A special kind of stupid

Posted on March 30, 2014 by lawofmarkets

All this makes perfect sense but he leaves out the role of the media. Nevertheless:

Maybe you were not that excited that 2012 gave you a choice between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. I sympathize — I liked Rick Perry. But how is President Romney vs. President Obama a hard choice? How is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vs. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a hard choice? How is Speaker of the House John Boehner vs. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi a hard choice?

It isn’t.

Even if you think that Romney is a squishy RINO Massachusetts technocrat with a secret crush on Obamacare, you have to be on the wrong side of the border between ideologically hardcore and ideologically blinded to conclude that spending four years fighting against the very worst imaginable tendencies of a Romney administration would have been anything other than wine and roses compared with spending four years fighting against the very worst tendencies of an Obama administration, especially when the president is in the position of never having to face another election.

You can tell yourself a just-so story about how the guy you liked who couldn’t beat Romney in the GOP primary would have beaten the mom jeans off of Obama in the general, and maybe you’re right, but it didn’t happen that way. (And maybe you don’t like that the so-called establishment supported Romney. Guess what? You can support candidates, too!) Likewise, if all the senators that conservatives admire weren’t already running for president, one of them might make a majority leader that you’d prefer to McConnell. And Paul Ryan probably would be a more inspiring speaker than Boehner is. Fine, fine, and fine. But that isn’t where we were, and it isn’t where we are.

The question wasn’t “Mitt Romney — yes or no?” It was: “Mitt Romney — compared with what?”

Well, compared with what you have right now today. There are idiots aplenty in every electorate in the world, but it takes a special kind of stupid to vote for Obama twice or not to vote him out when you get the chance. If you are a conservative and sat out the last election then you are as bad as the lowest of the low information voters and then some.

Stop laughing, this is serious

Posted on March 20, 2014 by lawofmarkets

And this is some of the text that went with the picture:

There’s an amazing picture taken a few days ago at the United Nations.

Russia had just vetoed America’s diplomatic proposal for Ukraine. So Ambassador Samantha Power, the former Harvard professor appointed by Barack Obama, who is also a former Harvard grad himself, walked over to Russia’s ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, to give him a piece of her mind.

Churkin didn’t even stand up. He just looked at her. And his aides, standing behind him, laughed.

They weren’t laughing at the ironically named Ambassador Power. They were laughing at their good luck; that they had the good fortune to get into the invading business when a feckless man like Barack Obama was in charge of the free world.

Meanwhile, Russian forces storm Ukraine naval HQ in Crimea. Can’t really be much of an issue since so little attention is being paid to it. There’s perhaps not much you can do but to me the response from the West still looks like slow motion insanity. Next stop, Estonia?

UPDATE: Remember this quote and then watch the video below:

“One cardinal rule of the road is, we don’t watch CNN, the news or MSNBC. We don’t watch any talking heads or any politics. We watch SportsCenter and argue about that,” Obama told The New York Times.

http://youtu.be/8JWqwakSaHk

What you are watching is the President of the United States right this minute choosing his bracket, that is choosing which college team will win the NCAA Basketball tournament which is about to start.

Newsweek’s deathbed recantation

Posted on March 3, 2014 by lawofmarkets

And this is the text:

I Too Have Become Disillusioned

By Matt Patterson (Newsweek Columnist – Opinion Writer)

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer;” a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, less often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor;” a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’scolleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable NormanPodhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were ‘a bit’ extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in:Obama was given a pass – held to a lower standard because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of theObama phenomenon – affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin – that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people – conservatives included – ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that’s when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth – it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years. (An example is his 2012 campaign speeches which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches)

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerless-ness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. (The other day he actually came out and said no one could have done anything to get our economy and country back on track). But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such an impostor in the Oval Office.

President Pussy Kitten threatens Russia

Posted on March 2, 2014 by lawofmarkets

More red lines? More empty gestures? Who is this cypher to go arounds pretending strength and resolve? From the Associated Press:

President Barack Obama is warning Russia “there will be costs” for any military maneuvers it launches in Ukraine, a move U.S. and Ukrainian officials say they believe to be already underway.

So what are these costs?

Officials say Obama may retaliate by canceling a trip to Russia this summer for an international summit and could also cut off trade discussions with Moscow.

Or as Charles Krauthammer has said:

The Ukrainians, and I think everybody, is shocked by the weakness of Obama’s statement. I find it rather staggering.

Anyway, if the lights are going out all over Europe and the West, it will be because of our war on fossil fuels. If there’s another kind of war coming it will be because of American weakness, not because of its strength. Meanwhile, Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine appears to have begun. But what needs to be treasured is this:

In 2008, when she was the GOP vice presidential nominee, Palin questioned in a speech whether then-Sen. Barack Obama would have the foreign policy credentials to handle a scenario in which Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. . . .

The former Alaska governor was happy to highlight her prediction on Friday and scold those who criticized her 2008 comments.

“Yes, I could see this one from Alaska,” she said on Facebook. That remark was a reference to a 2008 interview in which Palin argued that Alaska’s proximity to Russia helped boost her foreign policy experience.
“I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate prediction being derided as ‘an extremely far-fetched scenario’ by the ‘high-brow’ Foreign Policy magazine.”

In October 2008, Foreign Policy labeled Palin’s prediction as “strange.”

Does the left ever get anything of importance right?

UPDATE: To which must be added this:

Oh they are shaking in their boots [with laughter] in Moscow tonight. Can’t somebody show up to work at the White House and tell this Jello-spined juggalo that his warning and threats just aren’t making it? I mean really. This tough guy spiel is just an embarrassment:

“The Obama administration is evaluating whether President Barack Obama will go forward with plans to attend an international summit in Russia this summer amid reports of Russian intervention in Ukraine. A senior administration official says it’s hard to see how Obama and European leaders would attend the G-8 summit in Sochi, which is scheduled for June.”

So let me get this straight. The “penalty” for Russia if it keeps its hold on the Ukraine is that it doesn’t get to waste precious summer days in June in the presence of this cowardly little narcissist and his entourage of fluffers and fellators? Well, yes, that would certainly make any leader of Russia give up the security of his fleet’s access to the Crimea, the Black Sea, and from there into the Mediterranean. Let’s not forget that Russia lost the Crimean War in the middle of the 19th Century [not that long ago in the Russian mind] which took about half a million lives on all sides. In that war, most of the fighting took place for control of the Black Sea, with land battles on the Crimean peninsula in southern Russia. Deja vu all over again? Why not? That’s the history of Russia writ large.

Simply put, if Russia cannot maintain control of the Crimea and Sevastopol it cannot maintain the Black Sea Fleet.

The Black Sea Fleet is considered to have been founded by Prince Potemkin on May 13, 1783, together with its principal base, the city of Sevastopol. Formerly commanded by such legendary admirals as Dmitriy Senyavin and Pavel Nakhimov, it is a fleet of enormous historical and political importance for Russia.

The Black Sea Fleet enables Russia to control and dominate its close in “backyard” of Georgia as well as have access to the Mediterranean and, hence, the Middle East and Suez. Without the Crimea and Sevastapol, Russia ceases to be a nation with global reach. This is something Putin will not do. Ever. This is one of those annoying strategic situations in which trying to force Russia to step back can easily become a trigger for thermonuclear war. And Russia is still in the strategic nuke business.

Instead of understanding how history lives in the present and shapes the future, this pig-ignorant “president” doesn’t have a foreign policy, all he has is a series of poses and postures; none of which are all that butch.

Indeed, it would seem that the only group on the planet that are afraid of this putz are D.C. Republicans. And I’m not too sure about them any longer.

Out of his depth in every way known to politics

Posted on February 18, 2014 by lawofmarkets

In how many ways is the American President out of his depth? In fact, are there any ways in which he is not out of his depth? Turns out, according to the White House, that the stimulus was a big success:

President Barack Obama marked the five-year anniversary of a controversial economic stimulus plan by releasing a report on Monday saying that government spending averted a second Great Depression, setting off a new round of partisan debate about the decision.

Obama had been in office only a month when he signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a $787 billion stimulus that Democratic majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives passed over the objections of Republicans.

Many Americans remain doubtful about how helpful the stimulus was for an economy that still struggles to recover from a deep recession that took hold in 2008.

The White House, eager to lay to rest those doubts, issued a five-year report that said the stimulus generated an average of 1.6 million jobs a year for four years through the end of 2012. (Report: http://r.reuters.com/xat86v)

The stimulus by itself raised the level of gross domestic product by between 2 percent and 3 percent from late 2009 through mid-2011, said the report, issued by the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

Jason Furman, chairman of the council, said the Recovery Act had a “substantial positive impact on the economy, helped to avert a second Great Depression, and made targeted investments that will pay dividends long after the act has fully phased out.”

Does anyone at all believe this other than those who are professionally compelled to because of political affiliation? Whatever needed to be done to calm financial markets was done even before George Bush left office. What happened after belongs to Obama. And given the monetary policy that has come since, there is no reason to think the US will leave its present troubles before an even bigger crunch than the one in 2008-09.

Bill Ayers authored Obama’s autobiography

Posted on February 2, 2014 by lawofmarkets

That Barack Obama is not the author of his own autobiography should at least be common knowledge to anyone who comes to this site. I have discussed this myself in a previous post and I will repeat it here since when I mentioned writing Dreams from my Father as part of Bill Ayer’s cv, there seemed to be some dissent. His life story as told by himself was Obama’s only qualification for office so it should be understood that he had and still has absolutely no qualifications for president whatsoever. If you would like to hear it from the person who picked up this fraud, you can go here. What follows below is my own previous post repeated.

Only if you depend on the New York Times for your news would you be unaware that Barack Obama did not write his Dreams From My Father. It was written by Bill Ayers, that “someone in the neighbourhood”, that ex-Weatherman terrorist, who actually knows how to stitch three coherent sentences together on his own. That Dreams was literally the only qualification Obama had for the job of President, it should be clear just how hopelessly off centre the American political system has become. The prime responsibility for this lies with the American media who are more like Bill Ayers in their thoughts than they are like someone of the actual mainstream of American society.

Another book has just been published by one David Maraniss, of The Washington Post of all things, that make it almost certain that Dreams is a concoction of fantasies and lies. The book, Barack Obama: The Story, “documents the many ways — some very small, a few large — in which Mr. Obama’s youthfully constructed narrative appears to be contradicted by the people and events in his life.” It is a scandal that ought to be gigantic but will, like much else about the President, be suppressed. Still, in being by who it is and being as prominent as it is, the book is chipping away at the President’s credibility. And there is more coming out every day, drip by drip.

What did surprise me when the first pre-publication revelation from the book was made about Obama’s Australian girlfriend, was that no one to my knowledge has ever bothered to interview her to ask her for some additional detail. Especially since Obama’s girlfriend in Dreams is anyway a “composite”, it would, you think, have actually been interesting to know some true details about Obama, especially since the fictional account of this composite girlfriend is actually a description of Bill Ayer’s own true love, Diana Oughton, who blew herself up while putting a bomb together back in the 1970s.

It’s not resentment, it’s disgust

Posted on January 18, 2014 by lawofmarkets

With the political demise of the repulsive Chris Christie, the Republican establishment is in shock and denial. Their golden boy, the one they were grooming to take on Hillary, is now fading into the pack. First there is this about how Christie has leapt from the George Washington Bridge:

The pleasure Mitt Romney loyalists are taking in the struggles of Chris Christie.

The condition is prevalent, stemming from a range of perceived Christie slights towards Romney during the 2012 campaign, which several Romney loyalists ticked off quickly — and with still-evident bitterness.

There was the New Jersey governor’s barring Romney from raising money in the Garden State, his unwillingness to answer vice presidential vetting questions and his highly autobiographical convention keynote speech. Most of all, though, Romney allies remain resentful of Christie’s embrace of President Barack Obama as the two worked together on Superstorm Sandy relief in the waning days of the campaign, which Romney backers believe boosted Obama’s bipartisan bona fides and cost Romney valuable swing votes.

The right word is not “resentful’. The right word is disgust. The only description of what Christie did in the last week of the presidential campaign in 2012 is to say that he double-crossed Romney. He so comprehensively put his own ambitions ahead of every other consideration that he felt no compunction about doing what he could to sink Romney’s campaign so that he could run four years later himself. Anyone who thinks four more years of Obama was preferable to four years of Mitt Romney is such a brainless clown that it is unimaginable for me that I would ever support Christie for president. I am now closer to thinking along just these lines:

The “Republican Party establishment’s chosen champion for 2016 is in the cross hairs of the liberal media,” influential Iowa talk radio host Steve Deace said. “You can’t take out the Democrats until you take out the Republican establishment.”

He added, “I’ve never been happier to watch the liberal news media tear down a Republican because he’s one of their own.”

Romney was not one of their own but they had to wear him because he was so much superior to anyone else as his performance in the primaries showed. That Christie is all they can think of even now shows what an empty cupboard the Republicans now have at the national level. Which is why this story at Hot Air is less ridiculous than you might think:

In interviews with more than a dozen party officials, fundraisers, and strategists in New York and Washington over the past 10 days, Republicans described a palpable sense of anxiety gripping the GOP establishment in the wake of Christie’s meltdown, and an emerging consensus that the once promising cast of candidates they were counting on to save the GOP from the Tea Party — and the nation from Hillary Clinton — is looking less formidable by the week…

“There are definitely people jumping ship,” the operative said, noting that confidence in Christie’s electability has dropped off sharply among the donors he’s heard from…

In fact, it’s gotten so bad, the operative said, that some donors have started looking back fondly on the good old days of 2012: “You know what a lot of them say to me? I think we need Mitt back.”

Well Mitt’s not coming back, not least because his wife has said that Mitt is not coming back. And it’s anyway too late, especially if those who run the Republican Party think it needs saving from the Tea Party. The US is rapidly sinking into an impotent backwater and who’s going to save them now: Hillary Clinton with her husband calling the shots or Jeb Bush continuing another dynasty on the other side? And given how idiotic American politics now seems, what’s to say it won’t be Michelle that will give us the third Obama administration and maybe even a fourth.

It’s not funny, it’s fascism

Posted on December 2, 2013 by lawofmarkets

It is an astounding story but what it means is that those in power in the United States have absolutely no fear of retribution for any of the actions they take. It’s being treated as a curiosity, an odd moment in the life of the nation. But really, what’s funny about this?

A couple of weeks back, cancer patient Bill Elliot, in a defiant appearance on Fox News, discussed the cancelation of his insurance and what he intended to do about it. He’s now being audited.

Insurance agent C Steven Tucker, who quaintly insists that the whimsies of the hyper-regulatory bureaucracy do not trump your legal rights, saw the interview and reached out to Mr Elliot to help him. And he’s now being audited.

As the Instapundit likes to remind us, Barack Obama has ‘joked’ publicly about siccing the IRS on his enemies. With all this coincidence about, we should be grateful the President is not (yet) doing prison-rape gags.

Meanwhile, IRS chief counsel William Wilkins, in his testimony to the House Oversight Committee over the agency’s systemic corruption, answers ‘I don’t recall’ no fewer than 80 times. Try giving that answer to Wilkins’ colleagues and see where it gets you. Few persons are fond of their tax collectors, but, from my experience, America is the only developed nation in which the mass of the population is fearful of its revenue agency. This is unbecoming to a supposedly free people.

Of course it’s funny, whimsical even, a laugh riot. What a bunch of clowns those people at the IRS are. We can be so morally superior to such transparent jerks. We can see through them. We can see that they are a totalitarian lot who are squeezing the freedom to criticise the government right out of the system. We can see all that and therefore we can laugh at their totalitarian stupidity.

But this is now the bottom line. If you are an American and say or do anything that comes to their attention that they do not like, they will do you over with the IRS. We’ll see how funny you think it is then. We’ll see how many are then willing to say a word.

Half way there

Posted on November 21, 2013 by lawofmarkets

Yesterday I discussed a comment on the History of Economics website about the growing need to be wary about Keynesian economics and today there’s an article at the Wall Street Journal about the same thing, this one titled, Worse than Obamacare which it is. Let me pull out two bits before I get to my main point:

In February 2009, he got $831 billion of stimulus spending. Not even seismographs can detect the results. Every speech he outputs about “middle-class folks” offers them the same solutions: more public spending on education, on public infrastructure projects and, even now, on alternative energy. As he tirelessly repeats what remain promises, the Labor Department’s monthly unemployment-rate announcement on Friday mornings has become a day of dread.

No one any longer expects an upturn in the American economy. Long, slow and tortured is now the way things are. And finally people are getting around to thinking that it may well be Keynesian theory that is in itself the problem:

You know the theory here: Spend a public dollar and you get $1.50 of economic output. It hasn’t happened, but Barack Obama is gonna crank his old Keynesian Multiplier, created during the 1930s in the era of the Hupmobile, until it sputters to life.

Well, you’ve been hearing from me from the start that it was never going to work and for some reason it has taken five years for the penny to drop. It was never going to work because the underlying Keynesian theory is false from surface to core. But it’s only obvious if you understand the economics that existed before Keynesian economics entered the scene and return to the specific proposition that Keynes derailed.

There are others who think they can see Keynesian economics off the lot through some other means but I don’t believe it. It is only if you understand the classical theory of the cycle and Say’s Law can you make sense of why the stimulus did not achieve a single one of its aims. Stimulating demand cannot work because you cannot stimulate demand by increased spending on anything at all. You can only increase economic activity through increases in value adding supply, the very thing no government can ever do. What governments do is waste and the effect is to deaden the economy, and the more waste there is, the deader it becomes.

In seeing that Keynes must go we are only half way there. The other half is to restore the economic theory that Keynesian economics replaced.

[My thanks to Julie for the WSJ link.]

Knowing when to take a hard line

Posted on November 7, 2013 by lawofmarkets

In Toronto, my native born city, they elect a mayor of a more libertarian persuasion so he is hassled and harried for smoking crack cocaine as captured on a video something like a year ago. He has, in fact, been hassled and harried by the good and the just since the day he took office. I’m not even sure he can be prosecuted for what he did, but that won’t get the dogs called off.

The Mayor can be removed from office only if incarcerated or through a defeat at the polls, legal experts said. Police have said there is nothing in the images that could lead to an arrest.

Something of the nature of Rob Ford’s politics might be discerned from this which have just now come back into fashion:

Yes! Toronto’s underground hit of 2010, our exclusive Vote For Rob Ford – He’s Not A Communist shirts are back, by popular demand (thanks to a mayor who can’t stay out of the news). Unofficially issued in limited numbers during Ford’s winning election campaign, this one has been unavailable since then. Members of Ford Nation can show their support for their beleaguered Mayor by buying one and wearing it around ‘left-wing pinkos’! (as Don Cherry puts it).

Meanwhile, in New York, there is a story of another mayor who has just been elected. At long last a Democrat and a breath of fresh air as this story reports a version of which you can find in just about any media story anywhere in the US and here as well.

De Blasio has campaigned hard against the yawning gulf between rich and poor, ‘a tale of two cities’ and for minority rights.

He has traded heavily on his family.

Like the Clintons, he and his wife, Chirlane McCray, have run as a package. Poet, editor, feminist and activist, she is a constant fixture by his side.

Their 16-year-old son Dante, instantly recognisable by his halo of Afro hair, has been credited with helping to turn around the campaign with an emotive TV ad about how great his dad is.

Deeply touching, heartwarming no doubt. But for a more nuanced approach, you might try this from a less than mainstream source:

Described by CNN as the ‘unabashed liberal,’ de Blasio is actually to the left of Barack Obama, in the sense that de Blasio didn’t disavow his communist background once it came to light. At least Obama tried to cover up his ties to communist Frank Marshall Davis.

De Blasio had scrubbed the Marxist connections from his campaign website, an omission that momentarily captured the attention of The New York Times. But once these connections and controversies came to light, he embraced his sordid history. He still embraces liberation theology and his work for the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

He’ll fit right in with the new breed of American politician and he will certainly get a good press. Glen Reynolds has the right attitude:

PUTTING TOGETHER A FILM FESTIVAL IN HONOR OF DE BLASIO’S ELECTION AS MAYOR OF NEW YORK. So far I’m planning to show Death Wish, Taxi Driver, Fort Apache, the Bronx, and Escape From New York. And maybe Serpico. Any other suggestions? . . .

But there are still scandals and the media are maintaining their proud tradition of holding politicians to an appropriately high standard as shown here:

The Washington Times newspaper announced that it is ending a regular column by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul following a series of plagiarism charges against his work. . . .

‘We expect our columnists to submit original work and to properly attribute material, and we appreciate that the senator and his staff have taken responsibility for an oversight in one column,’ said Times Editor John Solomon in the piece announcing the decision. [I have added the bolding.]

As is well known, every politician researches and writes their own speeches and newspaper columns. Unlike lying to the public over the IRS, Benghazi, the NSA, the effect of changes to a major piece of legislation affecting the health of a nation, an oversight of this magnitude is a hanging offence and they were of course absolutely right to take the hard line they took.

Law of Markets

Dedicated to the economics and politics of the free market

Tag Archives: barack obama