What Happens if Trump Doesn't Win the GOP Nomination?

Likely, Trump would run as an independent if he loses the GOP nomination.

If that were to happen, that would be bad news for the GOP in 2012.

1992 anyone?

Obama Fiddling While the World Burns ...

Nuclear crisis in Japan, political crisis in Lybia, economic crisis at home ... 

Question:  Where is Obama?

Answer: Fiddling with NCAA basketball picks and attending fund-raising dinners.

In this NY Post article, John Podhoretz calls him "Obama the Invisible".

"It is not merely that he isn't rising to the challenge. He is avoiding the challenge."

Bill Whittle: The End of the Beginning

In his 'Afterburner' piece, Bill Whittle examines the three great waves of human civilization.  He also discusses how political structures necessarily evolve to reflect the economic system of the times.

 

Roger Kimball on the menace of mercy..

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Liberty-vs--benevolence-6927

Why the repeal of obamacare is not an exercise in futility

The MSM is pushing the liberal message that the fight against Obamacare is a purely symbolic gesture.  In my opinion, they are significantly underestimating the seriousness of the battle against the new health care entitlement.

Of course, it's certain that the current Senate and President wouldn't allow the repeal to pass.  Still, the successful repeal of the bill in the House does matter.  John Yoo, in an interview on Peter Robinson's Uncommon Knowledge, makes a compelling point about the relevance of the legislative repeal of Obamacare.  

"The Supreme Court doesn't like to strike something down and be extremely unpopular, and have every other branch of government angry at it.  I wish they didn't think this way, but I think there is some evidence that they do think this way.  If they see a Congress trying to vote to overturn Obamacare and it is just being vetoed by the President, that gives them a lot of political cover to strike down Obamacare in the courts."

Here is the full interview. This is #2 in a 5 part series of interviews with John Yoo and Richard Epstein.

State of the Union Address: "Winning the Future" ... (wtf)

President Obama titled his 2011 State of the Union Address: "Winning the Future", or more briefly ... 'WTF'.

Some nuggets from Obama's speech:

"At stake right now is not who wins the next election. After all, we just had an election."

WTF ... Of course the next election is at stake.  I'm sure that the President wishes the next election wasn't at stake, but that doesn't make it true.  The elections of 2010 were a giant mandate for limited government and the President is the enemy of limited government.

"We're the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices, the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers, of Google and Facebook."

WTF ... Facebook? Really? Facebook is the technological beacon of America?  Seriously, that's the best you could come up with?

"So tonight, I am proposing that, starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years..."

WTF ... Apparently, the discretionary 'spending' freeze must exclude all the discretionary 'investment' programs that he announced immediately after proposing the freeze ... like high-speed monorails, high-speed internet, electric cars, biomedical research, clean-energy research, etc.  The problem is not that those are necessarily bad ideas.  The problem is that they should be pursued by private enterprise not by the government.  If the country needs a monorail, the market will bear that out.

"... Now, this would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade"

WTF ... Let's ignore Obama's obvious contradiction regarding discretionary spending.  400 billion over a decade?  That this is a triviality relative to the deficit he is proposing to reduce.  Even if we take Obama at his word on this claim, ~40 billion per year in deficit reduction compared to a 1.29 trillion dollar 2010 deficit is barely 3%.  A drop in the bucket.

"... the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it – in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes."

WTF ... 'spending through tax breaks'?  This short phrase provides a dramatic insight into the world view of the President.  He considers tax breaks to be government spending.  In other words, your money belongs to the government, and Obama wants to cut back on your allowance.  While it's humorous to consider that Obama would actually cut spending in domestic programs or in health care, I do take him at his word when he says he will cut defense spending and increase taxes.

To summarize Obama's new language:

• A tax increase is now a "spending reduction"
• A spending increase is now an "investment"

So, buckle up. Obama is planning a lot of "spending reductions" along with increased "investments".  Gee, it sounds so reasonable when put that way.  Doublespeak is so fun, isn't it Mr. President?

"We do big things"

I actually believe Obama on this one.  Unfortunately, by 'we', Obama is referring to the American government rather than the American people.

Why Call It a "Ceiling" ...

... if you just keep moving it up whenever you feel like it?

ceil·ing [see-ling]

3. An upper limit, especially as set by regulation

 Obama, for once, had it right in 2006, when he argued against the debt ceiling:

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

It would be a mistake for the Republicans in the House to pretend to draw a line in the sand on this issue, only to cave later.  That would give Obama the ability to claim a political victory on the issue as he did with START.  So, hopefully they are serious about it if they choose to pick this fight.

It's worth considering what would happen if the debt ceiling is NOT raised.  The debt ceiling is currently at 14.3 trillion.  The actual US debt is currently at nearly $13.9 trillion and growing (quickly). 

Would the the US default on it's debts?  While this is the doomsday scenario that the Democrats are focusing on, it seems very unlikely.  The debt ceiling wouldn't be set to $0, it just wouldn't be increased over the $14 trillion it is already at.  Presumably, US creditors get paid first, and either discretionary programs are de-funded, or the government just continues to borrow money from itself (the Fed).

Given past behavior by the Fed during this administration, the latter seems most likely. 

American Exceptionalism

This new Gallup poll shows that a large majority of American's agree that "that the United States has a unique character because of its history and Constitution that sets it apart from other nations as the greatest in the world."  The same poll shows that just 58% believe that President Obama agrees with the sentiment.

In 2009, President Obama was asked if he believed in American exceptionalism. He replied, 

"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." 

In fairness, Obama does go on, in the same reply, to state that he is "proud of my country and its role and history in the world."  The quote continues with nuanced language about partnerships and compromise and how the other nations of the world are also wonderful, etc.  He doesn't seem to understand what American exceptionalism is actually referring to.

Many, mostly on the left, conflate American exceptionalism with nationalism.  American exceptionalism is not based on national pride, but rather refers to the opinion that America was uniquely founded upon an idea.  It was designed by the founding fathers as a nation of laws, based on liberty and individualism.

Obama's relativism regarding American exceptionalism can be summed up with a quote from the movie "The Incredibles":

Helen: Everyone's special, Dash.
Dash: Which is another way of saying no one is.

Does unemployment stimulate the economy?

Does unemployment stimulate the economy?  It seems, on it's face, like an absurd economic strategy.  But, upon further analysis - yes, it is absurd.

Keith Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi and other Keynesian Democrats would like to believe that is true. It's simply wrong (and dangerous).

Olbermann's claim:

"The unemployed, unlike the rich ... are, in fact, the job creators"

A panel on PJTV, including Yaron Brooks and Terry Jones, dissects Olbermann's theory here:

UPDATE:  Trickle-up economics via xtranormal.

Curtis Got Slapped ...

A child named Curtis Bowen © was allegedly slapped by his teacher at Martin Luther King Jr., Elementary School.  In response, his mother, Lisa Henry Bowen © wrote a racially charged 40-page letter of demands for reparations.

This site shows most of the 40-page letter.  

To start things off, Ms. Bowen © presents a bill, payable by money order or silver coinage, for $250,000.  She uses some basic math to arrive at that figure.

"Curtis Bowen © has a million dollar face, and I've always told him so.  Curtis Bowen © is my sovereign property and belongs to me, according to God's laws, the Common Law ... Curtis Bowen © demonstrated for me how Ms. Curry slapped him and it appears, by his demonstration, she slapped 1/4 of his face."

The 14 page list of demands that follows ranges from merely ridiculous ...

  - Annual trips to Disneyland

  - An audience with the President

  - A $15,000 per month consulting job for Ms. Bowen ©

... to entirely insane: 

  - No H.A.A.R.P. signals used to "... make us confused, crazy, stupid ... "

  - No "mind control tactics ... "

  - No "... "mysterious deaths" in an effort to avoid paying us"

You have to read the whole thing to fully appreciate the magnitude of the madness required to write this manifesto.

... Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happy Meals

San Francisco's board of supervisors has voted, by a veto-proof margin, to ban most of McDonald's Happy Meals as they are currently being served in the restaurants. The measure is intended to force fast-food chains to either make their children's meals healthier or stop selling them with toys. View the full story here.

The measure will make San Francisco the first major city in the country to forbid restaurants from offering a free toy with meals that contain more than set levels of calories, sugar and fat.


The ordinance would also require restaurants to provide fruits and vegetables with all meals for children that come with toys.

The money quote in the article is this:

"We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure.

Who needs to parent when there are nanny-state politicians ready to legislate parenthood instead?

The Victory Speeches of Barney Frank and Marco Rubio.

Compare and contrast the following victory speeches.

Barney Frank: arrogant, bitter, petty, angry.


Marco Rubio: humble, gracious, dignified, inspiring.

first blood in the arizona immigration fight

 is drawn by a clinton-appointed federal district judge.  one of the arguments she makes is that

"The number of requests that will emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established..." 

so, in essence, democrats find themselves cheering the proposition that we won't bother enforcing laws if enforcement would be onerous.

i wonder whether they would support the proposition in other contexts.  my guess is that no effort would be spared if they could legally jail, say, tea-partiers.

what the media doesn't cover

ought to embarrass any self-respecting journalist.  it should be interesting to see what coverage, if any, develops of this story about quotas in the financial bill.  Drudge could force the issue, and he's already got a link.  No siren, though.

scott johnson at powerline posted earlier about this phenomenon.

'All of the Above'

Bill Whittle on Obama.

"Is Barack Obama:

A. A Muslim-sympathizing, neo-marxist true-believer, who sees America and capitalism as the principal barrier to fairness and world peace, or;

B.  Is he merely an empty suit, an unwitting pawn of much larger hidden forces, or:

C.  Simply a self-obsessed, incompetent, narcicist who happened to be at the right place at the right time.

... I've given this a lot of careful thought, and I think the real answer is ... 'Yes'."

Here is the link to the whole thing.