Posts Tagged ‘Republicans’


January 6, 2021

Well, it’s come to pass. The day started badly with the Republicans’ apparent extraordinary loss of the Senate with the addition of two far-left entries to the ruling class. Then, to make matters worse, idiotic right-wing rioters (not due to make an appearance for weeks to months by my flawed prediction) gave the Left the ammunition it needed to label all Republicans/Trump supporters/conservatives as alt-right supporters of violence and a threat to democracy. Not that they haven’t been doing it already, just that they now have a real-world event to support their straw man stereotype. And they’re now in power. The last, unstable thread holding the nation together ironically may be Democrat Joe Manchin, who has committed himself to defending the filibuster and preventing court-packing. Otherwise we can expect two new blue states and 15 Supreme Court justices.

I’ve reached the conclusion there’s only one way out of this mess: I’m hereby ratifying the establishment of the United States of Puro. Since it doesn’t make sense to re-invent the wheel, I’m going to adopt the Constitution of the former United States of America, but institute a few changes.

  • In my country, installing anti-white racism as a cure for perceived or real anti-black racism is illegal.
  • Employing citizens in the government or private sector based on skin color, ethnicity, or sexual preference rather than competence is illegal.
  • Using the term equity in place of equality of opportunity or employing policies that promote equity at the expense of equal opportunity is illegal. Furthermore, all equity positions will be investigated to assure that public or private corruption is not at play.
  • Government subsidies are illegal.
  • Government bribery is illegal.
  • Terms of office exceeding three are illegal.
  • Legislation longer than 10 pages and that cannot be understood by someone with a 10th grade education or that contains items unrelated to the bill’s purpose is illegal.
  • Insider trading by public or private officials is illegal.
  • Programs that purport to combat prejudice by providing unearned advantages while implying that the recipients are incapable or inferior are illegal.
  • Laws that abrogate the right to own weapons of self defense are illegal.
  • Suspension of the right of free speech in the public or private domain, regardless of content, is illegal, if no call to violence is expressed.
  • The terms “microaggression” and “hate speech is violence” are illegal.
  • The term “diversity” can only be used in the context of ideas; it is otherwise illegal.

The boundaries of the United States of Puro at present only extend to the borders of my property. In the event of invasion, expect bodily injury. However, competent workers of any color, ethnicity or sexual preference are welcome here. If you wish to apply for citizenship, sorry, but our borders are currently closed. However, if you wish to open a country of your own, I’m open to free trade.

I’m signing off now to compose my national anthem. God bless.


October 5, 2020

An article was forwarded to me by a friend predicting the low likelihood of major violence post election based on his research. Putting aside the evident but low-key political bias of the piece, it makes an attempt to inject some objectivity into something that is inherently speculative. I also think it’s wrong.

Predicting the future is a hazardous enterprise for anyone at any time (just look at the 2016 presidential election). That being said, it’s important to dig down below the superficial political animus to the values of the citizens if you want to get close to the mark. Analogies have been made to the unrest of the 1960s and the 1860s in attempting to extrapolate. Admittedly I’m influenced by the work of William Strauss and Neil Howe in The Fouth Turning and I view the 1960s as a period of Awakening and the 1860s as a more serious period similar to the present, a Crisis. Neither resulted in the dissolution of the Union. Neither accurately represents the present state of affairs, however.

It’s important to note that dynasties (the empires of Alexander, Ottoman, Rome, to name a few), even very stable ones, do not last forever, although those living within them at the time all share the illusion of permanence. What generally ends them is mismanagement born of a change in, or non-adherence to, the values that led them to succeed, causing them to disintegrate from within. In our case, the Founders, with unprecedented historical astuteness, developed a Constitution, designed to anticipate and ameliorate the forces constantly in play aiming to destroy the values upon which the country was based. As outlined in the Declaration of Independence, they are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The country was founded on the principle of rights granted by God, not government; they incorporated proscriptions to limit federal power over the states (it was also essential to getting it passed). Hence, they constructed a democratic republic and not a democracy. They recognized that tyranny of the majority was no better than tyranny of a monarchy.

Over the past few decades, the Left, via masterful commandeering of the educational system and the heretofore monolithic media have pushed the worn siren call of socialism effectively. A sizable portion of the country (we’re about to learn if it’s more than half) has accepted the notion of equality of outcome over equality of opportunity, and the concept of institutionalized racism as the founding principle and white privilege as its result. They’ve also moved from E Pluribus Unum (from many, one) to the concepts of diversity and intersectionality. These are divisive, not unifying principles; no country can survive widescale acceptance of these destructive doctrines.

Given the above, I predict the following with a Trump win: The protests and violence will continue and likely intensify, becoming more multicentric, requiring more police, military and National Guard intervention. Barring a shift in values, over the next decade or two we will start hearing state calls for secession. If Biden wins, a doubling down on the Leftist policies whose effects over time can be gauged by looking at the present state of the big cities will move the government more toward a socialist paradigm, the Constitution will be progressively weakened, the economy slowed by increased regulations, and the growth of the federal government accelerated. Democracy will be increased at the expense of republicanism in the political sense, with attacks on representative mechanisms such as the electoral college intensifying. Federal agencies and corporations with assail liberties such as free speech with cancellation, “diversity” training, and racial quotas with more alacrity, heightening the influence of the “mob.” An over-extended, indebted economy weakened by the pandemic will accelerate the malaise. A delayed result will be armed backlash by right-wing groups, at first those that are more extreme (including some execrable white supremacist groups) and, if pushed far enough, ordinary conservative Americans (possibly abetted by effective annulment of the 2nd Amendment by oppressive regulations). Alternatively, conservatives, who are less prone to demonstrate or initiate violence (remember the maligned Tea Party), will withdraw from Left-dominated tools and form their own schools, businesses, sports teams, and social media and we’ll be a divided country, ripe for secessions or outside attack. Disunity took decades to seed and grow; reunification. if it occurs, will likely take as long, barring assault from an external, mutual threat.

There is no Dumbledore or Hogwarts, and no magic wand that can be waved to unify us, no matter who inhabits the White House.


July 6, 2020

Dear Voter:

A very small group of American citizens will be determining the fate of the nation in 4 months. You are one of them. This is not hyperbole. The signs of a terrible rent in the fabric of our society are everywhere. The Democrats have decided to go with the far left version of America, that of a systemically racist nation, built on the backs of slaves, rotten at its core, and in need of fundamental change. The Republicans, weakly in my opinion, support the notion of a sinful past overcome on the back of a nation built on the principles of God-given rights, equal opportunity for all, and a limited government of, by and for a people entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As concerning as the riots, statue disfiguration and destruction, killings, and isolation, with the consent of the governing, by activists of a portion of a major American city are, I see signs of things even more disturbing. This is not tantamount to the Awakening in the ‘60s and is not a “one-off” or a blip, but a sea change. There has been wholesale acceptance of the Democrat narrative by the major corporations, the most recent evidence being the removal by Nike, long a fan of the far left, of all products with the Redskins logo, until the team name is changed. As Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator points out, conservative thought is now counter-culture. Some of you may think this is good. But as corporate actions indicate, this is just a warning shot of the power about to be exerted over your lives. The cultural shift is not limited to race relations. A new video shows BLM marchers protesting; not decrying police brutality, but Israel, as child-killers. But the most disturbing indicator to me is the story of Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the armed St. Luis, MO couple that received national attention for defending their home from angry BLM protesters that entered a private, gated community, possibly forcefully (narratives vary). Fortunately, no shots were fired. The Left’s take on the incident sarcastically complains that it doesn’t matter that the protesters were heading to the Mayor’s house, what matters is that the McCloskeys were afraid— a “boo-hoo” criticism coming, ironically, from a member of the group that invented the idea of feelings over facts and “safe spaces.” Interviews with McCloskey suggest the event was not the benign encounter portrayed by left-leaning sources, and the couple appear to be credible, their account buttressed by the chilling aftermath of multiple death threats, an unreturned 911 call, and multiple private security firms refusing to provide service to the frightened couple. One even recommended that they abandon their home and leave it to be burned. Regardless of your personal take on the incident, what is clear is that the appeasement of violence and abdication of responsibility by our elected officials in concert with the withdrawal of the police (in the wake of their unwarranted wholesale demonization), has led to a mindset that will only lead to more of the same, and eventual injury and death.

I know the Republicans are weak. I know Trump can often be boorish, non-presidential, egotistical, and has a history of sexual immorality. I know you’ve heard ad nauseum the far left descriptions, adopted by the activist media as gospel, of Trump being a racist Nazi myogynist who is mentally incompetent. If you’re undecided, it means you haven’t completely bought the hyperbole. At this stage of devolution, I don’t know that Trump, or anyone for that matter, can patch the social rent, or even the ailing, COVID-ridden economy. I do know that changing leadership to a party that has adopted a far left agenda that is dividing the country with a narrative that is demonstrably false, and is catalyzing the burning down of the country both literally and figuratively, will only hasten its demise. Changing from a president who has proven track record of energizing the economy to one that will assuredly adopt the failed economic policies of more aggressive and wanton spending and taxing at a time of maximal financial distress is like following lemmings over a cliff.

So I ask you to look closely at what is unfolding, and realize that none of us is immune. I implore you to hold your nose if you must and give the current leadership 4 more years. We may still hemorrhage, with an uncertain prognosis, but it’s better than a head shot, and maybe we’ll buy enough time to locate a tourniquet in the interim.

Or, to buy a gun.


A truly frightened conservative


February 11, 2018

OK, the title of this rant is an exaggeration; we haven’t been solvent in decades. Still, I’m sick and tired of hearing about the need for our ruling class to “compromise.” What it gets us is a two-year, $400 billion spending bill that increased the federal debt by more than $1 trillion. The bill passed in the Senate 71-28, with 16 Republicans and 11 Democrats voting nay. In the House it passed 167-73 (56%-43%), with 57 Republicans and 119 Democrats voting nay. Rand Paul stood up to protest, and irritated his colleagues. Per Jeff Crouere, writing in an op-ed for Townhall, “Senators of both parties were left fuming, with most of their ire directed toward Paul.”

Well, Paul, I’ll stand with you. Compromise is like telling someone who makes $80,000 and carries $100,000 of debt while spending another $100,000 per annum that he’s really got to cut his spending to $90,000—someday. But for the next couple of years, at least keep it to $110,000, okay?

Everyone agrees we should cut spending. Few believe we must actually do it. It’s too hard.

It’s easier to focus on the reputed imminent demise of the planet than imminent demise of the economy. I’ve heard the arguments that the burgeoning debt is “no big deal” and arguments that it will sort itself out (unfortunately, the living are not the ones that will be doing the sorting). Some believe this can go on forever. While I believe sane people can argue all day where the spending cuts need to occur, the idea that we can drift on into eternity borrowing, overspending and overprinting is delusional, and history bears this out (in case you haven’t noticed, we’re not speaking Latin).

It’s now clearer than ever that there exists not a progressive and a conservative party, but a more progressive and less progressive one.

The definition of insanity is doing the same think over and over again and expecting a different outcome” may be cliché, but America seems to have become yet another poster child for it.


December 14, 2015

We have a new Teflon Don. The resilience of John Gotti may be responsible for the coining of the nickname, but the old mob boss is now a whisper in history to the shout that’s known as Donald Trump. And arguably, Trump is the more deadly.


Few people, myself included, anticipated the staying power of the new Teflon Don. I’d assumed that his refreshing bluntness (read: bah, humbug to political correctness), his financial independence immunizing him to the demands of special interests, and his outsider status burnished by an astute business knowledge often lacking in career politicians, would fuel an ascent that would, however, fizzle in weeks to months–just as Republican candidate after candidate rose and fell in succession during the prior presidential election. A barrage of self-launched anti-Trump missiles would inevitably bring the campaign crashing back to Earth. Well, like so many others, I was wrong.


His most recent missile, supporting a moratorium on all Muslims entering the U.S. has, if anything, increased his poll numbers. My assumption that 75% of the conservative and right-of-center independents were just biding their time, waiting for another candidate to gain enough traction, may still be correct, but may now be only 70%–and falling.


I hate political correctness. I hate arrogant Washington insiders with about as much understanding of economics as Stalin. I hate the ineffective prosecuting of the terrorist threat and ineffectual protection of our borders. But I never thought anger would so cloud the sensorium of the electorate as to believe that a man with bull-in-a-china-shop diplomacy skills should serve as the international face of the U.S. And I don’t care if he gets Mexico to pay for the wall (although that would be a nice perk). But the true danger is making him the face of the Republican Party.


Now, I consider myself a conservative but only grudgingly associate with the GOP, which more often than not is as embarrassing as the Democrat Party. However, we remain a two-party system and the only alternative is Hillary. Trump’s antics give fuel to the specious arguments that conservatives are all racist, bigoted shills for the wealthy. While Trump will have no impact on the entrenched beliefs of the far left, my fear is that he’ll dramatically influence the undecided independents and the low-information crowd that arguably decide the election to move to Hillary’s camp, and cause many conservatives to stay home on election day. And this would spell disaster for our country and possibly set back conservatism for decades. No wonder the liberal media can’t get enough of him (they gave him more coverage this past week than the San Bernadino terrorist attack).


I still think it likely that Trump will implode, but I’m becoming less certain of that outcome with each passing week.


After all, he is the Teflon Don.



December 10, 2012

I’ve had conversations with parties of opposing views that seem to think a job is a job, whether it be in the public or the private sector. After all, what’s the difference between someone getting a paycheck for a service provided through government employment and that same service through a company in the private sector?


The government, by virtue of its ability to legislate, shields itself from market forces, rather than operating within them. It can, for a while, manipulate the marketplace by printing, borrowing, and stealing (legally, of course, through fees and taxes). Hence the inflated retirement benefits that are driving all our governments at all levels to the brink of bankruptcy. We’re like one big, bloated General Motors, with the exception that no one exists to bail us out if (and I fear it’s when) we fail. Many people have become so used to these ploys that have seemed so successful or decades that they think it can go on forever. They also point to the corruption in the private sector as justification for growing the government slice of the economy, failing to recognize that crony capitalism that aids and abets this bad behavior is government-mediated. How many people in the street really know that the Dodd-Frank legislation, 800 pages of directions for more regulations, defines the big banks as “systemic” and therefore “too big to fail,” providing them with government (read: taxpayer) guarantees? This enables them to borrow at lower rates than their small brethren, giving them the edge they need to perpetuate the precarious status quo. Almost all governmental good intentions have toxic unintended consequences.

The marketplace can be a cruel mistress, but left to its own devices it is self-correcting. Governments can’t beat it. Delaying a tremor only leads to an earthquake down the line. That’s not to say that bad behavior shouldn’t be monitored and punished. Government policy, however, goes well beyond this, trying to manipulate market forces and pick winners and losers. The only real losers, ultimately, are the American people.

Currently, the Democrats and Republicans are fighting over how to deal with the upcoming “fiscal cliff.” In a bygone era the ruling class placed politics above the public good, but were loathe to admit it. In this new, progressive society, they revel in it. To wit: Zerlina Maxwell, a Democratic strategist, has suggested that Republicans put forth their idea for the entitlement cuts, as Democrats have already put their piece, the tax rate increases, on the table. This seems to parallel the president’s approach to date in his dealings with the legislature. The administration taxes the top one percent, a populist move (that generates little revenue), and requires the Republicans to do the heavy lifting—define the unpopular entitlement cuts that must happen if any hope of reversing the economic decline and paying off the burgeoning debt is to occur. This is a politically unbeatable “good parent/bad parent” strategy for the Democrats. One tells the child he can watch TV and play on the X-box and the other makes him eat his broccoli and clean his room. Bad parenting, it seems, wins votes.

It just doesn’t pay the bills.


March 8, 2010

As the President and Congress move closer toward passing the unpopular health care reform bill, the New York Times reported last month that “virtually every state is making or considering substantial cuts in Medicaid, even as Democrats push to add 15 million people to the rolls.” The Washington Post reported that “because the program is large and expensive, the spurt in Medicaid caseloads has produced far more damaging effects on state budgets than” food stamps or welfare benefits.” On the cost-cutting side, The Boston Globe editorialized that “Fear of intrusion in the doctor-patient relationship so inhibits insurers that they are shunning one of the most obvious ways to cut medical costs: Avoiding costly procedures when they are proven to do no good.” They cited a 2007 New England Journal of Medicine study which found that “doctors could save $5 billion a year by treating patients with chest pain with drugs rather than surgically inserted stents” which “has been largely ignored.” The Globe suggests that “the government should give the medical profession the impetus to determine the most effective treatments for a range of ailments by establishing committees to determine the best practices.”

On the personal front, I’ve marveled at the burgeoning age of my patients. A few days ago I saw a 90 year-old, and 84 year-old, and a 94 year-old in succession, and hardly a day goes by now where one of my octogenarians doesn’t present to the emergency room somewhere in atrial fibrillation, a rapid, irregular heart rhythm that is becoming epidemic. The ability to live long enough to glut the health care system is testimony to the success of out ability to manage, and modulate, the many chronic ailments we haven’t yet learned to cure.

While the Democrats argue that, when presented with pieces of the proposed health care legislation (such as immunity from denial of pre-existing conditions by the insurers, and portability of insurance), their constituents give universal approval. This fuels their arguments that the overwhelmingly negative reception by the voters to the legislation is simply a manifestation of the distortion of the facts promulgated by the Republicans. But I think the politicos (intentionally?) underestimate the collective wisdom of the people. The people know in their hearts you don’t get “something for nothing,” and the addition of millions to the rolls will add billions to the cost. They also know that health care reform is needed and inevitable, but the current proposal, as I’m hearing ad nauseam in the media, is “a dog that won’t hunt.”

The only way to get more “bang for the buck” is to change practice patterns, and increase competition. I’ve suggested ways this can be accomplished in prior posts. I welcome other innovative ideas.

Addendum: In my last post I noted that Medicare reimbursement was slated to be reduced by 21% in March 1st. In the interest of full disclosure, this cut has been placed on hold. It has not been repealed. The jury remains out on what the outcome will be.