A Trump Skeptic’s Defense of the White House Policy Barring Cameras and Live Feed From Press Briefings

Media bigs and activist hots are in high dudgeon about the recent White House policy barring cameras from press briefings. “Freedom of the press!” they scream. “The people have a right to know!” they remonstrate.

Let’s consider this. All the nation’s self important scribes will be in the room. They all get to hear and report on every word the president says. Every syllable he utters will be under intense scrutiny, dissected into puree, distorted, baked in a liberal cake, and then served in fictionalized cupcakes to the public. In other words, business as usual.

The president is not escaping scrutiny by this policy. Rather, he is shifting the playing field on who gets to be star of the show. We live in uncharted times. Our threatened elites and their imperial media allies believe the president’s vulgarity plus their disgust and contempt equal impeachable offenses. The media has declared open war on the administration. Truth and facts are not important ordnance in their arsenal. They will manufacture any nonsense that can control the narrative for a news cycle, and then they will move on to the next piece of nonsense. They have swarmed like mosquitoes around his head from the shocking moment he was elected.

They will keep doing it even under the new policy. Then what difference does the exclusion of live feed and moving cameras make? Well, under those terms of engagement, the distorted reporting will have to focus on Trump’s answers. The Big Pens and Big Hairs who think they are part of the story won’t be afforded free air time to look like champions of the people lying their truth to power. Instead of making smug, righteous speeches on national TV, they will be relegated to composing and reporting to their national audience their distortions of what the president of the United States actually said.

Oh, the ignomy, suppression, and censorship. The media might have to fill the airtime with their assassinations of Trump without the satisfaction of all their pontificating being an equal part of the story.

I think this policy will marginally improve the reporting from the pack of hyenas.

Buy A Clue

Let us review:

·       117 million Americans are on means tested assistance during a calendar year.

·       46 million Americans are on food stamps.

·       94 million American adults of working age are not engaged in the work force what so ever.

·       We have lost almost 9 million full time private sector jobs in the last nine years and that loss has not stopped or reversed but continues.

·       The official debt is $20trillion, if we used generally accepted accounting principles instead of government gimmicks that number is close to $100trillion, the CBO’s projected shortfall of Federal revenue vs. expenses is $210trillion.

·       For the last eight years virtually all economic growth in the United States is from only three sectors of the economy: financial services, real estate and healthcare.

·       Three million more American children are living in poverty today than during the height of the recession in 2008.

·       During the recession of 2008 the homeownership rate in the United States was 68%, after nine years of ‘recovery’ it is 64%.

·       During the recession of 2008 the United States was spending $37 billion a year on food stamps, after nine years of ‘recovery’ we are spending $74 billion a year on food stamps.

·       When Obama first took office real median household income was $54,000 a year. After nine years of ‘recovery’ the real median household income is $52,000 a year.

·       For each of the past eight years, more businesses have closed in the United States than have opened.  Prior to Obama, this had never happened before in all of U.S. history.

·       When Obama took office, 53 percent of all Americans considered themselves to be “middle class”.  Last year only 44 percent of all Americans still considered themselves to be “middle class”.

·       When Obama took office, 25 percent of all Americans in the 18 to 29-year-old age bracket considered themselves to be “lower class”.  Last year 49 percent of all Americans in the 18 to 29-year-old age bracket considered themselves to be “lower class”.

Yet for months now the government and media have been focused on Russia interfering in the 2016 election.

Buy a clue…

What Government Do We Want?

Often I am accused of not wanting any government at all because I point out the immorality and unfairness of corrupt government. That in and of itself is quite the social commentary.

I am not opposed to government, I think it is a necessity. What I do oppose is a government that has enough power to make it worth corrupting.

A government that can compel you to purchase something, prevent you from purchasing something or set the price for a purchase has too much power and will inevitably be corrupt.

When we give government or any entity the ability to compel you to purchase something, prevent you from purchasing something or set the price for a purchase then we are requiring the people who comprise that entity to have what amounts to super human morals and a super human ability to resist temptation.

Requiring people to be superhuman is very bad policy.

When governments, banks, corporations, or non-profits are given this much power then corruption and abuse of power is always the result. It does not matter the nation, the race, the gender, the ethnicity, the education, the political party, or the culture – this result is the same the world over.

I think the Obama administration put to death the concept of electing morally superior beings, a concept all statist systems rely on.

When you give a body of individuals the power to control what is bought and sold then those individuals holding that power are always the first thing that is bought and sold. One can look back over the history of the world and easily draw the conclusion that non-corrupt governments have only existed in situations where the power of the government was so limited that it was not worth the expense to corrupt.

This raises the question, in a limited government, what kind of laws do we want to have? I would suggest:

·      We would want laws promoting transparency

·      We would want laws that crush fraud (including fraud committed by the government)

·      We would want laws which crush corruption

·      We would want daylight laws

·      We would want Blue Sky laws

·      We would want laws that promote truth and the completeness of information

·      We would want laws that strongly support property rights

·      We would want laws that support the obligation of contracts

·      We would want laws that prevent any entity from forcing, compelling or coercing anyone into any commercial or social transaction

·      We want people to have a legal remedy to address the destruction of their property by others

·      We would want laws that prohibit the abuse of power inherent in providing a government advantage to a private entity

·      We would want laws that apply to everyone equally in order that the power of the corrupt to raise funds by exempting some from the law is no longer an available tactic

These are just some thoughts on the laws that would encourage equality and an equitable society rather than destroying society via corruption.  It is not the absence of government for which we advocate, it is the absence of corruption. Corruption is always the by-product of the power to force, coerce or compel commercial or social transactions. The more effective we are at pulling back that power the less corrupt our government will be and the more prosperous, equitable and fair our society becomes.

Cooperation Or Force?

“Justice imposed through power is the philosophical foundation of the political left, and when earnest progressives become convinced the only avenue to power is violence, their tolerance quickly falls by the wayside.” – John Daniel Davidson

This is obviously a problem – but this is only part of the problem. The political left also typically believes that if they do not impose power that power will be imposed upon them. This is actually a much larger threat to peace and prosperity because it is a false rationale which can conveniently be used to excuse almost any behavior the political left wishes to engage in.

The notion of a society operated via voluntary associations and actions is a concept the left rejects.

Several decades ago there was something called the ‘Kirkpatrick Doctrine’. A portion of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine was the assertion that the United States should support nations that retained the means of production in private hands because privately held enterprises are the greatest influencers of freedom. The rationale behind this assertion was that private enterprise requires freedom of speech, freedom of action and freedom of information in order to continue to exist. Requirements by business would then influence all of society toward freedom of speech, freedom of action and freedom of information. History would teach us that there would be many other factors influencing freedom or the lack of freedom but there is an analogy here to the American political left in that the Kirkpatrick Doctrine held that all of the elements of voluntary cooperation must exist in order for private enterprise to thrive – and that voluntary cooperation would then spread to the rest of society.

The very essence of the American political left is the renouncing of all of the elements of voluntary cooperation – freedom of speech, freedom of action and freedom of information. Freedom of speech, freedom of action and freedom of information is the very opposite of the philosophical basis of the left – imposing power on others. Because freedom of speech, freedom of action and freedom of information stand in contradiction to imposing power on others, and the left believes that if they do not impose power on others then power will be imposed on them, they cannot intellectually or morally entertain the concept of a voluntary cooperative society.

The left, as you may’ve noticed, is all about pointing out instances where power was imposed on others. Be it Confederate monuments or what they call Patriarchal novels – the allegation by the left is that history is a power struggle and that if you are not imposing power it is being imposed on you. Many naive people notice the left condemning past instances of power being imposed on others and mistakenly assume the left stands in opposition to power being imposed upon others. If you have read Animal Farm you are familiar with this story – the left is not opposed to power being imposed on others they are opposed to any situation that they themselves are not imposing power on others.

That power imposed on others also requires violence is a detail that the left inevitably chooses to leave unsaid in their quest for imposing power.

What stands against the left is a voluntary cooperative society – liberty. Liberty is a societal model requiring that no one possesses a right to impose power on another. The role of government is preventing one from imposing their power on another. Liberty stands against the use of force – leftist stand foursquare in line with force as a societal and governmental requirement.

Do you wish to live in a society of voluntary cooperation and associations or a society predicated on the use of force?

Choose wisely…

Choose Wisely

The difference in a free market and the various forms of statism is simple and critical: in a free market everything is voluntary and there is no compulsion. In a free market no one makes you engage in a commercial act and no one engages in a commercial act on your behalf without your explicit permission.


Let us understand that each and every time that some one attacks the free market what is being attacked is the right of the individual to choose what they will do. Those who attack the free market are proponents of a system that requires the individual to do what other individuals think they should be doing – even if it is against the will and conscience of that individual.


At the end of the day this is all that it comes down to.


The question to ask anyone who is opposed to the free market is why do you think it is a superior model that people other than yourself are empowered to decide what you should do with your life? Of course that is never the question which people who oppose the free market want to answer, is it? They want to talk about justice and fairness and evil capitalist and all sorts of things other than the one vital question which exposes the whole statist ideology: why do you think it is a superior model that people other than yourself are empowered to decide what you should do with your life?


The typical bumbling answer the statist attempt to provide when they cannot escape this question is that people would be selfish, uncooperative, uncharitable, and unfair. All this answer tells us is that people who respond in this manner believe their fellow human beings are trash. One is drawn to questioning if they believe their fellow humans would behave this way because that is how they themselves would behave?


At the end of the day people who believe that force, rather than love and charity, is what keeps society together are probably not the people we want in power. Inevitably the people who believe that force is required to keep society together are also the exact same people who believe that only they are entitled to use that force.


That speaks volumes.


Choose wisely.

The Moral Bankruptcy Of The Left

A few days ago John C. Goodman published an article entitled “Why Are We So Divided?”

From the article:

“The left in America is intellectually bankrupt. And this is a worldwide phenomenon. For most of the 20th Century the ideological left controlled the policy agenda. But in the last quarter of that century, they experienced a complete intellectual collapse. Ronald Reagan was elected. So was Margaret Thatcher. The world saw a surge in privatization and deregulation. Eastern European countries turned to the flat tax. More than 30 countries either fully or partially privatized their social security systems. Sweden adopted a national system of school vouchers.

On reflection, the left was wrong about everything. They were wrong about communism. They were wrong about socialism. They were wrong about the welfare state. Given that history, why would they want to talk about ideas?”

I have long asserted that in regard to economics the Democrats/Progressives/Liberals are not arguing against Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians but that they are arguing against math. The present mathematical economic argument of the Left boils down to:

If we can keep interest rates at zero or lower and continue to create endless amounts of credit then we might get ten more years without an economic collapse.

To describe Leftist economics as being a zero-sum game is far too kind a description. The Left would prefer collapsing the global economy instead of saying “I am sorry, I was wrong.” To the point Goodman makes, the more evident the intellectual bankruptcy of the Left becomes the less inclined they are to reassess and the farther they retreat into moral and intellectual fantasy.

I often quote James Kunstler, “Sometimes societies just collectively go insane.” Our societal insanity originates in the moral logic of the Progressive movement – moral logic which essentially is reduced to nothing more than “Someone somewhere at sometime did something wrong hence that entitles me to do anything wrong that I wish – and if I do it then it is not morally wrong simply by the virtue that I am doing it.” That is insane – but that is genuinely and sincerely what they believe. If the Progressives cannot find something someone actually did in order to justify their lack of morals – they just make it up! I cannot recount how many times over the last week I have been told that because Rand Paul and Ted Cruz proclaimed that the Second Amendment exist in order that American citizens may have the tools to resist tyrannical government that it justifies murdering congressman.

That line of thinking is pretty much the mother of all false equivalencies – but to the Progressive mind the truth or anything approaching morals and human decency – is an irrelevancy. All that matters is “someone somewhere at sometime did something wrong hence that entitles me to do anything wrong that I wish to do” – even if that someone somewhere at sometime is manufactured out of whole cloth.

This is an ideology that rationalizes its’ very own continued existence with false moral equivalencies. Without false moral equivalencies Progressivism melts away like snow on a summer day – because Progressivism is a slap in the face to every moral code the world has accepted. Theft, using force to require others to violate their conscience, rationalizing murder – there is no moral bottom to this ideology.

It is not an exaggeration to say that Progressives believe themselves to be gods – that they and they alone are empowered to determine truth from fiction, that they can create truth from fiction, that they are empowered to proclaim reality as fantasy and have exempted themselves from the reality the rest of us mere mortals must occupy. It is no doubt quite intoxicating to exempt oneself from moral and intellectual bankruptcy – that what ever preposterous absurdity one wishes to believe one can also assert is truth – and have other occupiers of the ideological bubble also proclaim your absurdity to be truth. Math, history, reality, truth, facts, data – they all bend a knee and bow to what ever absurdity a Progressive proclaims to be truth.

Or so they believe.

Anyone with half a brain understands that this will not end well. How it does not end well is still unknown – but it will not end well.

Page 20 of 35« First...10...1819202122...30...Last »