Question of the day

What do extramarital sex, lies and politicians have in common? Answer: They’re all immoral. Especially damning are the videotapes of politicians in the Epstein library.


Politics of the day

Are you getting as tired of all the name-calling in Washington as I am? Every day somebody is calling out somebody else.  Seems like everyone in Washington must be a racist. What is the average person to make of it?

The latest is all the fuss over Democratic congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar not going to Israel. Tlaib and Omar started the fireworks by holding a press conference to tell the world that they were being treated unfairly. Tlaib said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s move to bar her and Omar from entering Israel was unprecedented.  Never mind that Obama, himself, once banned a member of Israel’s Knesset from entering the U.S.

Note: Of course, Tlaib and Omar never mentioned that they are supporters of the anti-Semtic, anti-Israel BDS movement which was condemned by Congress and that their trip to Israel was organized by a Palestinian group which is also a supporter of BDS.

HBO host Bill Maher, a progressive Democrat himself, responded by saying that “BDS is a bullshit purity test by people who want to appear woke but actually slept through history class.” Maher continued: “Let me read Omar Barghouti, one of the cofounders of the [BDS] movement. His quote: ‘No rational Palestinian … would ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.’ So that’s where that comes from, this movement. Someone who doesn’t even want a Jewish state at all. Somehow, this side never gets presented in the American media.”

Tlaib responded by suggesting a boycott of HBO.

Maher fired back that, “But here’s the thing, the house voted 318 to 17 to condemn the #BDS movement, including 93% of Dems.  Does Tlaib want to boycott 93% of her own party?”



At the press conference, Omar said that Israel was not a democracy.  Slight correction.  Arabs living in Israel are considered Israeli citizens with rights equal to Jewish citizens. Arabs vote in Israeli elections and are represented in the Israeli Knesset and on the Israeli Supreme Court, just like in a democracy. Omar also said that Israel is occupying Palestinian lands.  This lie has been repeated by others ad nauseum over the years.  You need to understand that there is no such thing as a country of Palestine.  Never has been.  The lands that Omar is referring to were ceded by Jordan to Israel as a result of the peace treaty which ended the 1967 Six Days War.  The lands have been in Israeli hands ever since.

However, I think that Dr. Qanta Ahmed, a Muslim scholar, made the defining statement with respect to this issue. It took a lot of guts because her statement is politically incorrect in today’s political climate. This is what she had to say about Tlaib and Omar:  “What you are seeing is full-blown Islamist propaganda. These are professionals victim-mongering women who unfortunately have been elected to Congress but are using every tool in the playbook of the Muslim Brotherhood … they are using Islamic tactic to invert reality….”



The one thing about Tlaib and Omar that Dr. Ahmed didn’t mention is that they are also agents of the Deep State (along with many other members of Congress).  It’s a dirty little secret that you’re not supposed to know about…but, of course, now you know.




Most everyone believes that American politics is dirty.  Public opinion polls say so. However, I rarely hear a discussion of why it is the way it is. How did we get here?

You know the expression “follow the money?” Well, in this case it’s all you need to know. The money in question is the bribes going from the 1% and foreign governments to our corrupt politicians in Washington.  And let’s not leave out the mainstream media either.  They both have sold out American interests to the highest bidders, be they Russian, Chinese or Deep State. Washington is literally swarming with lobbyists whose sole job it is to bribe American officials.

The American government, itself, has become a cesspool due to the corrupt culture. What it proves once again is the golden rule.  That is, he with the most gold rules.  Forget for a moment who you think are the good guys and who you think are the bad guys. Besides, there are no good guys. Once we allow the politicians to dictate to us, the citizens, what is politically correct, then we are lost.

There has to be some rules so that the Republic will survive despite the corruption. We have to insist on the Rule of Law and we have to insist that our politicians honor the Constitution. Those are the things that make us special as a nation, despite what some people would have you believe. Without those things, we’re just another flavor of a banana republic.

The government is not there to protect the citizens, it’s there to promote their own agenda, and to personally profit from it. They pander to the public to simply get their votes so that they can install their own version of totalitarianism.  They have catchy slogans like “Hope and Change” and “Make America Great Again” but they don’t even believe their own ideology.  It’s all a con: “Read my lips. No new taxes.”

The civil war that rages in Washington is like a war between two Mafia families and they don’t care who gets hurt. I believe the comment was, “9/11 Was Just An Event Where Some People Did Something.” Besides, “What difference… does it make?” if you get my drift.

We’ve come to the point where some people think that it is somehow okay to try to overthrow a duly elected president.  Guess what? Regardless of the outcome, we all lose. People have short memories.  They’ve already forgotten JFK, RFK and Martin Luther King, Jr.


“Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.”  – George Orwell

The Hill recently ran an article entitled, “America – The New Socialist Frontier” (link Whether you agree or disagree with the perspective of the article, there are a couple of things that I would like to point out about issues connected with this article.

Some newly elected legislators do have a socialist agenda. No doubt. What the article doesn’t talk about, though, is why they were elected by the voters.  In order to answer that question, let me first digress for a moment.

After World War II, many Americans believed in something that was referred to as The American Dream. Sure, there was a sprinkling of wealthy people in the country, but the vast majority worked very hard just to be able to support their families.  In a fairly short period of time, prosperity blossomed from sea-to-shining-sea.  The burgeoning American middle class was born. Opportunities abounded – capitalism was king and consumerism became the driving force in society.  Before long, the nouveau riche sprouted up seemingly everywhere.

After many years of prosperity, something unforeseen happened.  Class warfare. Why? Well, because not everyone shared in the spoils equally.  Of course, not everyone contributed equally either but that didn’t seem to stop the have-nots from complaining.  People had gotten accustomed to great prosperity in the country.  They could see it everywhere – in magazines, on TV and the movies and in advertisements, and so they wanted some of it for themselves.

A new age dawned. People become fat and lazy.  They no longer wanted to work hard to obtain The American Dream. Many didn’t want to work at all. They simply wanted the government to provide for them. Problem was that the government doesn’t grow money on trees. It’s is funded by the taxpayers.

So, a rallying cry inevitably went out to tax the rich. However, taxing the rich is not quite all it’s cracked up to be as The Hill article pointed out,“The philosophy of envy and siphoning from the rich appeals to a large segment of the population that does not realize that the definition of ‘rich’ is a spiral of devolution that eventually will reach every business and every individual who works for a living.” You may remember how President Obama’s definition of ‘rich’ with respect to tax increases kept spiraling down and down until at one point it was going to include the middle class.  In actuality, it’s even much worse than that.  When you look at the income distribution curve in this country, the only place that significant tax increases can really come from is the middle class. You can’t fund a socialist society like Ocasio-Cortez wants unless the middle class pays for it.  Increasing the top tax rate to 70% for the rich is a smokescreen.  It’s a mere pittance of what will be required. What she is not saying is that her Green New Deal will destroy the middle class which is actually a key objective of socialism.

This leads me to the political strategy of our newly-minted socialists. The key words that I quoted from the article are “every individual who works for a living.” The reason those words are key is that Ocasio-Cortez is appealing to a political base who does not work for a living or, at the very least, works but does not pay taxes. She is targeting the have-nots to get them to revolt against the haves; in other words political class warfare. It’s a smart strategy since it appeals to roughly half the people in this country who do not pay income taxes as well as to people who get paid some form of government assistance. The problem, though, as Benjamin Franklin pointed out, is that,When people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic.” Are you ready for that?

Socialism is superficially a very appealing concept. However, there has to be a group that implements the desires of the people, assuming that the people are smart enough to even make those kinds of decisions (which studies seem to show that they are not).  Even in a democracy such as America, you can see how flawed a process that can be. There always has to be a 1% whether they’re called kings, tsars, presidents or the corporate elites. So, tell me, who gets to decide who will be the 1%?  See the problem. The real issue isn’t whether it’s capitalism or socialism, it’s who gets to be in charge. Ocasio-Cortez wants to be the one in charge, to be the one who gets to tell you which personal freedoms you’ll have to sacrifice on the altar of socialism and to be the one to tell you how much in additional taxes you’ll have to pay. Now, that’s what I call a New Deal.



There’s a reason why communism has never worked.  Russia, Cuba and Venezuela should be a reminder to us all. The reason is that when there is no incentive for people to get ahead, there is no incentive for them to contribute either. Everyone has to share equally, right? Eventually, everyone does share equally because everyone is equally poor.  Well, not everyone.  We forget sometimes that regardless of whether a society has capitalism, socialism, fascism or communism, there always has to be a ruling class. There always has to be a 1%.


“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money.”
– Margaret Thatcher




Pop quiz hotshot. What does Brexit, the Yellow Vest Movement and Donald Trump have in common?  The answer: Civil War.

In England, the British voted to have their country exit from the EU (Brexit). However, the Parliament and the British establishment have so far refused to let that happen.  Why?  Because they are aligned politically with the EU.

Comment:  Strange how Parliament called for the Brexit referendum and then when the election results didn’t suit them, they reversed course. Sure sounds like treason to me.


In France, the citizenry are in open revolt (the Yellow Vest Movement) against Emmanuel Macron and his government.  They thought that they were a free country.  After all, what was the French Revolution for? Didn’t it give them freedom from the ruling class?

Comment: Apparently not according to Macron, who told the French that, “nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism.” So, now over 200 years later the revolution continues.


In America, Donald Trump rode into power on the back of a wave of citizen dissatisfaction with their government.  Yet, two years into his presidency, he has been unable to fulfill many of his campaign promises. He can’t even get a little wall built.

Comment:  Well, apparently the Wall hasn’t been built because it’s immoral. As for the rest, the Deep State is ensconced on both sides of the Potomac (aisle).


There’s one other thing that England, France and the United States have in common politically.  They are all ruled by the triumvirate of The Vatican, the City of London and Washington D.C.  Bottom line: The powers that be will try to keep England in the EU by any means necessary.  Civil War rules the day.



“Our plutocracy, whether the hedge fund managers in Greenwich, Connecticut, or the Internet moguls in Palo Alto, now lives like the British did in colonial India: ruling the place but not of it. If one can afford private security, public safety is of no concern; to the person fortunate enough to own a Gulfstream jet, crumbling bridges cause less apprehension, and viable public transportation doesn’t even compute. With private doctors on call and a chartered plane to get to the Mayo Clinic, why worry about Medicare?” – Mike Lofgren, The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government


There’s a new breed of politicians loose in the country.  They are hell-bent on making America poor again (MAPA).  MAPA has overnight become the new MAGA.  Go figure.

When I was growing up, my parents (and their generation) were driven by the idea of the American Dream. The American Dream was sometimes represented by the picture of a house with a white picket fence around it. In front of the house was pictured a father, a mother, and two kids, a boy and a girl. Oh yeah, and a dog. That, for them, was the embodiment of the American Dream.  They simply wanted to work hard so as to provide for their families, and the government was there to provide an infrastructure of jobs and security towards that end.

Now, the world is headed in a totally different direction. MAPA has a radically new agenda. Some of the losers in this new paradigm are the very people that we should be caring for the most, veterans and the homeless.  In my day, veterans were treated more like heroes and the homeless…well, there weren’t hardly any. Certainly, there were no tent cities.

Under the banner of socialism, and social justice, the government will no longer represent its current citizens.  By that, I mean that priority will now to be given to new immigrants. No longer will there be a designation of “illegal immigrant” because the borders will be open and virtually everyone will be allowed in.

Oddly enough, another group of losers under MAPA are minorities and those people who had immigrated in the past. I know that may sound counterintuitive to some but the jobs that go to the new immigrants will have to come from somewhere (unless the new immigrants are going to go on the welfare rolls).  Not only will there be a loss of jobs for minorities, but the hourly wages paid for other jobs will be lower because of the competition from the new immigrants. That’s basic economics.  Of course, the new social programs will be funded by higher taxes, Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have already said so.  Ocasio-Cortez is currently promoting an increase in the top individual income tax rate to 70%.

Ultimately, what will all this look like?  For starters, population of the U. S. will soar. It could well double in just five years. Birth rates will go up sharply causing another upward spike in population. Will there be jobs for another 300-400 million people? Of course, not. Even a relatively healthy growth rate in the economy would add no more than 3 million jobs per year and certainly there will be down years and even recessions, or worse yet a depression.  And forget about how we’re going to house such a big influx of people. Tent cities will sprout up everywhere, including across the street from you. On the other side of the coin, businesses will move their operations to other countries as this will no longer be a healthy environment for them.  As a result, significant jobs will actually be lost.

There will be a resulting disparity between the number of people working and the number of people not working which will make it necessary to raise taxes even higher. In addition, high-income people will also leave the country causing a brain drain and capital outflows and there will be a complete collapse of the middle class.  The gap between the haves and the have-nots will widen even further, actually a lot further.

Welcome to the world of MAPA.



In the end, America will become not much better than a third-world nation.  Of course,without borders, there will be no nation because sovereignty is the result of having real borders.  Inevitably, ultimate authority will rest with the United Nations.  Hope you’re ready for Agenda 21.



“Ocasio-Cortez is a socialist, and she’s determined to give the voters exactly what they’ve asked for.  Free school.  Free drugs.  Free retirement.  And a guaranteed income for showing up to pretend jobs that are little more than adult daycare.”  – Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge


So much fuss over a wall. What is the average person suppose to make of it all? To wall or not to wall, that seems to be the question.

In order to understand this issue a little, one really has to look at what the politicians don’t say as opposed to what they do say. So for example, Democrats universally oppose the use of government funds for construction of a wall.  That’s their current public position as we all well know. However, what they don’t tell you is that they have either voted for a Southern border wall and/or publicly supported the financing of such a wall prior to Trump being elected. This group includes Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren, among many others.

As for Trump, he says that we have a crisis at the Southern border and that we must build a wall. That’s his public position as we all well know. Trump has mentioned several times that if the Democrats don’t give him the funds, he may have to invoke a national emergency. That’s closer to the real reason, but what does that mean?

Here’s what he’s not saying, though. It’s not about the money.  It’s not even about the wall, although politically Trump is committed to the building of such a wall.  The overarching reason is that the wall represents a rationale for the public to support the declaration of a national emergency.

So, why does Trump want to declare a national emergency? Well, technically he doesn’t have to as the United States has been operating under a declared national emergency due to an executive order which Trump signed back on December 20, 2017. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg, to wit:

  • The United States has been operating under a state of declared war since September, 2001, following the 911 attacks. This explains the strange questions that Senator Lindsey Graham posed to Judge Kavanaugh during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing; questions about military tribunals that would only be relevant if the United States was currently in a state of declared war.
  • On March 21, 2011, Barack Obama sent a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault against Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council.  This was an attempted explanation of why Obama committed American forces to the war in Libya without the approval of Congress.  Approximately one year later on March 14, 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified during a Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing and further explained that Obama’s actions were because the United Nations and NATO had supreme authority over the U.S. military forces.
  • On March 16, 2012, President Obama issued an executive order entitled “National Defense Resources Preparedness.” That executive order gave the President the authority to take over all of the country’s resources (e.g. labor, food, industry) as long as it is done for reasons of national defense.
  • On July 6, 2012, President Obama issued an executive order entitled “Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions.” That executive order granted the President absolute control over all U.S. media, including social media, news networks and news websites.

If you’re not already in a state of shock yet, consider this. The President (any president) has at their disposal almost dictatorial powers as a result of the various executive orders signed by then President Obama.  In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2102 codified into U.S. law the authority of the President to imprison indefinitely, anyone, including American citizens, deemed to be a “terrorist threat” to the United States, without trial or due process. Anyone who the President deems is a terrorist, you understand.

And you probably thought that you were living in a republic.



The palpable panic inside The Beltway is because these dictatorial presidential powers have now been transferred from who the Deep State intended would be president, Hillary Clinton, to an outsider. The resulting chaos in Washington is…well, you can only describe it as Civil War.


 “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”  – George Orwell


Over time the climate changes.  Yes of course it does, by definition.  Science has proven that many times over.  So what? You see, science has also definitely demonstrated that these earth (climate) changes happened even before man graced the planet. Yet, some people would like to blame the climate changes solely on the human race.

Before there was climate change, we had global warming.  Al Gore tried to explain global warming to the world using a “hockey stick” visual. Subsequently, Gore’s hockey stick and the science behind the theory was discredited which torpedoed the billions of dollars, in carbon taxes, that the world’s governments were supposed to pay because they would have been in violation of the new global warming paradigm. Even James Lovelock, the father of the global warming theory, acknowledged he had been unduly alarmist about climate change.

However, the global warming adherents didn’t do away quietly.  Rather, they simply reinvented their theory under the label of “climate change.” It’s like motherhood and apple pie. Who could deny that the climate changes? After all, the weather always gets either warmer or cooler, right?

Unfortunately, for them, they forgot about the science, like what comes from years of scientific study based on observations (like from tree rings and ice cores). Now that’s real science, as opposed to the computer models they actually used.  Of course, computer models, by necessity, are based on assumptions as opposed to observations.

Aside: As you’ve heard me say before, assumptions are a tricky proposition when it comes to theories (and logic problems).  Just ask Epicurus.

One of the supposed bad guys in climate change is CO2 levels. I say supposed. The thinking is that increased CO2 levels ultimately result in higher surface temperatures.  The problem is that the science doesn’t support that theory. Ice core studies show that increases in CO2 actually follow rather than precede increases in temperatures.  Sure man is adding to the CO2 levels, but that’s actually a good thing since increased CO2 levels green the planet.  That’s because CO2 is the primary food of plants. Without CO2, we would have no plants, and without plants there would be no oxygen, ergo no humans.  If you want to read up on the subject, I can recommend The Positive Impact of Human CO2 Emissions On the Survival of Life on Earth which was written by Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore.

Aside: In the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras, among others, there were long periods during which the levels of CO2 were much higher than today, yet the temperatures were far colder.

Fast forward to 2015A NASA study showed that Antarctica was actually gaining ice mass thanks to increased snowfall. Obviously, there was no global warming there.

Fast forward to 2017: A shocking admission was published in Nature Geoscience.  Climate change scientists admitted that the computer models predicting dramatically increased temperatures were wrong.  It seems that there has actually was no increase in global surface temperatures from 1998-2012.

Fast forward to 2018: At a climate change conference in London, climate scientists were shocked to learn that there was yet another scandal with respect to the science behind climate change. That is, a fundamental error in the calculations of ocean temperatures was revealed to the attendees. Again, the overly aggressive assumptions used in the computer models was to blame.

Aside: Of course, it’s also possible that the computer models were rigged to produce the desired outcome. That’s because government actions have often corrupted science, which has been flooded by money to produce politically correct results.

Since 1998, more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition that states “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” So, it turns out that the climate consensus was wrong all along.  As William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, put it, “It is time for governments to finally admit the truth about global warming. Warming is not the problem. Government action is the problem.”


“In science consensus is irrelevant. … There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” – Michael Crichton


The American Dream


Eugene Ionesco once said that, “Ideologies separate us.  Dreams and anguish bring us together.” That was once true, but I challenge if it is still true today.  Just like Martin Luther King, you have to have a dream.  That dream, of course, was The American Dream…and that dream may well be dying.

As I mentioned in a recent post, Americans of all stripes fought together side-by-side in two world wars because they had a dream.  It was a dream of freedom, to be lived in a country (America) that cherished individual liberty.  It was a dream that almost everyone shared and so our differences were secondary. We could coexist with all of our imperfections, our biases and our differences in cultural values.

However, today, many people no longer have that same dream.  They would rather destroy what we have and start over.  They want to “fundamentally transform” America.  The problem, though, is that their vision is for a country where They get to impose their ideology and their values on the rest.  However, you will never know that is their objective. You will only hear that They represent you, the people, against the establishment.  However, the problem is that They are the establishment.  They are the 1%.

You need to understand the propaganda that’s used to convince people to vote them into power. So, when They ask you to join The Resistance to bring down the establishment, what They are really saying is that They want to remain in power only without being encumbered with the chains of a Republic.  The only rule of law would then be their rule of law.  There would be a new Golden Rule (i.e. he who has the most gold rules).

When They ask you to eradicate the white race, what They are really saying is that They want the white race marginalized so that it can not compete with them for power…for They are the establishment, They are the elite (mostly, the white race).

In the course of human affairs, revolutions are a fact of life, maybe, in some cases, even a necessity. After all, that’s how we wound up with America in the first place.  However, beware of those offering a new form of government where everyone will get their needs met (like, say, free healthcare for everyone).  There is no system that can provide everything to everyone. History has shown that our current form of government is the only one that can endure and prosper over time. The great political thinkers understood that.  Here’s a sample of what some of them said:


“When people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic”.  – Benjamin Franklin

“The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”  – Frederic Bastiat

“The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”           – Margaret Thatcher

        “The goal of socialism is communism.”  – Vladimir Lenin



There is a reason why the middle class is disappearing in America.  It’s not an accident. The middle class is being intentionally destroyed because it is the only group of people that will insist upon maintaining civil liberties.  Everyone else will simply insist on having others (read: the government) support them. You see, most of the middle class believes in The American Dream.


So, some people didn’t believe me when I said in my last post that globalism and populism cannot co-exist.  Enter Emmanuel Macron.

As world leaders gathered in Paris to pay homage to the heroes of World War I, Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, stepped front and center and turned the event into a political football game by saying, “Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism.”  What exactly did he mean by that anyway?

Well, first let’s check out the definitions of those two terms. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines patriotism as love for or devotion to one’s country and nationalism as loyalty and devotion to a nation.  So, the two definitions are virtually identical, although usage of the two words can be slightly different.  For example, Charles de Gaulle once said that,“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate of people other than your own comes first.”

Why the wordplay or is this just another example of political correctness?  Well, to know that you have to first understand the worldview of the speaker and the audience he is speaking to. The speaker, in this case, was Emmanuel Macron and his country had previously abdicated its sovereignty to the European Union, not unlike how the French abdicated to Nazi Germany during World War II. Of course, President Trump was also in the audience as well and Macron’s remarks were certainly a rebuke of Trump’s “America First” policies which have been undercutting France, and, for that matter, the entire European Union.

Aside: As Macron told his audience, mostly European leaders, they have a responsibility to defend the legacy of world peace. More wordplay, as he actually meant world order, as in their world order.

The backdrop behind Macron’s remarks is the rise in populism, especially in Europe, and it has been upsetting the established order as populist countries turn to protecting their own interests first before the interests of the European Union.  Now, that’s patriotism to me.  As for Macron, himself, he is losing in the French polls to the populists similar to what’s already happened in Hungary, Poland and Italy, to name a few.

Accordingly, nation-states have become the enemy of globalism, simply because they put their own country first.  They are rejecting Macron’s call for open borders and the mass immigration that would follow it and destroy them all.  While there are certainly other political differences between globalism and populism, open borders really illustrates why the two sides cannot co-exist. Simply put, nation-states cease to exist without borders. The globalists are hell-bent on getting open borders, both here and abroad as open borders spells the end of nation-states (that is, they would lose their sovereignty).

Now you know why nation-states are the enemy… at least as far as the globalists are concerned.



In any event, it appears that after the upcoming French elections Macron will be out of a job unless, of course, the globalists let him run the United Nations. Some people have even gone so far as to suggest that we can save the world by letting the United Nations be in charge. In that case, Macron would even run our country as well.  Maybe, then he would just invite in another 600 million immigrants or so.  It would be the humanitarian thing to do according to him.  Nancy Pelosi would love that, no doubt, and she could still be Speaker of the House (albeit for a country which no longer has any sovereignty).


“[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”  – Zbigniew Brzezinski







I was watching an interview with a political commentator recently and one of the topics was a possible future reconciliation/accommodation between the political left and the political right.  Not sure why this topic was terribly relevant just prior to the mid-term elections so maybe they just ran out of things to talk about.  Unlikely, right?

Putting aside the question of relevance, I’d like to talk about why and how there could ever be a reconciliation between the left and right.  Granted, most people are probably unhappy with the current state of affairs. Nevertheless, I would argue that getting the two sides to agree on anything would be like asking atheists and deists to agree as to whether or not God exists.

To begin with, liberals and conservatives have never liked each other, not even a little bit.  The difference in the past was at least they somewhat tolerated each other, with the party on the outs hoping all the while to get back in power.  Ever since the election of Trump, however, the two sides have been at each other’s throat. Putting aside for the moment how we got here, the question is how do we return to a saner environment?  Certainly, Hillary Clinton saying that civility can return only after the Democrats regain power did not help.  Nor did it help when Nancy Pelosi recently said that there would be collateral damage for those who did not agree with the Democratic Party agenda.

While liberals and conservatives have never been exactly bosom buddies, they have had, in the past, some important things in common.  For example, both sides were for the most part patriotic, with an appreciation of what made America great.  Both sides went off to fight (to presumably defend freedom) in two world wars with many giving up their lives for the cause.

However, somewhere along the line, patriotism became a dirty word, for some.  Somewhere along the line, free speech became only a right for those who could shout down opposing viewpoints.  Somewhere along the line, violence was rationalized as being okay if it were in “self-defense” of their own belief systems.  As irrational as those points of view are, at least to some, those same points of view are quite permissible to others.  How did we ever get to this point?

I have been a spectator standing on the political sidelines for most of my adult life.  Perhaps, that’s why I have what I think is a somewhat different perspective on what is happening.  In my opinion, what has been playing out on the stage of American politics can be seen more clearly against the backdrop of world politics (globalism vs. populism). More to the point, a wave of nationalism has in the last few years upset the monopoly of world governments by the elite. Countries like Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Italy, Austria and very recently Brazil now have populist governments.

The wave of populism may well have carried Donald Trump into power as well.  Trump promised exactly the same thing that Barack Obama did eight years earlier (hope and change). That formula obviously really sells politically.  However, Trump’s election was almost completely unexpected in all quarters. Prior to that, the Democrats had been in power for sixteen years and had already counted on another eight years under Hillary Clinton.  It was not to be, though, and the reaction to the election loss has led to the near civil war that we are experiencing today.

The tipping point, in what I refer to as the war between two worlds, is that the left was poised to move the country further left politically if Hillary had been elected. Much further left.  I believe that can be borne out by the extreme left-wing rhetoric, violence and protests which have characterized the last two years, all of which has culminated in the rise to prominence of a new type of Democractic political superstar; namely Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Andrew Gillum and Beto O’Rourke. Their brand of politics would create a nation without borders, a nation which would protect the interests of would-be immigrants over the interests of citizens (including previous immigrants). That brand of politics only fits the globalist model.

An article on Zero Hedge today also discussed a call for unity between the warring parties. They recommended that an uneasy co-existence of respectful disunity is the only way forward. I disagree. There is no way forward. Simply put: something has to give. As I’ve said before, globalism and populism are mutually exclusive political belief systems.  They can’t co-exist.  America can either become the new Sweden, with everything that implies, or it can try to return to its roots (both culturally and politically). It’s probably time to choose.

“Look at the tyranny of party — at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty — a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes — and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction….”  –  Mark Twain