I have written a few times that the United States does not deserve the strength of its currency or its ability to borrow more money to fund more reckless deficit spending if looked at in pure economic terms:

  • Our balance sheet is a disaster, thanks to Barack Obama, with now more than $18.3 trillion in debt in an economy that is about $17.4 trillion in size.
  • The Federal Reserve has kept interest rates near zero for over SIX YEARS, fueling a stock market bubble and robbing itself of any power to influence the economy if it slips back into recession (the Fed cannot drive interest rates below zero).
  • Meanwhile, the current and future costs of entitlements, which now include the monstrosity known as Obamacare, are skyrocketing, leaving over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities for the nation to default on as we all grow older.

And yet our massive federal deficits each year continue to be financed in large part by foreign nations….their willingness to hold dollars defies the fundamentals of our situation.

And at the same time the Federal Reserve can print dollars 24/7 without fear of trashing the currency in world foreign currency markets, as would happen to any other nation that flooded its economy with so much paper currency.

And So not only can the USA print its own money, even wildly, with no consequences, it can also borrow itself blind, with no apparent consequences.

How can this be?

There is only one reason, and it is not a reason that you’ll see in economics text books: The United States can get away with this reckless conduct because it is the dominant global superpower, possessing large military forces enabled by the most advanced military technology.

Yes, The American fighting man is the reason that politicians can continue to throw orgies of runaway spending and flood the economy with dollars without consequences.

Marines raising the stars and stripes on the battlefield

Now, do we like to borrow money and then thumb our nose at the lenders of that money, because we are a superpower?

Stephen Colbert apparently does.

He said this to Donald Trump last night:

At a certain point, does it even matter how much we owe, because it’s like trillion, quadrillion what does it matter? Come and get us, we’ve got the armies, right? What are they going to do?

Yes, he actually said the phrase “what does it matter” about the serious issue of our national debt, and touted the great American military as the ultimate backstop against accountability.

Let’s recall who else used a similar phrase, “what difference does it make”:

Hillary what difference does it make on Benghazi

Here’s the thing, Stephen: our federal debt, now heading towards $20 trillion and bigger than our entire annual economic output since the early years of Obama’s first term, DOES matter, and to say it doesn’t undermines the notion that you are somehow a savvy commentator.

Or maybe no one believes you are a savvy commentator, I don’t really know.

But you have a voice being heard in the media, and need to own when you take a shameful Hillary Clinton “what does it matter” stance on things that do matter.

So if you are a Liberal, and you are proud of Obama’s latest infamy — accepting thousands of Syrian refugees — just know that (a) we cannot afford to take them, we are bankrupt, and (b) the only reason there is the illusion of wealth in this country is because of that thing you probably hate: the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

But you owe it all to them, and never forget that.

Those interested in history know that newspapers used to be openly, heavily partisan (particularly in the 19th century); the appealing notion of there being a moral imperative to be objective when reporting is a relatively modern concept (here is an interesting link on this subject: The Fall and Rise of Partisan Journalism).

We all know the reality in today’s times: supposedly objective media are most certainly slanted to the Left or Right.

What amuses me this morning is the dueling coverage of Donald Trump’s appearance last night on the Stephen Colbert show.

Trump Colbert

YahooTVHere is a headline from Yahoo TV:


PoliticoHere is a headline on the same topic, from Politico.com:


So which is it?

As I read the transcript of the back and forth, what jumped out at me is how reserved Trump was — a stark contrast to his bombastic style — and how this allowed him to avoid the many traps Colbert had set for him. Trump fell into exactly zero of those traps, and came off looking strong and yet more diplomatic than he generally has been able to conduct himself.

Here is one example of Colbert’s attempt at provocation and outright mockery, in which Colbert:

…suggested an addition to Trump’s famous wall to separate the U.S. and Mexico: adding “a moat filled with fire.”

To which Trump replied that:

…he wants it to also have “a big fat door,” so that immigrants “can come into the country — legally.” 

Note that Trump’s measured response brushes off the incendiary nature of the question / accusation.

Keep it unlocked for anyone who wants to enter, if believe in open borders.

Keep it unlocked for anyone who wants to enter, if believe in open borders.

What’s clear to me is that Trump has been working on modulating himself and his messages, and is succeeding in doing so. This simple reference to a “big fat door” in the border wall that would allow legal immigration while keeping out illegal immigration is exactly the right policy any sane nation should have. Such a policy is sound and impossible to oppose, unless you believe in open borders — come one come all, with no papers and no accountability. (And if you are one of those people, please send me your home address because I’d like to come over and help myself to all the food in your refrigerator once a week, thank you very much. Make sure to keep the door unlocked at all times, because in your mind, barriers should not exists between us, right?).

Let’s see what Politico.com meant by saying that Colbert “bested” Trump. Here is a recounting of the back and forth at one point:

Colbert then went on offense on the subject of money, one of Trump’s fortes.

“The Republican Party has been a big pusher of the idea that money is speech, and you’re a $10 billion mouth,” jabbed the host.

“That’s another way of looking at it,” Trump responded diplomatically.

“The other people out there want some of your money. Ted Cruz was on last night. He asked me to ask you if you’d give him a billion dollars,” said Colbert, referencing a Monday night interview with the Texas senator.

“Sounds good. Sounds good. He’s a good man, actually,” said Trump of his Republican rival, who has publicly aligned himself with the frontrunner even as most of the rest of the field has condemned him.

Trump sounds presidential during this exchange — measured yet brutally effective in letting Colbert’s cutting comments go off a cliff into nowhere.

The appearance was a home run for Trump in my opinion. He expended little energy while neutralizing a bombastic opponent.

And so the Politico.com headline is garbage, and they should be ashamed of themselves.


Hillary Clinton is a disaster for the country (obviously), but also for the Democrat party (also obvious to most people, except a few lunatic celebrities).

Bernie Socialist Sanders, on the heels of his 9-point lead over Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire, is now LEADING IN IOWA also.

A new Quinnipiac University poll out Thursday morning shows Bernie Sanders at 41 percent and Hillary Clinton at 40 percent in Iowa – a virtual tie. <Yahoo News, link>


I am beginning to wonder if we might have a Trump versus Bernie general election matchup…

And then I wonder if we might see this again:

1984 Election Map Result

Yes, we can dare to dream.

Poor Joe Biden.

Can you imagine the pressure the Clinton camp is putting on him not to run?

And can you imagine the pressure the Obama camp is putting on him not to run?

Such pressure is not directly seen in the public eye — it is behind the scenes, as rendered unintentionally in a New York Times piece earlier in the summer. <New York Times, Friends of Joe Biden Worry a Run for President Could Bruise His Legacy>

Later this month, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. will escape for a family retreat to mourn his late son, Beau, but also to mull, as his dying son urged him to do, a campaign for president. Some of Mr. Biden’s friends and allies worry that he will decide it is a good idea.

Amazing isn’t it? Anonymous references to Biden’s “friends”, all with the clear message that it would be a mistake for him to run for the highest political office in the land, a goal he has had for decades. Obama and Clinton plant stories like this inside the New York Times, a newspaper that is all too willing to be used in this manner given the likely promises being made by the Clinton camp of granting future “access” to stories (yet more planted narrative of course).

Fig leafLest the New York Times be accused of making up their own fake news, the writers include this tiny little fig leaf in the story:

While the concern about Mr. Biden appears widespread among his political allies, few seem eager to tell him out of fear of hurting his feelings and seeming to be presumptuous about a decision that is all too personal.

Right, thank you New York Times!!  You are doing God’s work and publishing Joe’s friends’ concern for him so that he can receive their message without putting them in any discomfort. Sure, sure, his “friends” said all of this, we believe you, yes we do.

“You can’t win, Joe”

Note this paragraph’s construction:

Those supporters, in the White House and the Senate, and within the political circles he has moved in for decades, fear that the legacy Mr. Biden has built as an effective partner who took on tough jobs for President Obama….could be sacrificed in the pursuit of an unsuccessful challenge to Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination.


Bernie Sanders, an openly Socialist, fringe candidate whom everyone wrote off as a joke candidate, is now beating Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire. Two days ago (September 6th), this news hit the wire:

Stone-faced Hillary Clinton is in trouble in the Granite State, according to a new poll. The presumed 2016 Democratic frontrunner is trailing surging Vermont. Sen. Bernie Sanders by a whopping nine percentage points in the critical early voting state of New Hampshire, an NBC News/Marist Poll released Sunday showed. Sanders got the support of 41% of Democratic voters in New Hampshire, the survey showed, compared to 32% for Clinton.

Bernie leading Hillary ClintonIt is quite plain that if Joe Biden announced his candidacy for the Democrat party nomination for president, he would destroy Hillary Clinton’s candidacy in an instant, and be on a fast track to win the nomination outright, and even early on in the process.

But the New York Times would rather carry the nasty messages of Obama and Clinton rather than report real news. The article is littered with predictions of failure of a Biden run:

….that it could end disastrously.

Hey Joe, are you scared yet?

Here’s one last bit of fraudulent ventriloquism on the part of the New York Times, once again using Joe’s friends, to whom they’ve allegedly spoken:

They fret that Mr. Biden, as well known for his undisciplined, sometimes self-immolating comments as he is for his charm on the trail, could endanger Mr. Obama’s own legacy by injuring Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy and causing his party to lose control of the White House.

“They” (his friends) fret that Obama’s legacy could be injured?

I don’t think so.

Barack Hussein Obama frets about his so-called legacy, not Joe’s friends.

There is one area in which I am sympathetic to Joe Biden’s thoughtful consideration before announcing his run: The Clintons, and Barack Obama, have shown no restraint in torturing and maiming their political enemies.

Barack Obama has used the IRS to suppress political opposition, an act of outrageous abuse of power, and the Clintons have used the FBI against political enemies (remember the 900 raw FBI files that ended up in Bill Clinton’s hands “by accident”?).

This from January 1998:

First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was interviewed under oath today by Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr about the circumstances behind the White House’s gathering of hundreds of sensitive FBI background files on previous White House employees…  Mrs. Clinton has said she knows nothing about the controversy or the hiring of Craig Livingstone, the former aide who headed the office that collected the sensitive FBI material. <CNN.com, link>

These are scary people, and Biden surely knows it.

Will he crumble under the pressure?

I hope not, for the prospect of Hillary Clinton, a person who would sacrifice national security for political ambition and cold-cash, winning the nomination and then cobbling together the coalition of voters who re-elected Barack Obama, a failed president who obviously hates the Unites States, is the worst possible fate our country could suffer.

Run, Joe, Run, please.

When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, he vowed to fundamentally “transform” the United States, and he has delivered in many terrible, terrible ways, including putting us so deep into debt as a nation that our base of power (economic strength) may be imperiled beyond any future administration’s ability to repair it.

His latest hammer blow to American heritage is to unilaterally rename Mt. McKinley in Alaska.

The White House announced Sunday that President Obama is changing the name of North America’s highest peak. Mount McKinley — named after William McKinley, the 25th president, who served in the White House until his assassination in 1901 — is returning to its traditional Alaska Native name, Denali. <NPR, link>

mt mckinleyWhen I read some of the angry responses from lawmakers in Washington (Congress being ignore yet again by this most unconstitutional of presidents), I noticed that they were all from Ohio, because President McKinley was an Ohioan.

Ohio lawmakers reacted angrily Sunday to the White House’s announcement that President Obama would formally rename Alaska’s Mt. McKinley — North America’s highest peak — “Denali” during his trip to The Last Frontier this week.

Here is what Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio, had to say <Fox News, link>:

Mount McKinley … has held the name of our nation’s 25th President for over 100 years. This landmark is a testament to his countless years of service to our country. This political stunt is insulting to all Ohioans, and I will be working with the House Committee on Natural Resources to determine what can be done to prevent this action.

President McKinleySo let’s observe that Barack Obama, who owes his very presidency to Ohio voters, is of course more than happy to score a nasty two-fer on the mountain renaming: (1) Remove the name of a former president from a natural wonder, and (2) thumb his nose at the state that, along with California, enabled him to occupy the White House and do his dirty deeds.

This is a man whose every action repudiates our English heritage — the return of the Winston Churchill bust, the mistreatment of the UK Prime Minister at the White House, and countless other actions — and renaming mountains is just one more brick in the wall of his two-term tantrum of destruction of all we hold dear.


I have enjoyed immensely the way Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner, has pursued the obviously-lying Tom Brady on Deflategate. For reasons that are not quite clear to me, Goodell has decided to play rough on the issue, letting it be known to reporters that Brady destroyed his phone (and thus potential evidence of his guilt in the ball-defaltion scandal).

This strategic leak of information was very effective, as the average football fan imagined Brady as a lying evidence-destroyer.

And so I have a question for dear Tom Brady: Tom, why don’t you remind everyone that Roger Goodell is a very committed destroyer of evidence as well?

You know what I mean, Tom — the Spygate video tapes showing how Bill Bellichick and your team cheated in three Superbowls — Roger Goodell DESTROYED THOSE CHEATING TAPES.

Ahhhh, but  you can’t go there, Tommy boy, you can’t go there, because those cheating tapes would invalidate your three Superbowl rings and reduce you to a rather average quarterback (the truth, in other words — you were never that good).

Maybe Roger Goodell feels betrayed by the Patriots on Deflategate, and that’s why he’s gone scorched earth against Brady and the team.

I can imagine him thinking to himself…“I destroyed the cheating tapes years ago to protect the Patriots and the league, and this is the thanks I get?  I’ll show them!”

We hear you, Roger, we hear you.

You pushed the Brady-destroys-cellphone angle knowing that Brady would never return fire on your own destruction of evidence.

Well played, indeed.

Desolation of Tom Brady Baggins

I have a news flash for everyone: Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State under president Barack Obama.


Obama’s Benghazi-stained blue dress

And yet her potentially criminal conduct relating to her email usage while Secretary and the subsequent destruction of evidence from servers (among other potential crimes) seems to stick only to her, and not to her boss, Barack Obama.

How can this be?

We all use email and know how it works, with messages being sent and received across many accounts. So where is the investigation into the rest of the email accounts in the Obama administration?

…there can be little doubt that Eric Holder and other high-ranking FBI and DOJ officials themselves wrote Ms. Clinton at Clintonemail.com—not to mention countless communications with the President and “All His Muses”—Counter-terrrorism advisor Lisa Monaco, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and then White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler (not to mention Valerie Jarrett)—about Benghazi and all other top secret and classified issues. The DOJ hasn’t subpoenaed the emails from any of the recipients—or the internet service providers? Or looked for them on the backup government servers of the accounts of all the recipients? And the State Department still today is making statements defending her? <The Observer, link>

Some may say that he had nothing to do with her email server and subsequent file destruction, but this would be a shameful free pass for mr. Obama. The whole thing has been and continues to be part of HIS administration, whether he had full knowledge of it or or only partial knowledge of it.  Furthermore, many emails pertain to the Benghazi slaughter of four American diplomats who were not protected by the State Department, the Department of Defense, or the president, and whose names were dishonored when mr. Obama, Ms. Clinton, and Susan Rice all spun the now-notorious lie about the Benghazi attack (in which they tried to claim it was not terrorism inspired by hatred of America).

In any event, Sidney Powell of the Observer just wrote a powerful piece on the Clinton situation entitled: The Countless Crimes of Hillary Clinton: Special Prosecutor Needed Now

It is a tour de force, let me tell you, and you will enjoy it.

And by the way, you may recall that I recently wrote a piece (link) about our nation’s needs for a resurrection of the Office of the Independent Counsel to investigate potential crimes in the Benghazi infamy, the Fast and Furious gun-running operation, and the IRS scandal, which is also gathering a lot of steam. Suffice it to say that I agree with Mr. Powell’s call for a special prosecutor in the Clinton matter.

Here are some excerpts from his piece, strap on your seat belts (emphasis added):

After years of holding herself above the law, telling lie after lie, and months of flat-out obstruction, HIllary Clinton has finally produced to the FBI her server and three thumb drives. Apparently, the server has been professionally wiped clean of any useable information, and the thumb drives contain only what she selectively culled. Myriad criminal offenses apply to this conduct.


It’s high time for a special prosecutor to be named to conduct a full investigation into Ms. Clinton’s likely commission of multiple felonies, including a conspiracy with Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and possibly others, to violate multiple laws. 


And how about the double-standard employed by the Obama administration regarding who gets prosecuted and who doesn’t?

While the FBI and Department of Justice have willfully ignored Hillary Clinton’s outrageous conduct, they didn’t hesitate a minute to investigate and prosecute former CIA Director and national hero, General Petraeus. He was just tarred, feathered and ridden out of the CIA on a rail for sharing some information (his own notebook) with his biographer who was both in the military and had a top secret clearance. Yet, Petraeus did not have a secret server set up to house his classified and top secret information or digital satellite imagery; he destroyed nothing; and, there was no “leak.” 

Right, prosecute a military General who fought valiantly in wars while allowing Hillary Clinton to share top secret / classified e-mails from a personal email server that she then had wiped clean.

Hillary of course continues to act out here political playbook of fake victimization and “Who me?” countenance, but we all know enough about the woman’s style to see the wisdom in Powell’s next line:

Ms. Clinton…established her entire system to avoid the law and in violation of the Espionage Act—as she and her co-conspirators removed all records from the State Department from its inception. Compounding her crimes, she knowingly and willfully destroyed whatever she wanted to destroy—despite or more likely because of—the incriminating information it contained and in the face of the Benghazi investigation.

Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi — how much truth has yet to be revealed, and when it is revealed, what will become of the Obama legacy?

And now the powerful finish by Powell (emphasis added):

The countless false statements are crimes under 18 United States Code Section 1001—both by Ms. Clinton to Congress (“no classified information”) and in writing by Cheryl Mills to the State Department and just filed with Judge Sullivan—in which she states: “On matters pertaining to the conduct of government business, it was her practice to use the officials’ government email accounts.” We already know that Ms. Clinton used her personal server exclusively. 

Title 18 United States Code Section 1001 makes it a crime for anyone to “knowingly and willfully” falsify, conceal, or cover up “a material fact,” or make “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or misrepresentation,” etc. Countless people are convicted felons under this statute—some for offenses that would never occur to anyone even to be a crime.

And these are just a few of the possible statutes that it would appear to any federal prosecutor that she and her corrupt cabal violated.

As Lt. Col. Ralph Peters had the guts to say last night on FoxNews, “Hillary Clinton is a criminal.” Military heroes who have risked their lives for this country have gone to prison for less

…it’s time for a national outcry for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate and indict Ms. Clinton’s flagrant violations of some of our most important laws. Anyone else would have been arrested by now. 

Oh, and Hillary, one more thing:

U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens

Information management officer Sean Smith

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods

Former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty

Hillary fingers


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 123 other followers