tax.  The difference will probably be made up through tariffs or fees of some sort.  I don’t see any real improvement here, but Democrats as a rule always want to raise taxes everywhere and anywhere.  So Republicans, whether Trump or McCain or Romney or whoever, get the nod here as being the lesser evil.

Spending: This is a tough call because Trump makes a lot of crazy promises about building walls, and I think he mentioned increased military spending in one of his rants. He’s running what amounts to a sort of right wing populist campaign, and part of that entails promising to keep the gravy train flowing for entitlements that are popular among middle class whites like social security and medicare.  So I’d have to assume spending will continue to balloon out of control during a Trump administration.  But again, just look at the alternative.  Has Shillery ever found a welfare program or a weapon or a foreign government/rebellion she didn’t want to fund with the money Washington loots from its subjects?  If you want spending to grow less fast, then Trump is your man.

Police State:  They’re both horrible.  They both favor a giant police state.  I’m still giving a slight edge to Donald Trump because at least he’s not threatening to disarm us.  He’s also less likely to start wars which the government always use as an excuse to clamp down on dissent and increase surveillance.

Culture/Education: Trump’s a loud obnoxious vulgar clown.  But I do applaud his efforts to reduce the effect of political correctness on our lives.  Hilla the Hun on the other hand seems like she’d continue down the path of the SJW takeover of our entire educational system and media.  Dare to criticize a minority?  Refuse to bake a cake for a LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ wedding?  Say something nice about a dead white male?  Not on Hillary’s watch!

Immigration: I know many so called “left libertarians” will disagree with me here, but I’m in favor of a massive reduction in immigration to the United States.  Sure, if we had no welfare and the regime respected property rights 100%, we could have open borders. Hell, there would be no reason for any border in the first place and the regime in DC would have no reason to exist or any way to fund itself.  Yay!  But that’s not the world we live in. Current US immigration policy is to import as many people as possible from anywhere on the planet and force us all to subsidize it.  Obomber even bombed the hell out of a few formerly respectable Arab countries to encourage the survivors to leave and move here.

I don’t know about you, but I can do without a “Little Mogadishu” or a “Little Honduras” sprouting up in my town.  Or are you a half-libertarian, half-SJW who thinks you can give some Salvadoran peasant a copy of The Road to Serfdom and get him to vote for Gary Johnson?  Trump wants less immigration.  He actually seems naive enough to think the US government should take care of people form the US rather than the people from Central America.  To be clear I don’t favor his promise to round up and deport millions of people already here, but I certainly would support cutting off any federal benefits they receive as well as efforts to reduce the numbers coming in.

Hillary wants more immigrants, she wants them to eventually vote Democrat, she doesn’t care what local communities think about it, and she wants to force American tax victims to pay for it.

Foreign Policy: Killery is probably tied with John McCain for the most unhinged warmonger to ever win a major party’s nomination for president.  The last time she pretended to disapprove of a war was over 40 years ago and no one had heard of her yet. Oh, and she pretended to regret supporting the Iraq War for a brief period in 2007-08 I think. But other than that has there eve been a war she didn’t want to plunge America into? She badgered her husband into intervening in the Balkans and bombing Serbia.  Not to mention the periodic bombing of Iraq in the 1990s and the sanctions that killed half a million children.  She voted for Bush’s Iraq war.  Supposedly “serving” under the weak kneed Obama, she masterminded the Libyan disaster.  She got the US to help finance the Syrian mess that continues to this day.  She’s probably more responsible for the rise of ISIS than any other person outside of the Muslim world.  She let her underlings overthrow the Ukrainian government and ruined that country. She compared Putin to Hitler (as if Putin’s responsible for as many deaths as she and her husband are).  This is a woman who would probably consider an actual war against Russia just to overthrow the Syrian government or prop up some unpopular regime in Georgia or Ukraine.  And don’t even get me started on her obedience to Israel.

Trump is far from perfect.  He’s consistently threatened to “smash ISIS” whatever exactly that means.  And he’s pledged allegiance to Israel.  But he’s wholeheartedly condemned the recent wars in Iraq and Libya.  He’s questioned the need for NATO.  He’s repeatedly come out against Nation Building and unnecessary wars in general  No matter how bad he turns out to be on Foreign Policy I am 99.9999% sure he’d be less bad than Hitlery.

Conclusion: I can’t say I’m an enthusiastic supporter of Donald Trump.  Even with my low expectations it’s certainly possible he could still disappoint a libertarian who is feeling any sympathy for his candidacy.  But on every issue, Hillary Clinton is the antithesis of everything a freedom loving American should believe in.

Unfortunately my prediction is Hillary will win (or possibly steal) the election.  But hey, maybe I’m wrong.  I thought Trump would be out of the GOP race in February.

The Pope has invaded America

I have no issue with the Pope visiting the United States per se.  I’m sure lots of Americans want to see Francis in person and listen to his fairy tales about Jesus being a communist or his lectures on how Germany should encourage more Muslims to immigrate there.  I once attended a conference where the former governor of Utah was paid a handsome fee to speak about healthcare for some reason.  So I’m well aware that people like to listen to celebrities say idiotic things on topics they know little about.  It’s certainly not limited to Catholics and their infatuation with the papacy.

However, why should the US government spend millions of dollars on security and other measures to accommodate His Holiness visit?  I’ll put aside any dogmatic libertarian theory here and look at this from a more conservative “is it good for the taxpayer?” argument.

  1. The Catholic Church has literally billions of dollars at its disposal.  If Church leaders think it’s important for the Pope to wander all over the planet, they can certainly afford to pay for his security.  Why does the Washington Regime find it necessary to provide Secret Service protection for a foreign priest?
  2. If Francis was assassinated, that would be a shame.  I’m against violence (unlike the Pope incidentally, as he has indicated he’d like global government which would require massive amounts of violence to bring about).  But how is his safety a vital national interest for American citizens?  If he died tomorrow, it wouldn’t affect the average person in this country.  A new Pope would be elected in an orderly fashion and life for everyone else would move on.
  3. We’re constantly told by the DC Regime and its Media mouthpieces that we live in a democracy where the will of the majority prevails.  But if you polled New Yorkers would most of them say they were okay with the traffic jams that will ensue?  Only about 20% of Americans are Catholic.  Less than half indicate they have any connection to the faith at all.  If you asked Americans to voluntarily contribute $10 each to pay for the Pope’s East Coast visit, do you really think anywhere near half would pony up?  I’m sure the answer is no, so why then is it appropriate to use their tax dollars for that purpose?
  4. There is no economic benefit that justifies the expenditure of public funds.  Many businesses are likely to be disrupted to make way for the Pope which will cost them money (and potentially lower the amount of taxes they pay to the various governments that rule over them).  Any crowds he draws into a city are likely to be mainly poor people who will not spend much so even the old Super-Bowl-as-an-economic-engine argument doesn’t hold water here.

So  Pope Francis, with all due respect (which is none), enter the United States at your own risk and follow the same laws Americans are forced to endure or stay the fuck out!