Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Just Say No…to the Donald

February 16, 2016 2 comments

Good article…wish I’d penned it.


February 15, 2016
Code Trump: The Gallop Leftward Continues
By C. Edmund Wright
Donald Trump is now officially the Code Pink Republican. Or maybe he’s the Daily Kos or Huffington Post Republican. How about the Debbie Wasserman Schultz Republican? I think that fits. Heck, we all saw it and we all heard it. Trump went full left loon on George W. Bush and 9/11, sounding like the most impassioned truther from the left. Did Maxine Waters do his debate prep?

Trump snarked childishly that Bush did not keep us safe on 9/11. Apparently Mr. Trump is not intellectually very curious about history. If he were, he would know that 9/11 was dreamed up, contemplated, financed, planned, and practiced on Bill Clinton’s watch. This planning and practicing continued during the days of the hanging chads in Florida.

This is not to defend George W. Bush and his neocon nation-building fantasies and his capitulation to unions regarding the TSA and so on. I’ve been critical of Bush and Karl Rove since 2001 on these and many other issues.

But the truth matters.

And the truth is that the single biggest failure by the American intelligence community was foisted onto the CIA and the FBI by Clinton appointee Jamie Gorelick with her infamous “wall of separation” between the two agencies. They had their hands tied behind their backs — thanks to a Clinton appointee.

Seriously Donald, is a cheap shot at lowly Jeb worth the worst kind of leftist revisionist history that will no doubt harm the Republican nominee in the fall? Apparently it is. This was simply shameful, not to mention contextually not true.

But? Will it matter to his botlike followers? It should, but it probably won’t. If it bothers you, you are not a bot. If it doesn’t, you are. Period. This was a devastating and unforgivable mistake. It was a colossal screwup. Why? Because this kind of thing is guaranteeing a Democrat win in 2016 however — something millions are not situationally aware enough to understand. More on that later.

First, let’s remember that for a long time Trump has been the Chuck Schumer Republican — and the Nancy Pelosi Republican — two titles he again gladly claimed just recently. He is also the ‘blame business for ObamaCare’ Republican and let us not forget that he is still apparently the Planned Parenthood Republican.

Because they do good work, you know.

Those two realities alone should shame and embarrass anyone who has been on Team Trump — but Trump nation is a universe seemingly immune to reality and reason when they point to the conclusion that maybe the Donald is not a good choice.

And the ObamaCare absurdities that the long time universal care advocate is holding onto are frightening — if one would but consider the ramifications. Alas, ramifications are understood only in the context of reality and logic. Oh well.

And the signs are everywhere, though to listen to most talk radio hosts, one would think none of this is happening. If Red State or National Review accurately quotes Trump, the problem is Red State and National Review — not Trump. Hell, how can he lose? How can you argue with that?

In Iowa, Trump was the pro ethanol “outsider” Republican, an atrocity futher magnified by Governor Terry Branstad and his crony lobbyist son — who were harassing the lone candidate bold enough to stand up against the corn scam all across Iowa. Anybody but Cruz, they whined.

If Trump were the alpha male his drones claim, he’d put that corn product in his jet and see if it would even generate thrust. He says it’s “terrific” after all.

Trump then called any Republican against the corn scam “in the pocket of big oil.” Talk about another Daily Kos talking point. Do you like ethanol subsidies? Are you in big oil’s pocket. I wish I were. I just happen to like net positive energy that is not propped up by lobbyists and green energy wackos and despicable cronies.

Oh, and let’s not forget — speaking of Iowa — that late in the Iowa campaign Trump was the “Scalia is a racist” Republican. Nice touch, Donald, in light of Scalia’s untimely passing. Sorry to remind you.

Meanwhile, Trump has long been the Bernie Sanders Republican, agreeing with the avowed Socialist nut case in his final appeals across New Hampshire on almost everything. It was such a joke that many independent voters were trying to decide between Sanders and Trump.

And to top it off, he came out recently and doubled down on being the crony capitalist Republican — a title he’s held for a long time — by reiterating his support for confiscatory eminent domain even for private projects. Donald has never met a winner or loser he wasn’t happy for government to pick.

And all of this is fine with his adoring fans. This is problematic, because we are not a nation who should ever adore our politicians in this way. It’s unhealthy, it’s un-American and it’s profoundly nonconservative. More to my first point, however, is the fact that this will guarantee a Democrat win in November.

If we cede that Bush was at fault for 9/11 — and Trump just absolutely proclaimed it — we cannot win. If we cede that it was Bush, and not Fannie and Freddie and not the EPA and not Chris Dodds and Barney Frank (and Jamie Gorelick) at fault, then we cannot win. Trump did this a few months ago, stating categorically that “I don’t think the Democrats would have done that.”

Uh… earth to Donald — it was the Democrats who did that. How did this escape this supposedly macro-economically gifted mind? Maybe — just maybe — being born wealthy and then running rent-controlled apartments and strip clubs and reality TV shows and beauty pageants and casinos is not quite the same as understanding the entire economy and how it works. If being rich were proof of having the right prescriptions for the macro economy, then George Soros and the Michael Bloomberg are far more qualified to be president than Trump. From where I sit, they both started out much poorer than Trump, have not declared four bankruptcies, and are now much richer than Trump.

I only say this because A: Trump supporters point to his wealth as proof of his economic genius without any circumspection and B: he did just say some ridiculously idiotic things about the macro economy. He said it. Not me. Him! He was wrong, and being rich doesn’t change the fact that he was and is totally wrong about this.

No Republican can win the White House if Bush, or any other Republican, or Republicanism or conservatism, is blamed for 9/11 and for 2008. Not gonna happen. If Trump continues down this road, this is the danger. This is why the Karl Rove/Bush strategy of never contesting anything from the bully pulpit for eight years still haunts us today. Now Donald is doubling down on it.

To take the 9/11 truther stance simply to score a few cheap points against Jeb is petty and vindictive and childish — not to mention inaccurate and infinitely damaging. Barack Obama ran against George Bush twice — practically ignoring John McCain and Mitt Romney. He won, as a Democrat.

If Trump wants to run against W, perhaps he should do it as a Democrat. Trump-Sheehan 2016. Or as his sophomoric fans would say, GO TRUMP!!!!!!!!

Edmund Wright is a contributor to American Thinker, Newsmax TV, Breitbart, Talk Radio Network — and author of the Amazon bestselling election book WTF? How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost…Again.

Categories: Politics

What People Need to Remember About Hilary

August 12, 2014 Leave a comment

Cartoonist Gary Varvel: Hillary criticizes Obama's foreign policy

Categories: Humor, Politics

EDITORIAL: A good day for the Second Amendment Common sense prevails in the U.S. Senate

April 20, 2013 Leave a comment

The president raged. The mayor of New York frothed. Joe Biden cried. But at the end of the day, common sense prevailed. The Senate killed the effort to unreasonably expand background checks for buyers of guns.

The measure is not quite graveyard dead; it can be brought up again, but prospects for that are remote. The vote was a bone-jarring setback for the gun-control lobby, and a decisive victory for the National Rifle Association (NRA), which led the fight to protect the rights of all. It was most of all a resounding victory for the plain and simple language of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Chris Cox, speaking plain and simple after the vote for the NRA, observed that the proposal “would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens, requiring lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution.”

President Obama seemed stunned at the result and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York City, who has spent millions of his own billions to impose his version of the Second Amendment on everyone, was fairly besotted with rage. The president pointed his finger at “the gun lobby” that “willfully lied” to the American people for the defeat of gun-control legislation that he regards as crucial to the legacy of his second term. “All in all this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.”

Shame, indeed, Mr. President. The president spoke from the Rose Garden, with families of the children killed at Newtown arranged around him to make a good photo-op. The shame is how the gun-control advocates have exploited the grief of these families, bearing up under a sadness beyond knowing by the rest of us, using them at every opportunity as props to make a political argument.

Mayor Bloomberg may be beyond calming, a man who obviously needs more than 16 ounces of something stronger than a Slurpee to get a grip on himself. “Today’s vote is a damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington. More than 40 U.S. senators would rather turn their backs on the 90 percent of Americans who support comprehensive background checks than buck the increasingly extremist wing of the gun lobby.”

The mayor’s percentages are suspect, too. A new Gallup telephone poll, taken earlier this month, reveals that most Americans aren’t seeing a lot of backs turned on them. Gallup finds that only 4 percent of Americans think guns and gun control is an important issue, ranking far behind the economy, jobs, dissatisfaction with the government, the budget, health care, immigration and schools. None of Mayor Bloomberg’s millions could change that, so maybe he’s entitled to his insensate rage. But only as long as he stays inside and off the street.

Categories: Politics

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate

December 7, 2012 Leave a comment


Democratic Party leaders, President Obama in particular, are forever telling the country that wealthy Americans are taxed at too low a rate and pay too little in taxes. The need to correct this seeming injustice is framed not simply in terms of fairness. Higher tax rates on the wealthy, we’re told, would help balance the budget, allow for more “investment” in America’s future and foster better economic growth for all. In support of this claim, like-minded liberal pundits point out that in the 1950s, when America’s economic might was at its zenith, the rich faced tax rates as high as 91%.

True enough, the top marginal income-tax rate in the 1950s was much higher than today’s top rate of 35%—but the share of income paid by the wealthiest Americans has essentially remained flat since then.

In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.

So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.

In 1958, an 81% marginal tax rate applied to incomes above $1.08 million, and the 91% rate kicked in at $3.08 million. These figures are in unadjusted 1958 dollars and correspond today to nominal income levels that are at least 10 times higher. That year, according to Internal Revenue Service records, just 236 of the nation’s 45.6 million tax filers had any income that was taxed at 81% or higher. (The published IRS data do not reveal how many of these were subject to the 91% rate.)

In 1958, approximately 28,600 filers (0.06% of all taxpayers) earned the $93,168 or more needed to face marginal rates as high as 30%. These Americans—genuinely wealthy by the standards of the day—paid 5.9% of all income taxes. And now? In 2010, 3.9 million taxpayers (2.75% of all taxpayers) were subjected to rates that were 33% or higher. These Americans—many of whom would hardly call themselves wealthy—reported an adjusted gross income of $209,000 or higher, and they paid 49.7% of all income taxes.

In contrast, the share of taxes paid by the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers has fallen dramatically over the same period. In 1958, these Americans accounted for 41.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 29% of all federal taxes. By 2010, their share of adjusted gross income had fallen to 22.5%. But their share of taxes paid fell far more dramatically—to 6.7%. The 77% decline represents the single biggest difference in the way the tax burden is shared in this country since the late 1950s.

The changes came about not so much by movements in rates but by the addition of tax credits for the poor and the elimination of exemptions for the wealthy. In 1958, even the lowest-tier filers, which included everyone making up to $5,000 annually, were subjected to an effective 20% rate. Today, almost half of all tax filers have no income-tax liability whatsoever, and many “taxpayers” actually get a net refund from the government. Those nostalgic for 1950s-era “tax fairness” should bear this in mind.

The tax code of the 1950s allowed upper-income Americans to take exemptions and deductions that are unheard of today. Tax shelters were widespread, and not just for the superrich. The working wealthy—including doctors, lawyers, business owners and executives—were versed in the art of creating losses to lower their tax exposure.

For instance, a doctor who earned $50,000 through his medical practice could reduce his taxable income to zero with $50,000 in paper losses or depreciation from property he owned through a real-estate investment partnership. Huge numbers of professionals signed up for all kinds of money-losing schemes. Today, a corresponding doctor earning $500,000 can deduct a maximum of $3,000 from his taxable income, no matter how large the loss.

Those 1950s gambits lowered tax liabilities but dissuaded individuals from engaging in the more beneficial activities of increasing their incomes and expanding their businesses. As a result, they were a net drag on the economy. When Ronald Reagan finally lowered rates in the 1980s, he did so in exchange for scrapping uneconomical deductions. When business owners stopped trying to figure out how to lose money, the economy boomed.

It’s hard to determine how much otherwise taxable income disappeared through tax shelters in the 1950s. As a result, direct comparisons between the 1950s and now are difficult. However, it is worth noting that from 1958 to 2010, the taxes paid by the top 3% of earners, as a percentage of total personal income (which can’t be reduced by shelters), increased to 3.96% from 2.72%, while the percentage paid by the bottom two-thirds of filers fell to 0.51% in 2010 from 2.7%. This starker division of relative tax burdens can be explained by the inability of upper-income groups to shelter income.

It is a testament to the shallow nature of the national economic conversation that higher tax rates can be justified by reference to a fantasy—a 91% marginal rate that hardly any top earners paid.

In reality, tax policies that diminish the incentives and capacities of innovators, business owners and investors will not spur economic improvement. Such policies will, however, satisfy the instincts of those who want to “stick it to the rich.” Never mind that the rich have already been stuck fairly well.

Mr. Schiff is the author of “The Real Crash: America’s Coming Bankruptcy” (St. Martin’s Press, 2012) and host of the daily radio program “The Peter Schiff Show.”

A version of this article appeared December 7, 2012, on page A17 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate.

Categories: Politics

The Moron Vote Explained

November 10, 2012 Leave a comment
Categories: Politics

One Guy’s Explanation

November 7, 2012 Leave a comment

Return to the Article

November 7, 2012

Where We Go From Here

By Selwyn Duke

I have never been so unhappy to be right. I’ve long said that Barack Obama would win re-election, and two weeks ago I stated as much in print. In making this prediction, I was almost alone among traditionalist pundits, with some, such as Dick Morris (Mr. Batting Zero), actually forecasting a Mitt Romney landslide. And, no, I’m not pointing this out to numb despair with some perverse kind of gloating, like a man consumed in flames looking to suck on an ice cube. It’s because of why I knew that Romney would lose: America is lost. And there is something to be found, but not unless good people understand what truly lies ahead.

America is heading toward a dark winter. Of course, I can’t give you a Mayan-like prediction of a precise time of reckoning; details are always sketchy, which is why I wasn’t entirely right on the micro of the election. But this is much like how it’s difficult to predict the weather for two Wednesdays from now, but easy to forecast cold in February. And of our civilization’s overall weather pattern, there is no doubt. Now let’s discuss what prevents conservatives from seeing the clouds on the horizon.


Many conservatives probably knew better in their hearts than to predict a Romney win, but just couldn’t come to terms with the depressing reality of a second Obama term. Rationalization is common among man; it’s how we avoid unwelcome truths. But it also blinds us to danger. Just think, for instance, of Jews who saw their coming winter in 1930s Germany and emigrated; then think of those who didn’t because they couldn’t face reality. This is how dangerous rationalization can be.

Likewise, for years I and a few others have been warning that fighting in the political arena while losing the culture is like trying to grow beautiful leaves on a tree whose roots are beset with steady rot. Sure, we may win some battles, but they’re merely a rightward movement of deck chairs on a ship steadily drifting left. Yet even when this phenomenon’s specifics are explained to simplicity, they’re often rationalized away by conservatives. Most would rather talk about Obama this and Romney that, about how we just, by gum, need a real conservative. But this is for naught without a real conservative electorate. And we can’t elect a better government when we’ve bred a worse people.

And just as I knew Obama would win last night, I’m quite sure of something else.

No truly “conservative” Republican will ever win nationally again.


(Don’t click that mouse and grab the hemlock, because there is hope. I’ll get to that later.)

To understand a major reason why, read my piece, “Does the GOP’s Demographic Death Spiral End in a Texas Graveyard?” And to understand why I put “conservative” in quotation marks, click “Conservatism is Dead; Long Live Conservatism.” I’ll give many such recommendations in this piece, as they’re necessary background for a proper understanding of our coming dark days.

But let’s start with a simple fact: Mitt Romney is a photogenic, articulate, moderate Republican who was up against a scandal-ridden, leftist radical presiding over a listing economy and foundering foreign policy. Still he couldn’t win.

Or, I should say, voters chose to lose.

Because what the American people were before, they are no more.

I know, I know. The media deceived the citizenry. Romney started playing not to lose instead of to win. There was vote fraud. There was that storm and Chris Christie playing Misty for Mr. Limp Wristy.


Oh, it’s not that the above isn’t true. But no candidate is tactically perfect; Obama certainly made his share of mistakes. There also will inevitably be unforeseen events during any campaign, and they don’t matter when enough people can distinguish good from evil. And the left does steal hearts and minds through the media and votes through electoral sleight-of-hand, but this merely reflects our cultural decay. And it’s only getting worse.

If You Can’t Get Elected, Appoint a New People

This variation on a Bertolt Brecht line gets at our problem. And our new people has been forged via both importation and domestic production.

While conservatives complain about illegal migration — ever more tepidly — I’ve been warning that it was merely an exacerbation of a larger problem: legal immigration, through which statists have been importing reliably socialist voters. This I have explained thoroughly over and over and over and over and over and over again, yet most conservatives won’t touch the issue. This is partially due to “immigrationism,” dogma stating that immigration must be a permanent and unquestioned fixture of American life (death?); partially due to pundit cowardice; and partially due to rationalization. After all, immigration is here to stay, we think, so better to shunt its scary implications to the mind’s recesses, where the rest of the wild things are.

But I’ll make this simple: remember the pre-election stories about how Obama was wildly popular overseas? The English are enchanted, the French are all aflutter, Indonesia is infatuated, and Kenya is kvelling. Obama isn’t foreign to foreigners, and do you think this will change because the foreigners come here? Just as with religion, people bring their ideology with them. And unless you think you could talk a Muslim jihadist out of Islam, why suppose you could talk a socialist out of socialism?

The world’s consensus political orientation is no surprise, mind you. Note that nascent, adolescent, and young adult America was the rarest of anomalies, as man’s historical default is tyranny. And as geriatric America has proven, it’s difficult enough instilling the mindset that birthed her into the native born, never mind those who come here in the hardened clay of adulthood. Having said this, there is a reason why we are being, as Alan Keyes put it, “colonized….”

“Israel hath cast off the thing that is good; the enemy shall pursue him. They have reigned, but not by me: they have been princes, and I knew not….” – Hosea 8:3-4

As a people’s morality goes, so go its fortunes. You simply cannot be one kind of people but have another kind of government (see “Written in the Eternal Constitution“). And what has happened to our sense of virtue in America? So lost it is that even the word has been replaced with “values,” that fixture of the atheistic literary style. For decades we have instilled children with leftism, nihilism, hedonism, relativism, and atheism through academia, the media, and popular culture; we have seduced them into sin and made them, as Ben Franklin wrote, “more corrupt and vicious, [so] they have more need of masters.” For sure, masters will be one’s lot if he has not mastered himself.

And this inner anarchy has outward manifestations: the imagery of pagan barbarism. Like primitive tribesmen, the young today deface themselves with tattoos and body piercings; the tramp stamp has become a stamp of youth-generation membership, while even large earlobe rings, something the West previously reserved to Discovery Channel documentaries, are now worn. And this physiognomy correlates with a certain voting pattern. Do you know what it is?

Speaking of voting patterns, for my atheist friends…

“It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains” – Patrick Henry

Like many reading this, I once was that rare breed: an agnostic conservative. And, like so many who bristle when I now promote faith, I probably didn’t realize how rare I was — and always would be.

Fox News alluded to this when trying to explain Obama’s win last evening, pointing out that religiously unaffiliated voters are 20 percent of the U.S. for the first time ever. And does a poll showing that this burgeoning group of Americans favors Obama surprise you? It shouldn’t. There is a strong atheism-statism correlation the world over, which is why it’s no coincidence that “conservatives” in heavily secular Western Europe are simpatico with our liberals. Take note of this before you cheer the diminution of faith and fancy it can be replaced with Ayn Randism. Without the Christian right, there is no right at all.

So where do we go from here? First, we must stop rationalizing and look truth in the eye. There are no national ballot-box solutions, and America’s winter is nigh. And will we, as all civilizations eventually do, soon go the way of ancient Rome? It’s possible. Remember, however, that when Rome fell there were still people living in her lost lands. They still had to forge societies. And some did a better job than others.

And what of the immediate future? Well, I’ll write more about that in the coming months. For now I’ll leave it at this: what would you do if you were part of an organization whose leadership became ever more tyrannical and intransigent?

We must focus on our states and localities, on uncompromisingly doing the right thing within them. Are you with me? Because all I can say is that if I were a governor, I would certainly make news. What else can you do when caught in the course of human events?

Contact Selwyn Dukefollow him on Twitter or log on to

Categories: Politics

Great Article

October 26, 2012 Leave a comment

A Star Falls Over Chicago

Eloquent piece and spot on at least the way I think.

Categories: Articles, Politics