Posse Incitatus

A Very Trumpy Thanksgiving

On Thanksgiving Day I made a point of looking past politics, but today I'm going to embrace them.

I must do this because the Trumpening leaves me know choice.

Long-time readers know Trump wasn't my ideal candidate, but I felt (and now feel even more strongly) that his unique talents made him the man for this moment in history.

Since his election, we have been given an embarrassing riches of victories, but the most important is that he has brought a level of clarity to our politics that has been lacking for many years.

In no particular order, these are the things we have learned during the post-election season thanks to President-Elect Donald J. Trump:

• Conservatism, Inc. is a racket.  I used to think that National Review, The Weekly Standard and other Establishment Conservative publications were independent, thought-driven magazines.  Thanks to the Trumpening, we all know they are nothing more than tax-sheltered gigs for the controlled opposition - tame token righties willing to bend the knee (with varying levels of enthusiasm, to be sure) to the liberal behemoth.  I've beaten these guys up plenty of times, but I doubt I will ever get tired of it.  Suffice to say that it came as a rude awakening to learn that writers I once respected (Jonah Goldberg, Kevin Williamson) have revealed that they will vote in lockstep with NBC News - and use the exact same logic to explain it.
• The ongoing college campus madness is being driven by administrators, not students.  This is comforting on so many levels.  It means that once removed from the toxic environment, even the most rabid cry-bullies have a chance at a decent life.  The fact that "feminist studies" departments are actually paying students to protest (illegally, of course) gives the game away.  The most zealous SJW are in fact nothing more than confused hirelings, doing what they think will please their new authority figures.  With Trump now running the show, that carnival of crazy can come to an end.
• It is better to be feared than loved and the world is terrified of Trump.  Has there ever been a more stark demonstration of this truth?  Barack Obama was so loved by the "global community" that they handed him a Nobel Prize just for getting elected.  We all know how that worked out.  Trump may or may not be the next Hitler (let's just say I'm highly doubtful) but it is worth recalling that the real Hitler did fairly well in foreign policy.  (So did Mussolini.)  International relations are about projecting strength and the US still has tremendous reserves of it.  Trump seems like he might actually do something and now everyone wants to make a deal.  Marvelous.
• The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise and it hates the working classes.  When I was growing up, there was a sense that the Democrats were the party of labor and the Republicans were the party of capital.  Democrats seemed interested in working conditions, fair (not free) trade and ensuring that American workers weren't overwhelmed by foreign immigrants.  None of that is true.  They've also thrown away any claim to popular support by openly rigging their primary in favor of a rich kleptocratic family.  Good to know.
• Liberalism has zero principles.  This dovetails with my previous point, but is worth breaking out on its own.  This whole recount business (and attempts to subvert the Electoral College) pretty much prove that liberals favor whatever gives them an advantage but only so long as they get that advantage.  To paraphrase the old saw about British diplomacy, "liberals have no permanent principles, only permanent interests."  This how they could dump feminism and support likely rapist Bill Clinton but then pay the "woman card" for his enabling wife.  Trump was castigated for not promising to unconditionally accept the election results, but now Hillary is doing just that.
• Liberalism isn't a mental illness, but it attracts people who are mentally ill.  There is a certain attraction to being part of a moment that hails itself as the solution to every problem.  Actual conservatism doesn't offer that - it's kind of a muddle and many of its policies are sold as the least-worst-option out there.  Not so with liberalism.  Everything they urge will bring heaven on earth.  Because of this, anyone who opposes them can be abused, beaten and even killed - and it's an wholly moral act!  After all, the person deserved it because they were racist.  Harming racists is a moral duty to liberals, which is why they spend so much time labeling people racists and then hounding them.  If you are a deeply unhappy and frustrated individual who has made a mess of your personal life, conservatism has nothing to offer you.  Liberalism, on the other hand, allows you to project everything wrong with your life on someone else. 

That's all I have for now.  I'm sure there will be more winning in the future.

A Vicious Tyrant is Dead

My co-blogger acknowledged how extremely difficult it is to show mercy, something we Christians are called to do, especially when it applies to a murderous thug like Fidel Castro. Let me join K.N. McBride in admitting that I have had many unChristian-like thoughts and feelings about Castro, who died late Friday night after years of declining health.

Like his revolutionary cohort, Che Guevara, Castro was a cruel, ruthless thug who tortured and executed untold people, and kept thousands of poor souls locked up in rat-infested hellhole prisons. I won't attempt to recount his many atrocities, but one that still haunts me to this day is the 1994 slaughter of 42 Cuban men, women and children who were trying to escape Cuba in the 13 de Marzo tugboat.

Twelve children, including one just 6 months old, died when the Cuban coast guard deliberately rammed the tugboat, causing it to split and take on water. They also opened fire on the occupants with fire hoses. A few survivors who attempted to hold on for dear life swimming and struggling to stay afloat ended up drowning when the coast guard vessel circled around them, creating a whirlpool. This is heartless and merciless, but it's par for the course for the execrable Castro.

Aside from torturing, brutalizing and executing those who dared speak out against his evil regime, or even those suspected of crimes against the state based on flimsy evidence, Castro presided over a horrendous healthcare system and a basket-case economy. Food shortages, rationing and inferior products, plus dead-end, low wage jobs were what beaten-down Cuban citizens dealt with on a daily basis.

It is beyond pathetic that the economy has been so miserable, most who can afford to own a car can only obtain a beat up 1950s sedan (without air conditioning, no doubt...even an AM radio might be a bonus!). Many of Cuba's homes do not have air conditioning, and even major buildings in the capital city of Havana -- often beautiful architecturally -- have deteriorated into a shabby condition.

It is telling that President Obama's statement regarding Castro's death was an inane, pitiful reaction full of platitudes about extending a hand of friendship, working together, thoughts, prayers and condolences with the Cuban people, blah-blah...

Here's an excerpt:

"...We know that this moment fills Cubans – in Cuba and in the United States – with powerful emotions, recalling the countless ways in which Fidel Castro altered the course of individual lives, families, and of the Cuban nation. History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him...."

What utter tripe! Barry the Alinskyite never met a commie he didn't love!

Contrast that with Donald Trump's blunt statement, which was hard-hitting and, in my view, spot on:

"...Fidel Castro's legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights. While Cuba remains a totalitarian island, it is my hope that today marks a move away from the horrors endured for too long, and toward a future in which the wonderful Cuban people finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve...."

Right on! It is sober reality-checks like this that excite me about the great possibilities of Trump's upcoming presidency following eight dispiriting, divisive years of economic stagnation, misguided foreign policy, cultural rot, worsening race relations and class warfare -- all perpetrated by an arrogant, self-absorbed narcissist.

I'm sorry, but Fidel Castro was an evil, cruel, vicious and ruthless thug with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I will not pray for his soul, and I will not feel guilty contemplating the very real possibility that he's suffering now, as I type, for the monstrous barbarities he inflicted on so many people for so many years.

If that makes me much less than an ideal Christian, so be it.

 

The Pope, Fidel Castro and forgiveness

It's funny how news can take you by surprise.  I had planned on writing about all the amazing things that have happened since Donald Trump's election and - what do you know! - Fidel Castro drops dead.

Is there no limit to what the Trumpening can bring?

I see that Drudge has taken his obligatory swipe at Pope Francis, as usual using a tart headline from someone else to do it.

The implication that there's something wrong about the Pope praying for an atheist may score points in some circles, but only among those with a profound misunderstanding of how forgiveness works.

Pope Francis contains multitudes.  One minute he seems to be embracing the worst stereotypes of Jesuit Marxism, the next minute he staunchly defends doctrine regarding male clergy and the evil of abortion.

In terms of his dealings with Castro, I think His Holiness sincerely hoped the Cuban dictator would make a public reversion (he was baptized Catholic back in the day) and ask for forgiveness.  It would have been a powerful moment, a modern equivalent to Henry IV standing in the snow at Canossa.

At a time when the Church's teachings are under unceasing progressive assault, how striking would be for the most culturally hip living Marxist to publicly repent of his crimes.

The two spoke together and Castro may well have hinted that he would consider it.

The other day, I was part of a group discussion about forgiveness, and the question was broached as to whether some sins were too great for God to forgive.  Of course the answer is "no," and the example I gave was that if Josef Stalin on his deathbed suddenly repented and offered sincere and complete contrition before life left him, would he be saved?

According to Church teachings, yes.  I remarked that this would be hard for us to accept because of the millions of people he tormented and killed.  Our own sense of justice demands that he burn in hell.

The same applies to Castro.  People rejoice at his death and no doubt many (particularly on the right) hope that his stay in the Inferno is particularly unpleasant.  For the Pope to publicly express sorrow seems utterly wrongheaded.  So much so, that many people will use the Pope's sorrow as proof of his unfitness for the Throne of St. Peter rather than considering their own failings.

Forgiveness is hard, probably the hardest thing there is.  I'm crappy at it and freely admit it.  I can't actually bring myself to type the words "rest in peace" in association with Fidel Castro because I don't want him to find peace.  I could put that in this blog, but it would be a lie, which to me only compounds the sin.

So I can't help but admire someone who can sincerely mean it.  Then again, that's why he's the Pope and I'm not.

BONUS POLITICAL TAKE:  Sorry to lower the discussion, but I also have to say that Obama is really, really going to relish the opportunity to attend Castro's state funeral and eulogize the dictator.  His speech writers are no doubt already at work trying to figure out how they can put backhanded swipes at the US in the text just to piss of the people who dared to ruin his legacy.  I'm bad at forgiveness, but I can't hold a candle to our Grudge-Holder in Chief.

All About Guns: Universal Carry

One of the rhetorical tricks often used by gun control advocates is to liken firearms ownership to that of a car.

"We license cars," they say, "so why not require gun owners to get a license to own them, too?"

The argument is deeply flawed, but it does point to some interesting contradictions in how we regulate various activities.

The key flaw is that there is no Constitutional right to drive a car or an established natural (or human) right to use any form of transportation.  Over the years our society has recognized an implied "right of free movement," but that doesn't extend to a right to use any means of transportation you choose.

By contrast, the right to effective self-defense is a recognized basic human right that is enshrined not only in the federal but also many state constitutions.  It's a crucial difference.  Still, let's look at the analogy a little closer.

Drivers licenses are pretty easy to obtain.  People can (and do) lose their licenses and they also get them back. 

You don't actually need a license to buy a car, nor do you have to report its purchase unless you want to drive it on a public highway.  In fact, if you don't mind the legal risk, you can drive a car without a license (just check the news - happens all the time).

Cars are useful, but also dangerous.  More people are killed in car accidents than are killed by guns.  Lots more.  We could probably reduce these fatalities by requiring stricter licensing standards and regular vehicle inspections (which other countries do), but there's no popular support for it.  The most that has happened is that some states put additional restrictions on younger drivers.

Speaking of younger drivers, in most states you can drive with a learner's permit at age 15 and become licensed at 16.  Think about that:   Our society makes it perfectly legal for a 16-year-old to purchase and operate a vehicle that can weigh well over a ton and hurtle it down the highway at 75 miles and hour, but that same person is deemed to irresponsible to buy a bottle of beer.

A car is far more dangerous than a gun and (as we saw in France), a truck can be a lethal terrorist weapon, yet unlike guns, there is no organized, well-funded lobby calling for "car control."

Another interesting thing about cars:  The license is recognized as valid in every state.  If you live in New York, your license is still valid in Hawaii or anywhere else in the country.

Why is that?  The obvious answer is convenience.  Imagine having to drive from metro Detroit to visit family in Kentucky.  The shortest route is to take I-75 south.

But what if your Michigan license wasn't valid in Ohio?  At that point you'd have to either risk a traffic stop or go through Indiana to get to your destination, adding hours to your journey.

If it sounds improbable, that was the exact situation concealed pistol licensees faced not long ago.  Michigan's carry permit was valid in Kentucky and Indiana (among other states) but not Ohio.   It was a stupid and senseless situation that has since been remedied.

But there remain states that continue this nonsense.  New Jersey infamously went after a nurse who thought her Pennsylvania carry permit was valid in the state.

Thankfully, sanity prevailed, but the incident highlight how strict gun laws basically turn otherwise law-abiding people into criminals. 

This is what 'universal carry' would prevent.  Most "gun crimes" are paperwork offenses - non-violent situations where someone simply ran afoul of a confusing array of federal, state and local regulations that serve no purpose other than to keep the prisons full and the prosecutors busy.

Once a person obtains a concealed carry license, they have demonstrated that they are responsible and law abiding.  Repressive states like New Jersey should have no authority to detain or arrest people who simply want to visit or transit their state while having the means to defend themselves.

President-elect Trump campaigned on universal carry and hopefully he will see it through.

 

The joy of thankfulness

This morning I contemplated writing a post about all the great things the Trumpening has brought, and how thankful I am for it.

Upon reflection I decided to take a break from politics and concentrate on the smaller things that get overlooked - family, friends and the fact that despite everything, Americans still live in the safest, most prosperous society in history.

It's easy to lose sight of that when you focus on all the things you don't have or all the wrongs you think you've suffered.

Here at the ranch, our feast was joyous and peaceful, and we hope the same is true for all our readers.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Secession then and now - or - Why "Calexit" is a crock

I’ve just started reading Bruce Catton’s Centennial History of the Civil War and as I burrow into its erudite pages, I can’t help but notice how completely different things are now from what they were in 1860.

Yes, everyone likes to say that people are more divided now than any time since then, but it’s total crap.  Most people have a historical memory that stretches almost back to high school.   A very few may have been aware of politics when they were younger and an even tinier minority actually has studied history enough to have a feel for life before they were born.

But on the whole, “worst situation ever” generally means “worst situation for me since 12^th Grade.”

As a public service, I’m going to outline some of the most glaring differences so that some small portion of the blogosphere might gain perspective.

1.  A vote for a candidate is not a declaration of unlimited support

In 1860, secession was a frequent topic of discussion.  The Democrat Party had split and people openly said that the presidential campaign was a referendum on the Union itself.

Nothing like that happened this year.  Neither candidate was particularly loved, and a lot of people closed their eyes as they pulled the lever.

To then extrapolate that these coin-toss voters are now willing to go to war to support their reluctant choice is utterly insane.

2. There is no slavery

This is of course the biggest difference between then and now.  Slavery was not only a moral issue, it was also an economic one as well.  The South’s economy was almost completely dependent on slave labor to produce its cash crops.  Every Southern politician had some level of dependence upon the Peculiar Institution.  I know that it’s fashionable these days to declare that the Civil War wasn’t caused by slavery, but it was and they said so back at the time.  This isn’t Yankee historical revisionism, it’s a cold hard fact.

Abolishing slavery would destroy the planter economy, undermine the independent farmers (who would now be competing with freed slaves for jobs) and upend Southern society. 

“States’ Rights” was the rallying cry, but this was the one they were all talking about, and it was the failure of the northern Democrats to unconditionally guarantee slavery that split the party.

3.  Sectionalism was far worse than it is now

We like to speak of “red America” and “blue America,” but the dividing lines are actually very fluid.  Donald Trump’s electoral win is proof of this.  He won for many different reasons, but the biggest one was that people split their tickets, particularly in Michigan.  Trump appealed to a portion of the Democrat base that was completely ignored by the Clinton campaign. 

It is not difficult to imagine Trump losing the Midwest if his administration fails, nor is it hard to imagine it expanding the map into Minnesota, Nevada, Colorado and even perhaps Illinois if his policies bring strong economic growth – particularly in the inner cities.

The point is that the current divide in the US is generally one based on current economic and social factors, not entrenched ones.

In 1860, things were much more rigid.  “Free soil” states didn’t have much in common socially or economically with slave states.  While we also have some geographic divisions, people of differing opinions are far more intermingled.  Democrats cluster in urban enclaves while the suburbs and rural areas support Republicans.  The maps may look brightly colored when sorted by state and county, but it really is a house-by-house division for a lot of areas.

Back in the day, the boundaries were much clearer.

In addition, the sense of local pride was much greater because they were so new.  Most states were less than a half-century old, which meant that the people living in them took particular pride in the new entity. 

They (or their parents) were charter members, and so loyalty to a state was much greater.

Though it may seem strange to us now, individual states actually had citizenship requirements.  Ulysses S. Grant, who was stationed in Michigan, famously declined to apply for it when he was stationed at Fort Wayne (in Detroit) as he had no desire to be associated with Michigan.

There is nothing even close to that now.  Obviously, the citizenship thing is gone, and people set their residence based almost entirely on economic concerns, specifically taxation and jobs.

4.  People used to be a lot more violent

This may come as a shock, but those costume dramas of ladies in fancy dresses and men in top hats aren’t entirely correct.  The US was a very violent place, with mobs, brawls and duels being if not common, certainly nothing extraordinary.

People took honor seriously and anyone offering an insult could expect a fight.  This applied even in the halls of Congress, where pocket pistols were commonplace.  Bruce Catton quotes one wag as saying “the only members without a pistol and a knife were carrying two pistols.”

Remember, this was an age when low-level warfare raged in Kansas and along the western frontier.  Every community had a militia and while they may have been more of a social organization than a military one, the people in them were definitely familiar with firearms.

Contrast that with today’s society when a good chunk of the country are abjectly terrified of guns – so much so that they want them banned entirely.

It’s hard to raise an army when no one on your side has ever touched a gun.

5.  The national parties are just that – national

A key development in the road to war was the collapse of the Democrats as a national party in 1860.  Despite every effort to hold the northern and southern wings together, the split was irreconcilable.

Imagine that Bernie Sanders refuses to accept Hillary’s nomination and instead walks out of the Democrat National Convention.  Imagine the entire delegations of several states follow him and that they set up shop in a nearby arena.

That’s how deeply divided things were.

Also recall that the population was distributed in such a way that the Republicans could win the Electoral College without carrying (or even campaigning in!) a single southern state.

The GOP may be weak on the West Coast, but it’s still there and the Dems still have to work to hold onto their gains.

Finally, because the parties are both national, the Dems who aren’t based on the West Coast are desperately opposed to losing those states.  Without California, Oregon and Washington, the Democrats would basically be destroyed as a political force in the national capital.  The Democrat leadership knows this and that’s why they would never agree.

To put it another way, can anyone see Nancy Pelosi resigning her seat in Congress for a gig in California's state legislature?  Didn't think so.

6.  California is an economic and fiscal basket case

One of the often-overlooked features of the 19^th Century was that public debt was frowned upon and therefore rare.  Today it’s almost considered mandatory – particularly in Democrat-run areas.

California may still boast a large economy, but its debts are equally large.  Implicit in that debt is the notion that if things get really bad, the feds will bail them out.

An independent California would immediately turn into Greece on the Pacific, needing massive infusions of cash from the IMF to remain solvent.  Its currency would likely collapse as the government tried to inflate its way out of its debts.

7.  Seceding states would themselves break up

The red/blue divide is not neatly geographically separated.  Typically you have a deep blue urban core surrounded by purple suburbs and then red rural areas.

If a state like California tried to split off, those rural areas would themselves slit away.  This is what happened with Virginia in 1860 and how West Virginia came to be.

The same dynamic (complete with mountains!) would happen on the West Coast.  The coastal areas may want to leave, but the inland areas wouldn’t.  Even along the coast there are enclaves of people who would choose to remain.  How would the lines be drawn?

In conclusion, it’s a fun thought experiment when you are pissed about losing an election, but one may as well wish for a Unicorn Air Cavalry to come and destroy your enemies.

Doubling Down on Stupid

The Democrat party used to be regarded as a champion for the struggling working man -- the "little guy" or "Joe Six-pack;" the perennial underdog. But over the past 15 years or so, that description has become grossly inaccurate.

Environmental extremists, trial lawyers, left wing consultancies, gay rights advocates, teachers' unions, Planned Parenthood...all of these groups have hijacked the Democrat Party and turned it into a kaleidoscope of often conflicting special interests.

At the same time, the party has come to rely greatly on campaign contributions from Wall Street banks and investment firms, while also catering to loony extremists of the entertainment industry. It's become cliche that whenever there is an awards ceremony -- Oscars, Grammys, Tony Awards, etc. -- many of the honorees as well as the master of ceremonies use their time in the spotlight to lash out petulantly at Republican presidents and Republicans in general.

And while millions of struggling Americans want a thriving economy, affordable health care and good jobs but instead find anemic GDP growth, stagnant wages and a plethora of part-time, low-wage jobs, the Democrat Party seems more concerned with other matters. You know, things like transgendered bathrooms, free condoms and birth control pills, solar and wind power and abusing the federal government to harass conservatives.

The fact is, the party of FDR, JFK and Harry Truman has become the party of Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Harry Reid, Alan Grayson and Dick Durbin. But incredibly, after losing an election they thought they had in the bag, largely because Madame Clinton didn't have a coherent or inspiring economic message and the party showed no empathy to the working class in the heartland, the Democrats are doubling down on extremism.

The Democrats plan to make extremist Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota their new chairman. Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Nation of Islam and racist Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan. He is obviously no friend to Jews or Israel.

The fact is, tens of millions of Americans don't want Muslims coming into this country who have no intent of assimilating, and who hold views that are contradictory to our nation's traditional pluralism. They correctly believe that it is nearly impossible to vet many Middle Eastern immigrants coming from corrupt, war-torn nations such as Syria, and thus a real possibility that some terrorists will slip through the cracks. To Ellison and his ilk, these Americans, whose beliefs are totally mainstream and reasonable, are xenophobic bigots -- members of Hillary's infamous "basket of deplorables." He's nuts, but to the Orwellian Democrats, up is down, down is up, black is white and white is black. They're nuts, too, you see.

Keith Ellison for DNC Chairman? You've got to be kidding. Truth is stranger than fiction, they say. This latest gambit must be going over real well with unemployed steelworkers in Pennsylvania, coal miners in West Virginia and laid off factory laborers in Michigan. The Democrats have a tendency to overreach to outrageous extremes. Quite simply, that's because progressivesm is like a cancer, and sadly, it has metastacized  in the body public.

Heckuva Job, Democrats!

Beware McConnell and Ryan!

As I become more aware of Donald Trump's personality, accomplishments, work ethic and management skills, my confidence grows that he can do great things for our nation.

Admittedly, I was put off by his brash personality and narcissism in the early days of the Republican primaries, ca. summer and fall of 2015. I was not impressed by the way he sometimes speaks inelegantly -- possibly even incoherently. I wrote some critical things about him, and called him names. But my opinion of "Orange Julius," as I like to call him, has changed for the better.

Eventually it dawned on me: CONTEXT! Trump was raised in the New York City borough of Queens. He has dealt for decades with tough customers from New York and elsewhere. As a builder and real estate magnate, he has coordinated logistics, labor contracts, purchasing, real estate transactions, finances and a slew of other components that go into completing major projects in the Big Apple.

I recently heard someone describing how difficult it is to oversee a construction project in Manhattan, given the congestion, hideous traffic and narrow streets. For example, a skyscraper requires that metal I-beams and girders be transported to the job site by flatbed trucks. Cranes must remove and place the steel superstructure pieces. Other materials and services -- wallboard, tiles, woodwork, insulation, electrical, plumbing, carpentry, HVAC -- all must be coordinated.

Fresh concrete, delivered by trucks that somehow have to arrive punctually despite the traffic snags (middle of the night, anyone?) must be timed precisely, or delays and even failure could result.

So far, I have been speaking about the tangible components. There are also fiscal, economic, bureaucratic, political and environmental  considerations. Donald Trump certainly cannot be the shallow, petulant, immature, bombastic train wreck his critics have alleged he is, or he would not have so successfully navigated these treacherous waters. And as many have noted, his children turned out pretty darned good, which says a lot about him.

Trump has an ambitious agenda that includes cutting corporate and personal tax rates, halting the flood of illegal immigrants pouring across our borders, appointing conservative Supreme Court justices, implementing school choice in urban areas, and repealing/replacing Obamacare.

There will be no more Harry Reid to stand in his way come 2017, but the new Senate Minority Leader, Charles (Chucky) Schumer, will do his best to throw a monkey wrench into The Donald's plans. But that's to be expected. What Trump must beware of is that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan will water down his proposals and suck up to the discredited Democrats in another futile attempt to curry favor with the corrupt media and earn praise and respect from the Demagogues.

These two guys are not trustworthy. Trump and his people need to read the riot act to them from the get-go, and the administration must make hay while the sun shines. There is a window of opportunity to pass significant legislation in the first few months, before political capital wears off and the media and left-wing attack dogs sharpen their attacks. If Ryan and McConnell try to stand in the way (and Lord knows, both caved in to Obama way too often), they must be targeted for defeat ASAP.

To paraphrase the line from "The Godfather," keep your friends close, but keep McConnell & Ryan closer.

 

 

 

Are we on the brink of a firearms recession?

The election of Donald Trump was an occasion for sublime joy here at the Posse, and one we still like to bask in.  There are simply so many simple yet effective things that the president-elect can do to safeguard Americans and improve the economy that we cannot easily list them.

However, there is a potential negative development lurking out there:  A firearms recession.

Despite its fanatical devotion to the cult of gun control, the Democrats (and President Obama in particular) have done yeoman's work over the last eight years in selling firearms.  Every time President Pen and Phone threatens executive action, a new sales record is set.

Support for gun control has never been lower, yet Hillary Clinton doubled down on it during her doomed election bid.  Many factors led to her defeat, but that was surely one of them.

In the run-up to the election, firearms sales surged.  The wait time for an "instant background check" went from minutes to hours.  Gun stores offered "last chance" sales and even I decided to hedge my bets by purchasing an AR before prices spiked - which they surely would have done if Herself had gotten elected.

But now the landscape has changed.  The GOP is firmly in control and the self-defense lobby is the one group they fear even more than right-to-lifers.

Given the incredible pace of sales over the last few years, it is entirely likely that the market will need to pause and catch its breath. 

In short, was was a seller's market will likely now become more friendly for buyers.  Not only guns but ammunition (which has been steadily falling in price already) will probably become much cheaper.

The financial market are aware of this.  As news of the Trumpening spread, Smith and Wesson stock dropped 14 percent.

While it has recovered somewhat, it is still below its pre-election values.

We at the Posse with nothing but the best for our favorite manufacturers, but we will also enjoy an opportunity to pick up some bargains. 

Ignorance on the Left

They just don't teach government, history or civics very well these days in our schools and universities. Consequently, millions of Americans -- especially the young, but also middle-aged folk -- do not comprehend the genius of the Electoral College.

As we know, many leftists act like petulant children when they can't get their way. In recent days, shameful riots, looting and vandalism, plus assaults on Trump supporters, have occurred from coast to coast. Who knows how long it will take for things to settle down.

But among leftists who at least don't throw rocks and hold up signs like this, there is a movement to abolish the Electoral College and instead elect presidents through the popular vote. Millions have signed on with the National Popular Vote Compact. Shockingly, even some conservatives and Republicans are among their ranks.

It goes like this: The United States was never established to be a direct democracy. We are a constitutional republic, and hence citizens elect people to represent their wishes. Imagine if we had to go to the polls every time a policy decision needed to be made -- on the defense budget, taxes, tariffs, Supreme Court justices, EPA regulations, etc. This is unworkable, to say the least.

Just as congressional representatives and senators represent us (or are supposed to) in Washington, D.C., with the Senate guaranteeing each state equal representation regardless of its population, the presidential electors also vote on behalf of the entire nation.

The electors ensure that even the least populated, most rural and desolate state has a say in who our president will be. And the system protects states' sovereignty -- the notion that each state is its own entity unless the U.S. Constitution says otherwise. (See the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.")

As it stands, certain states such as California and New York, with 55 and 29 electoral votes, respectively, are off limits to Republican presidential candidates, while other states are generally off limits to Democrat candidates (most notably Texas, with 38 electoral votes). So candidates can ignore portions of the country while campaigning, and not pay much attention to them once elected.

A popular vote would promote a poisonous factionalism that's even worse than the status quo, believe it or not. Once Democrats continue to push unbridled immigration to the point that a few major red states turn blue, it's all over. Large swaths of the country would not be represented by the president. Not only would presidential candidates refuse to campaign in the likes of Idaho, South Dakota, Nebraska, et al, they would turn a deaf ear to the needs of those states once they were elected.

Do you want the East and West coasts to run roughshod over "flyover country," as the liberal elites like to refer to the American heartland? The Founding Fathers, in their great wisdom, were aware of this danger and wanted to prevent it from happening.

Someone gave a good analogy on the radio the other day: Suppose the New York Yankees beat the Los Angeles Dodgers in a World Series, 4 games to 3. The Dodgers won their 3 games by scores of 10-1, 5-0 and 12-2. The Yankees won their 4 games by scores of 3-2, 2-1, 2-0 and 1-0. In total runs scored during the seven-game Series, L.A. clobbered New York, 30-11. But the Yankees won 4 games, and that's what really counts.

As an aside, I think it is highly likely that at least 2-3 million of the votes for Hillary Clinton were fraudulent ballots cast by illegal aliens. The Democrats wrote the book on election fraud, and it is well-known that big city Democrat machines can get the results they are seeking by, shall we say, finessing the vote.

Finally, it is instructive to note liberals' selective preference for the popular vote. Recall that about 30 states had adopted constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex marriages. But the U.S. Supreme Court overruled them in its landmark 2015 decision, Obergefell V. Hodges. And let's not forget that about 70 percent of the country opposed Obamacare, knowing full well it was poorly written and would prove disastrous. But that didn't stop the arrogant asses of the Democrat Congress from ram-rodding this piece of garbage down our throats.

A little critical thinking, not to mention a better education, would go a long way toward helping millions of misguided souls.