Archive for May, 2016

A Biden-Warren ticket

A Clinton-Warren Ticket?

Or Maybe a Biden-Warren Ticket.

By Mark Alexander

Jul. 23, 2014

“Be not intimidated … nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.” –John Adams (1765)

The most despised political constituents in America are rich liberals, the self-anointed “intelligentsia” who lord over the Leftist proletariat, and are tolerated only for the graft they dispense to all manner of liberal causes and campaigns1.

Though they imagine themselves held in high esteem by the recipients of their largess, they are utterly loathed by the populist 99 Percenter2 Demo-Party base. Of course, they are equally reviled by conservatives3, who object to their smugness and their abject hypocrisy among other traits.

If there is one generalization that approaches a universal truth about the Left Elite4, it is that they are chronic hypocrites5. And there is no better example of this than B. Obama6, who constantly rebukes “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “millionaires,” “fat cats,” ad infinitum, all in the name of “redistributive change,” while he basks in the profligate lifestyle of the most rich and famous7.

For example, recall if you will Obama’s incessant vilification of “fat cats in their corporate jets8.” Despite a slew of policy meltdowns, both domestic and foreign, Obama spends most of his waking hours jet-setting around the countryside for political stump speeches and fundraisers. Indeed, even the liberal Washington Post has taken notice, criticizing Obama for attending more than 400 fundraisers since taking office – nearly double the amount attended by George W. Bush at this stage of his presidency.

Thus, Obama is racking up hours on the most expensive luxury jet on the planet in order to hang with his Left Elite benefactors – all at taxpayers expense. And when he’s not flying off to hobnob with one percenters in places like the Hamptons last week, he’s off on vacations at wealthy playgrounds like Martha’s Vineyard, or taking his entourage on $100 million “family” trips to Africa.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, “Suppose you were a liberal, and suppose you were a hypocrite. But I repeat myself.”

Fact is, most rich liberals are “upstairs people” – the Dukes, Earls and Barons of Downton Abbey, Lords pretending to identify with Commoners, but washing their hands twice after contact with any of them. They only drop down from their exclusive clubs and gated communities to toss larded pork at the masses in order to ensure that the commissars who do their bidding will protect their estates.

Of course, the 99 percenters suspend their deeply held prejudicial classist convictions9 when rich liberals are on ballots. They tolerate them in order to form Faustian bargains necessary to advance their statist “dependency” agenda.

Thus, while the nation languishes through the sixth year of economic stagnation10, the fulfillment of Obama’s promise of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America11,” and as the population numbers of his urban poverty plantations12 set new records, there is also another record set under his watch.

There are now 268 millionaires in Congress, and as you might have surmised the net worth of Democrats exceeds the net worth of Republicans…

But I digress.

Like most rich liberals, those with presidential aspirations make every effort to cast their identity as card-carrying proletariats, who are thoroughly in touch with the “struggling middle classes.”

The most ridiculous example of this charade was Hillary Clinton’s13 recent effort to portray herself as “dead broke14,” when in fact she and her serial sex-offender husband converted their White House tenure into wealth that now ranks them among the tiniest fraction of the richest One-Percenters.

Now, it appears Hillary has an equally disingenuous contender for the 2016 Democrat presidential nomination who Clinton may well tap for the bottom of her ticket: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

So, just who is Elizabeth Warren?

Well, for starters, she’s another limo-liberal hypocrite. Like Clinton, she recently attempted to deceive her supporters into believing what she isn’t: “I realize there are some wealthy individuals,” she said. “I’m not one of them…”

But according to her Personal Financial Disclosures filed in advance of her 2012 Senate campaign, she has something in excess of $14.5 million in accumulated wealth, had income in excess of $700,000 in her last year before being elected, and lives in a house valued at more than $5 million. But as for the wealthy, she’s “not one of them.”

Recently, lamenting the plight of the poor, Warren noted, “My brother lives on his Social Security. That’s about $1,100 a month. $13,200 a year.” Well, perhaps she should split her income with her brother, and donate the rest of her assets to charity.

In another fine example of deceptive rhetoric, Warren regurgitated her own version of Obama’s “You didn’t build that15” insult to entrepreneurs across the nation. According to Warren, “There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there – good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea – God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Of course Warren, like Clinton and Obama, has never built anything but her investment portfolio, and refuses to acknowledge that successful entrepreneurs already pay 80% of federal and state taxes – a violation of “the underlying social contract” which should imply flat taxation. Additionally, America’s corporations pay the highest tax rates among the 33 industrialized nations. But Democrats never let facts get in the way of their classist political agenda, because their only real power is the ability to redistribute wealth to their constituents. And look what their so-called “Great Society16” has gotten them.

So, why does it matter that Warren is as hypocritical about her wealth as Clinton?

Because she is a far smarter and more articulate Leftist than Clinton, or Obama for that matter, and her policy positions17 mirror those of Obama, falling well to the left of Clinton.

She is the ideological heir apparent to Obama’s “Imperial Presidency18,” and like Obama, she is a certifiable socialist – a rising star among the New Democratic Party19 statists, who have infested the once-noble Democrat Party20. Obama ran to the left of Clinton in the 2008 Democrat presidential primary, and Warren could do the same in the 2016 primary.

This doesn’t mean Warren would be a presidential shoo-in. Indeed, she has said that she’s not running at all in 2016. But her performance at the “Nutroots Nation” convention last week certainly resembled the launch of a presidential bid, as she laid out her 11 Commandments of Progressivism21.

If Warren runs, she would be a more formidable general election opponent than Clinton. Of course, she may get to the convention floor by default. There is that ominous “Clinton indictment22” wildcard – if Clinton faces felony charges in connection with her deliberate use of private email servers23 to keep her official communications offline, including her coordination of the Benghazi coverup24 to protect Obama’s 2012 re-election, then she would have to step aside. That would open the door for Warren or Biden, or perhaps a Biden-Warren ticket.

Warren would also do a better job of rallying female voters25 – and female voters have elected every Democrat president since Kennedy. If Clinton is the Demo nominee and Republicans run a younger more vibrant candidate against her, that match up would, ironically, mirror the 1996 campaigns between a young and charismatic Bill Clinton versus an old and boring establishment type, Bob Dole – and with a similar outcome. However, if Clinton puts Warren on the ticket, all bets are off.

In 1797, John Adams wrote, “If an election is to be determined by a majority … procured by a party through artifice or corruption, the Government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not of the nation for the national good.” And that describes the Democratic Party19 today.

P.S. Despite Warren’s reassertion in an upcoming book that she has “native American ancestry,” that lie is still just that. Honest Injun.

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis



The Biden-Warren Warning

The Demos’ 2016 Default Ticket

By Mark Alexander

May 4, 2016

“If an election is to be determined by a majority … procured by a party through artifice or corruption, the Government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not of the nation for the national good.” —John Adams (1797)

There has been some chatter in recent weeks that Hillary Clinton isn’t actually the Democratic Party’s1 intended 2016 nominee. That chatter was amplified last week when the ever-inebriated former House Speaker John Boehner2, the quintessential “establishment Republican,” endorsed Donald Trump while maligning Trump’s conservative opponent3, Ted Cruz. (No small irony that Boehner’s abject failure as speaker has largely fueled Trump’s populist appeal.)

Amid the fratricidal mayhem4, you may have missed this Boehner prediction: “Don’t be shocked if two weeks before the convention, here comes Joe Biden parachuting in and Barack Obama fanning the flames to make it all happen.”

For the record, I don’t think Biden is the intended nominee, but I do believe he — not Sanders — is the default candidate in the event that Clinton is indicted on felony charges. The calculus that this indictment is coming may mean that she is already presumed to be a mere placeholder for Biden — unless, of course, Bernie Sanders continues to flank that strategy. Let’s hope he does!

In a profile on Warren5 two years ago, I noted that a Clinton indictment “would open the door for Warren or Biden, or perhaps a Biden-Warren ticket.” Indeed, Joe Biden6 is an affable candidate who has none of Clinton’s negatives, and Warren is the ideological heir apparent for Obama’s “Imperial Presidency7.” Like Obama, she is a certifiable socialist — a rising star among the statists who have infested the once-noble Democrat Party8.

In August 2015, I framed the Biden-Warren default strategy in “Hillary’s Email Subterfuge9.”

At that time, the best evidence that felony charges were a distinct possibility was Obama’s endorsement of Biden10, by way of his spokesman Josh Earnest, a day after Biden held a powwow with Warren.

According to Earnest, “The president has indicated that [adding] Joe Biden to the ticket as his running mate was the smartest decision that he has ever made in politics. And I think that should give you some sense into the president’s view into the vice president’s aptitude for the top job.” Earnest added, “The vice president is somebody who has already run for president twice. So I think you could probably make the case that there is no one in American politics today [emphasis added] who has a better understanding of exactly what is required to mount a successful national presidential campaign.”

While Earnest also expressed Obama’s “appreciation, respect and admiration” for Hillary Clinton, his statements on Biden, in light of Hillary’s mounting indictment prospects, are clear in their intent.

Recall that the Obamas hate the Clintons. If Obama can ensure a Democrat successor in November, it will lend legitimacy to his legacy. If he can do so while destroying Hillary Clinton, it would be a double dip.

No doubt Biden’s meeting with Warren last year was to reach an accord that he would serve one term with her as his Veep — if she stayed out of the 2016 primary. Clearly a Biden-Warren “parachute in” ticket would be far more competitive than either Clinton or Sanders at the top of the Demo punchcard.

In February 2015, Biden advocated11 for an Obama third term: “I call it sticking with what works!” By “what works,” he must have meant duping voters in presidential campaigns, because in both the 2010 and 2012 midterm elections12, Obama’s Democratic Party policies1 have suffered resounding defeat. That notwithstanding, in July, Obama himself asserted: “I can not run again. I actually think I’m a pretty good president — I think if I ran I could win. But I can’t.”

However, a Biden-Warren ticket is a defacto third Obama term.

While many polls have indicated that Clinton will thump Trump13 in the general election, a couple of recent polls have shown a much tighter race. One of those polls, from Rasmussen, actually has Trump ahead of Clinton — which says far more about her unfavorable ratings than his favorability.

A Biden-Warren ticket, however, would likely slice and dice Trump. Hillary Clinton is a well-known and thoroughly unlikeable candidate, while Biden and Warren have been free from the campaign mudslinging that invariably drives a candidate’s numbers down. Clearing the path for that ticket at the eleventh hour while sending Hillary to the hoosegow would be both brilliant and diabolical on Obama’s part.

But a caveat emptor: Reports on Trump’s imminent demise may be greatly exaggerated! Few Republicans or Democrats took Donald Trump’s presidential run seriously a year ago. Every seasoned political analyst has underestimated Trump’s appeal14, failing to recognize what I coined in February as “The Obama effect15.” The combination of broad spectrum grassroots anger16 across party lines, exhaustion after two terms of the Obama regime, earned disdain for ineffectual GOP leadership (primarily the aforementioned John Boehner), a large field of fratricidal GOP primary contenders, and Trump’s media/pollaganda propulsion17 have created a “perfect storm” for Trump’s rhetorical sound-bite campaign. A Trump/Kasich ticket will be formidable.

The question remains, will anything stick to Clinton, who appears to be as adept at evading political liabilities as her political benefactor, “Teflon Bill18”? Her record of deceptions, obfuscations and subterfuges19 is impressive, and she has, thus far, escaped prosecution.

However, the looming “Clinton indictment20” wildcard may stick. If felony charges are brought in connection with her deliberate use of private email servers21 to conceal her official communications, including the receipt and transmission of top secret documents and those detailing her role in the Benghazi murders cover-up22 to protect Obama’s 2012 re-election, then she will be sidelined.

As Charles Krauthammer asserted back in January, “The person who will decide the nomination on the Democratic side is the FBI Director, [James] Comey.”

Now that Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee, Democrats have a serious problem — how can Clinton take on Trump23? How’s she going to hit him? His marital history? His ethics? His honesty? His wealth? His Wall Street connections? His politically incorrect ways? On every one of those issues, one of two things applies: Her record is either as bad as or worse than his, or he’s managed to turn each “weakness” into a strength.

A Clinton indictment would play right into the Demos 2016 presidential aspirations, as it would deliver a political deathblow to the Clinton Crime Family while clearing the way for a much more formidable Democrat ticket.

A Biden-Warren ticket will do the trick.

Biden can hold his own with Trump on all those populist issues that Clinton can’t touch. And Warren, as I noted in 2014, is a far smarter and more articulate Leftist than Clinton — or Obama for that matter — and she’ll attract a lot of the Sanders Socialists24 who are utterly repelled by Clinton’s candidacy.

On Biden’s ticket, Warren would also do a better job of rallying female voters25 — and female voter majorities have elected every Democrat president since Kennedy. Though Trump recently blustered that all Clinton has is “the woman card,” that is largely responsible for every successful Democrat ticket since 1960.

In the next few months, expect more high-profile appearances from Joe Biden, like his “surprise visit to Iraq26” last week. And expect to hear more from Elizabeth Warren too.

(Footnote: As I have noted previously, I do NOT fall into the “never Trump” crowd, any more than I do the “only Trump” crowd. I will vote early and often for Trump against any Democrat ticket, because better to have a president who will support (however inadvertently) Rule of Law27 some of the time than a statist Democrat who stands diametrically opposed to our Constitution.)

Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis


Mid-Day Digest

May 3, 2016


“He that goes a borrowing goes a sorrowing. ” —Benjamin Franklin (1758)


In Midst of Puerto Rico’s Debt Crisis, Left Angles for Votes1

On Monday, the Puerto Rican government defaulted on a $422 million debt payment. Altogether, the U.S. territory is sitting in a $72 billion hole. In the past, retirees2 placed their hard-earned dollars in Puerto Rican bonds because they were tax-free. But last year, the island’s governor declared that creditors should “share the sacrifices” with the struggling government. The Republican Congress moved to head off the problem by trying to establish oversight to restructure the debt. Naturally, however, Democrats only see an opportunity to score political points before Election Day.

Young Puerto Ricans are fleeing the island, The Wall Street Journal writes3. If Democrats somehow get this demographic on the government dole — maybe if the island defaulted on the whole $72 billion — they could tip presidential elections in states like Florida, where many Puerto Ricans end up. Of course, it wasn’t too long ago that Democrats were toying with the idea of making Puerto Rico the 51st state.

House Speaker Paul Ryan faces opposition from the conservative Freedom Caucus because it considers proposed legislation a “bailout” for Puerto Rico. But the bill doesn’t have any federal funds flowing to the island, The Hill reports4. In the midst of the discord, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sees an opportunity to attack the GOP for dysfunctional leadership.

“The Speaker has an overriding, shall we say, principle, which is the committees shall do the work,” Pelosi said. “But at some point, there’s going to have to be a moment where there’s got to be a leadership decision — that this is as good as it gets and this is what we’re going to take to the floor. Hopefully, that will be very soon.” She wants to demonstrate what a Democrat-controlled House would look like ahead of the election. Meanwhile, she is one of the lawmakers primarily responsible for consistently and dramatically increasing the national debt. The big takeaway from this Puerto Rican debt fiasco is that debt actually is crushing — it’s not some sort of theoretical exercise to talk about the trillions of dollars the federal government owes. The time to pay the piper eventually comes.

Clinton Faux-Apologizes for Threatening Coal Jobs5

Hillary Clinton has a knack for lying to the faces of the people who have been hurt by her policies. She did it with the families of the men killed in Benghazi, and she lied to a man laid off because he worked in the coal industry, an industry the Left considers not only expendable but condemnable. On Monday, the former coal miner accosted Clinton at a West Virginia campaign stop, asking Clinton about her comments in March6 when she warned, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” The man wanted to know: How could she say something like that and then tell voters in places like West Virginia that she’s their friend?

“What I said was [taken] totally out of context from what I meant,” Clinton backpedaled. “It was a misstatement, because what I was saying is that the way things are going now, we will continue to lose jobs.” But moments after she told the audience in March that coal jobs would be destroyed, she continued, “Now we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels.” So her threat was neither out of context nor a misstatement.

Clinton did apologize to the coal miner — for the way conservatives interpreted her comments. “I do feel a little bit sad and sorry that I gave folks the reason or the excuse to be so upset with me,” Clinton said, “because that is not what I intended at all.”

The day before this confrontation, Clinton told the attendees at an NAACP dinner in Detroit, “We cannot let Barack Obama’s legacy fall into Donald Trump’s hands. We can’t let all the hard work and progress we have achieved over the last seven and a half years be torn away.”

What is that legacy? In 2009, Obama promised the price of electricity “would necessarily skyrocket” thanks to his policies of pursuing “green” energy at the expense of fossil fuels. What followed next was the systematic destruction of the coal industry through regulation. Why do we want four more years of that? Why give Clinton the chance to make good on Obama’s promise to hamstring the energy sector of our nation?

Is Smart Gun Tech the Next Gun Control Ruse?7

Barack Obama recently took to social media to announce “some important progress we’ve made to protect our communities from gun violence,” including “jumpstart[ing] the development of smart gun technology.” The details were unveiled in a new 17-page “Report to the President Outlining a Strategy to Expedite Deployment of Gun Safety Technology8” by the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Defense. According to the report, “Over the next six months, the Administration will partner with state, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies to establish the specific conditions under which they would consider purchasing firearms with advanced gun safety technology. This partnership will result in the drafting of voluntary ‘baseline specifications’ that will outline — for the first time — a clear description of what law enforcement expects from smart gun technology, particularly with regards to reliability, durability, and accuracy.”

Smart gun technology is, of course, a hotly debated topic. Intriguing though it is, because the technology is relatively new it raises concerns over foreseeable issues like software malfunctioning. John Sexton over at Hot Air speculates9 that Obama’s “goal is to use the buying power of law enforcement agencies to make the production of smart guns appealing to manufacturers.” He furthermore observes that “it’s not going to prevent street criminals from getting their hands on one of the millions of cheaper, regular guns already out there,” meaning “the impact this will have on violent crime would likely be minimal unless the government takes the next step and mandates the technology.” (And even then, making one more thing illegal isn’t suddenly going to stop crime.) Democrats scoff at such an assertion — that is until they “evolve” a few years down the road. Their contempt for the Second Amendment takes precedence over anything and everything, so it’s inevitable that one day they will use smart gun technology as a means of gun control in the name of “national security” and “public health.” And if Hillary Clinton enters the Oval Office in January 2017, you know she’ll pursue Obama’s anti-gun crusade.

Don’t Miss Patriot Humor

Check out Forrest Gump10.

If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here11.


Joe Bastardi: A Real Bet for the Tough Guy in a Bow Tie12
Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore: Growth Anemia: Blame a Collapse in Business Investment13
Michael Barone: Republicans Should Have Adopted Democrats’ Rules — and Vice Versa14
For more, visit Right Opinion15.


Trouble Looming With ObamaCare16

By Paul Albaugh

If somehow you still like your health insurance plan, then get ready to dislike it this coming November. If you don’t like your health insurance plan, well, then be prepared to go from bad to worse. Regardless of what Barack Obama says over the coming months about his crowning “achievement” of ObamaCare, there’s trouble looming and it isn’t going to bode well for most Americans. Or Democrats come Election Day.

As we remember all too well, Obama and his party lied about “affordable health care” from the very beginning. More than six years ago, Obama said17, “This legislation will … lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades. It is paid for. It is fiscally responsible. And it will help lift a decades-long drag on our economy.” Yet every year ObamaCare has been in place, health insurance — in terms of cost and coverage — has gotten worse. And the deficit is only beginning.

Perhaps the statement that Obama made more than any other during his tenure — “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” — has proved to be one of the more epic lies in American history. Millions of Americans lost the plans they had before ObamaCare, and virtually no one is paying less as Obama also promised. After ObamaCare was signed into law, those plans changed or the cost went up and in most cases both happened simultaneously.

In fact, most health care plans now have higher premiums, higher deductibles and less coverage — including our own18. To be blunt, the health care options that most people can afford flat out stink. As with any government mandate, it is never about quality, it’s about quantity and control.

ObamaCare has been so bad that forecasts for people enrolling in the marketplace have been off target19 by millions of people every year since the government mandate for health insurance was implemented. And this coming year’s numbers will no doubt continue the downward spiral.

ObamaCare has not just been bad for Americans wanting or needing health insurance, it has also been bad for insurance companies who were or are part of the market exchange. Insurance companies have been losing millions of dollars since ObamaCare was put in place, though don’t cry for them — they lobbied for it, imagining a flood of new customers forced to buy their product. When it didn’t quite work out as they hoped, UnitedHealth recently announced20 that it was going to “distance itself from ObamaCare” and that it would be leaving several state exchanges by 2017.

This coming fall, Americans will undergo another round of sticker shock. That’s right, when ObamaCare’s next open enrollment period begins on November 1, customers will most likely be faced with double digit rate hikes on their health insurance plans. Again. We suspect that this won’t work out well for Democrats on November 8.

As Mark Alexander noted21 several years ago, “With increasing frequency, Americans of every political stripe who have any issue with health care, whether a hangnail or heart transplant, a delay in a doctor’s office or in critical care for a loved one, will tie blame for their discontent like a noose around the necks of Obama and his Democrats, who are solely responsible for forcing this abomination upon the American people.”

Democrats will claim that Republicans have no alternative to ObamaCare, though there are several GOP alternatives22, and conservative candidates running for office need to emphasize the concept of free markets for health insurance. Democrats in the same breath will push to save the government program by expanding it further. Indeed, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and a host of others will join in chorus to sell us another bag of lies in the name of saving ObamaCare from itself, perhaps by heading toward a single-payer system.

Sadly, many people will buy the lies. But there are real-life examples of the failure of single-payer systems. Take, for instance, the United Kingdom.

Six months ago, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ran a report on the National Health Service in the UK and announced23 that its health care system was one of the worst in the world.

In its report, the OECD highlighted that hospitals were underequipped and understaffed and that people were needlessly dying due to “chronic lack of investment.” Furthermore, the report mentioned that while access to care is “generally good” the quality of care in the UK is “poor to mediocre” across several key health areas. The NHS also struggles simply to get the “basics” right. Sounds eerily familiar to all of our government programs, does it not?

Yet a single-payer system is what many Democrats want for America. In fact, one might conclude they designed ObamaCare to fail for just that end. It’s another terrible idea that simply doesn’t work, but there’s something even more important at stake. Errant Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding, the federal government has no constitutional authority to force Americans to buy health insurance, and it definitely has no business establishing a single-payer system.


ANALYSIS: U.S. Economic Freedom Ain’t What It Used to Be24
U.S. Not Guilty of War Crimes in Afghanistan; Taliban Is25
Months Later and Congress Doesn’t Have a Budget26
CIA Head Hints at Truth About Islamic State27

American Soldier Killed by ISIL in Iraq28
Cruz Stumbles Toward the Finish Line With Trump Knockout Looming29
ESPN Erases Curt Schilling From Baseball History30
For more, visit Patriot Headline Report31


Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore: “For the entire 32-quarter economic recovery, business fixed investment has averaged just 1.1 percent at an annual rate. Since 1960, however, business fixed investment has averaged 4.4 percent at an annual rate. So the present expansion in business investment is roughly one-quarter of the 55-year average. … Study after study shows that corporate tax reform is a middle-class tax cut, not a tax cut for the rich. You see, corporations don’t really pay taxes. They simply collect them and pass the cost along in the form of lower wages and benefits, higher consumer prices and reduced shareholder value. The overarching theme of this election is an angry revolt by the middle class over the fact that jobs and wages have barely increased in the past decade. They blame Washington, China, immigration, power elites and almost everything else. So be it. There is a lot of work to be done on all these fronts. But without radical tax, regulatory and currency reform, business investment will never fully recover. And neither will the economy.”


Insight: “Of all contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes them with paper money.” —Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

Upright: “People who want to redistribute wealth often misunderstand the nature and causes of wealth. Tangible wealth can be confiscated, but you cannot confiscate the knowledge which produced that wealth. Countries that confiscated the wealth of some groups and expelled them, destitute, have often seen the economy collapse, while the expelled people became prosperous again elsewhere.” —Thomas Sowell

A broken clock is right twice a day: “[T]he fact that some university boards and administrations now bow to pressure groups and shield students from … ideas through safe spaces, code words and trigger warnings is in my view a terrible mistake. … [O]ne of the most dangerous places on a college campus is a so-called safe space because it creates a false impression that we can isolate ourselves from those who hold different views. We can’t and we shouldn’t try.” —Michael Bloomberg

Understatement of the millennium: “I think it was a legitimate criticism of CNN that it was a little too liberal.” —CNN president Jeff Zucker

Interesting question: “The question isn’t who [Trump or Clinton] has higher unfavorability, but which one is more capable of getting a vote from a person who is disgusted by both of them. … One is exciting, risky, and entertaining. The other is dreary, predictable, and medicinal.” —Ann Althouse

For the record: “This week in Indiana, Mike Tyson — a convicted rapist — endorsed Donald Trump. Donald Trump called him a ‘tough guy.’ That’s not how I would describe a rapist.” —Carly Fiornia

Late-night humor: “You could tell Bernie Sanders was a guest at the [The White House Correspondents’ Dinner] when they had to schedule it at 3 p.m. Bernie was like, ‘I’m going to start a revolution — at the dessert table!’” —Jimmy Fallon

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.


ESPN Erases Curt Schilling From Baseball History