The Gun Control Solution Is Dead

We have had a beyond terrible mass shooting once again, this time in Las Vegas.

Also once again – rather than mourn the fallen the political minions and shills are out in force with the time-worn propaganda. We are all familiar with the term vulture capitalism but now we have the political vultures who will use those tragically murdered to score political points. Despicable – not the least of which reasons for it being so despicable is their record of failure.

Let us look at that record of failure – there are north of 92,000 gun laws in this country at all levels of government. The basic argument of the proponents of gun control is that there should be 92,001 then 92,002 then 92,003 – will that make you feel safer? In other words this method has now failed 92,000 times yet they argue for more of the same. 500 people were shot in Las Vegas – if that is not catastrophic failure of a policy then what is? What is that about the definition of insanity? Yes, sometimes societies just collectively go insane and if shooting five-hundred people is not the definition of insanity then claiming that if we just did what failed the previous 92,000 times one more time then we will stop the shootings certainly is the definition of insanity. The gun control argument is premised on falsehoods – that felons will not commit felonies, that crazy people will not be crazy and that evil people will not be evil. Those 92,000 laws are for putting people in jail after they committed atrocities, they are useless for preventing atrocities. Yet we have masses yelling for just one more useless law that will again fail to prevent atrocities. The solution to this problem is not in passing more laws.

At the end of the day these calls for more gun control are nothing more than politicians trying to raise money from tragedy – yet you still vote for them and their minions still call out for more failure as though the lives of the actual human beings are an irrelevancy.

People who do not even know the who and the why and how and that there are endless questions here that will take some amount of time to answer all proclaim a solution – a solution that has already demonstrably failed 92,000 times and counting. Yet even the briefest perusal of social media will find countless people who have already formulated a narrative that suits their political preference. All of you folks who believe you know what happened and why and how – please call the Las Vegas Police Department or Clark County Sheriff, I am sure they would love to hear how you know exactly what happened.

Yes it is that absurd. It is that insane. The murder of our friends and neighbors have become nothing more than political chips to be cashed in with the gullible used as living collateral securing future chips.

If a political agenda is of more value to you than the lives of innocent people at a concert then all you have to do is look in a mirror to find the answer to why this keeps happening.


I often quote Friedrich August von Hayek, “If socialist understood economics they wouldn’t be socialist.”

I do not quote that to be pejorative (though I am sure many take it that way) but as an observation of the truth. Let us be frank, socialist are not the only people wandering the landscape with no understanding of what they profess but they are the most vocal in advocating for destruction – and the culture the socialist have embraced and propagate entails the shunning of those who may logically point out what socialism requires and the inevitable outcome. Making truth, data and facts into the enemy and convincing the gullible that truth, data and facts are the enemy is the only method by which socialism continues to survive rather than having been relegated to the trash bin of history long ago.

Socialism is a dumpster fire writ large. Socialism inevitably fails for a number of reasons – but the most significant reason is that it requires a change in human nature. For a hundred years now socialist have been willing to use absolute unrestrained unmitigated force and terror in order to instigate that change in human nature. They have failed – 100% of the time. Socialism in all of its’ forms is at odds with both the reality of what human beings are and with math. For whatever reason those who buy into socialism are typically unwilling to bend to this truth – and when the program inevitably causes misery, poverty and death the adherents of socialism also inevitably believe they have not used sufficient force for socialism to work. Make no mistake – socialism is force. That is all it is. Socialist inevitably come to believe that there are ‘traitors’ in the midst who have sabotaged their socialism rather than that socialism is a truly terrible idea. They seemingly can never accept that socialism is simply a terrible system. This denial of reality inevitably leads to witch hunts, denouncements, punishment, prisons and executions.


No one who is an adherent of socialism – at the start of the program – buys into or believes it will result in unrestrained unmitigated force and terror in order to instigate that change in human nature. No adherents believe at the start of the program that they will inevitably come to believe that there are ‘traitors’ in their midst who have sabotaged their socialism and they do not believe that they will institute witch hunts, denouncements, prisons and executions.

Yet this is almost inevitably the result. The greatest horrors in the history of mankind have been brought about via socialism. Nothing else is even close.

The root cause is that the adherents of socialism do not believe that ‘their’ implementation of socialism will ever lead to misery, poverty and death – though that is the inevitable outcome. When it does lead to misery, poverty and death then they ‘chose the wrong leaders’ or ‘it was sabotaged’ or any number of other excuses – anything other than it is a terrible idea. That it is a terrible idea is as clear as day to everyone – other than the socialists.

“If socialist understood economics they wouldn’t be socialist.”

Yearning For Feudalism

1. Fact: Modern “Progressives” barely know there is such a thing as ‘Monetary Policy’ and they have no idea what it is or how it works.

2. Fact: The overwhelming majority of wealth transfers to the rich occur via monetary policy – about $15 trillion in net wealth transferred from the bottom 93% to the top 7% during the Obama years.

3. Fact: Modern “Progressives” constantly and even violently argue for policies that are simply wealth transfers to the very rich with a facade of compassion placed around it – the reason why is #1 on this post.

4. Fact: Long time Progressives such as Charles Hugh Smith, who actually understand monetary policy, point out that modern ‘Progressives’ are yearning for, fighting for and demanding a 21st century version of feudalism without the first clue that this is what they are actually doing. As a result Progressives that indeed understand monetary policy are shunned, belittled and attacked – for merely pointing out the fact that modern ‘Progressives’ are yearning for, fighting for and demanding a 21st century version of feudalism because of #1 on this post.

This is not pejorative – just facts. That modern “Progressives” have adopted a cultural motif that anyone who does not agree with them is evil and to be disregarded and the enemy makes it almost impossible for them to come to realize the truth of #1.

Hence – they will continue to argue, even engaging in violence, for continued massive wealth transfers to the 1% while sincerely believing that they are doing just the opposite.

Climate Change And You

Nothing – not even economics – is so viciously argued with as much actual ignorance among the general public as the topic ‘climate change.’

Let us start with some simple facts – how many people in North America actually holistically understand this topic? A few hundred. That is it. Not thousands. Not tens of thousands.

Next fact – you are not among that few hundred. Just the truth.

What is the attitude of these few hundred toward the effects that man has on climate change? Ambivalence. Not certainly, not “we are all gonna die!” but ambivalence. What is more – these folks are even more ambivalent that anything can be done about it without killing billions of people.

This is where it gets interesting – what people argue about is what someone else told them. Again, just the truth. Almost exclusively those who are proponents of man made climate change also propose solutions that will make the wealthy ever more wealthy! Let us review – you do not have an understanding of the topic (neither do I), you are arguing over what is effectively gossip, and that gossip includes proposed solutions that will enrich and empower the very wealthy. Where do you think the gossip started?

That is where we are as society.

“But but but Miami will be underwater!”

Few to none of the actual few hundred people who actually understand this topic are claiming that – but those who spread such nonsense do not care.

Furthermore if all the fear-mongering were to be true – buying solar panels and a Prius won’t change the outcome. Beyond that – the people who are fear-mongering are fear-mongering about how the petroleum industry is the source of ‘climate change’ while typing on the their PC or iPhone.

Yes it is that absurd. Almost as absurd as Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore flying on private jets followed by taking limousines to a presser in order to tell everyone who much danger you are in and how you (but not them!) must reduce your carbon footprint so the planet can be saved – and oh by the way you can reduce your carbon footprint by purchasing the products they are invested in. if you are a proponent of man caused climate change and you believe it must be dealt with – advocating for solutions that inevitably are nothing more than wealth transfers to the 1% is not helping your position.

Absurd does not begin to define the situation.

I suppose that ‘saving the planet’ – even if you are ‘saving’ it from a fictional problem – provides meaning to lives. Among a certain sub-culture demonstrating your commitment to combat ‘climate change’ is a required check-box to remain part of the group and to question the basic premise – and the actual few hundred scientist who actually holistically study this topic happen to question the social media premise severely – means you are no longer a decent human being and you must be shunned.

Yeah, that shows a commitment to science…

Stop Bilking The Sick

To paraphrase Thomas Sowell – socialism is the belief that you cannot afford hospitals, doctors, nurses, technicians, ambulances and medication but you can somehow afford hospitals, doctors, nurses, technicians, ambulances, and medication along with an army of bureaucrats on top of it all.

The cost of healthcare has increased 78X as a per cent of GDP since government decided to jump in and ‘help’ – get government out of it entirely and watch the costs drop like a rock. The only way that government can solve the healthcare problem is by deciding it will stop ‘helping’ and get out of healthcare entirely. How many bankruptcies and how much of a financial burden would healthcare cause at 1/78th the current cost?

Expecting government to ‘fix’ this problem is like expecting small pox to cure small pox – not going to happen. Government interference is the root cause of the problem – not the solution. That many people are making tremendous amounts of money from the sick and needful by convincing the gullible that government is the solution rather than the problem is beyond atrocious.

Stop the corruption and bilking of the sick by ending government involvement in and funding of healthcare.

Hillary’s Postmortem is Producing Autopsy Comic Gold

 The left-leaning Guardian newspaper has a story out titled “Why Hillary Clinton was right about white women – and their husbands.” The article cites a new study purporting to prove Clinton’s explanation for her shocking defeat was right on the money.

Recall that in an interview with NPR, Hillary blamed her lackluster support from women voters on the little ladies being under intense pressure from their fathers, husbands, boyfriends, and bosses not to vote for her. Men pressured women and boom! America chose Trump. Conservative and mainstream outlets began chortling that Hillary claimed women “caved” to pressure from the men in their lives.


That stone hit the water and splashed waves of comic relief. First, Hillary’s strange punditry supplied her critics with schadenfreude and her supporters with chagrin. Second, the corrupt fact-checking racket leaped to throw its body in front of Hillary, bravely trying to deflect her deserved soaking. And third, leftist academics, but that’s redundant and repetitive, are riding to the rescue to breathe life into Hillary’s limp theory.
To set the stage, consider Hillary’s words in context. At an NPR interview on her No Mea Culpa tour, she recounted a somber conversation with writer Sheryl Sandberg about the sexism that would hold her back:
Sheryl ended this really sobering conversation by saying that women will have no empathy for you, because they will be under tremendous pressure — and I’m talking principally about white women — they will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for “the girl.”
So, on Hillary’s list of public enemies, to Bernie Sanders and James Comey, add women cowed by men. Even centrist and liberal outlets took umbrage to this characterization. Hillary’s explanation is sexist declared Newsweek. She thinks women voted against her because of men sniffed Glamour. And of course center and right media piled on about Hillary’s women who caved.
The specter of fingers pointing from both right and left at the Bad Candidate obviously embarrassed establishment Democrats and the Left. But, again I’m being redundant, again. Something had to be done. And fact checkers were just the ones to do it. Snopes stepped up to the vault, performed a double twisting somersault, and declared the charge that Hillary blamed her defeat on women who caved to men “mostly false.” Snopes’s reasoning was that Hillary had not actually used the word “caved” and, anyway, the words were not her own, but Sheryl Sandberg’s.
 This is idiotic. Clinton obviously endorsed Sandberg’s words. She treasured them verbatim in her mind. She repeated them from her own mouth on a national interview to explain “What Happened.” Now, a careful reading shows she did not actually use any verb to capture the capitulation of her alleged wanted-to-be supporters. She just said they would be under tremendous pressure…tremendous pressure. Twice. In the same sentence. (She was being redundant).
Tremendous pressure usually precedes a cave-in. A thorough writer who wanted to assign a verb to the process of people being forced to cave in might well deploy “yielded” or “succumbed” or “gave into” but there is nothing extravagant or distortive about the vivid verb “caved.” The widely repeated phrase was substantially true, not mostly false. But sure enough, derivative “rebuttals” sprang up, dismissing the accusation as a “misquote.”
So the score until last week was Hillary had embarrassed herself and her supporters, then liberal fact checkers handed off their beer so they could one-up her. But now, academics and a liberal newspaper have decided not to let Hillary’s embarrassment die without a fight.
Author Lucia Graves sets the stage mournfully: “Given the opportunity to make history by electing the first female president, women didn’t take it. And ironically, the women who bore the most resemblance to Clinton – white, heterosexual and married – were less likely to vote for her.” Graves rehearses Clinton’s theory of tremendous manpressuring and concedes “people might scoff at the idea that women vote based on what husbands and fathers tell them to do.” But, she assures us, “Social science backs up Clinton’s anecdotal hunch.”
Graves hands the microphone over to Kelsy Kretschmer, an assistant professor of public policy at Oregon State University. Kretschmer coauthored a study on women’s voting patterns. The study confirms the long observed fact that married women tend to vote more conservatively than single women. So far so good, but here, the pressure hypotheses—and any support for Clinton—falls apart.
The elephant in the room is women’s perception of their own interests. “’Just being married makes women more conservative in their vote choice,’” Kretchmer explains.“Individually speaking, such voting behavior is more rational than it may sound,” Graves concedes. Then she starts warming up her humor. “The key distinction, according to Kretschmer’s research, is that single women tend to cast votes with the fate of all women in mind, while women married to men vote on behalf of their husbands and families.”
Got that? Single women vote for womenkind. Married women vote for husbands and kids. The first thing to observe is that there’s no suggestion of “tremendous pressure” from anyone, just different women’s priorities in voting. The second thing to observe is that Graves and Kretchner conflate a handful of liberal issues–expansive abortion, equal pay (which has been the law of the land for decades), more aggressive employment litigation—with women’s interest as a whole, and dismiss other concerns that are perfectly rational motivations for women voters.
Their anecdotal coup de grace is telling:
A college-educated woman identifying as a liberal Democrat confided to Kretschmer – not wanting to be identified, as a Trump voter – that she had voted for him over Clinton because her husband’s job depends on the coal industry; she saw Trump as the candidate that would protect it, and by extension her family’s economic interests. Kretschmer called her story “the clearest, most heartbreaking validation of our article that I had ever heard.”
Again, there was no reported pressure or arm twisting. There was simply a self-described liberal woman voting for the candidate who promised to protect her family’s livelihood over the candidate who cackled she was “going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”
 It would be more accurate to say Kretschmer’s study indicates married women are more likely to vote for policies that support strong economic opportunity and family security, than they are to vote for the Hubby State envisioned by President Obama’s animated Julia character. Recall Julia is an apparently single mother who credits her life successes from childhood to old age to a series of government programs. Married women vote more conservative. Single women vote more liberal.
Sorry, but Hillary’s self-serving theory is still hanging out there looking stupid.
Page 5 of 37« First...34567...102030...Last »