Alexander Hamilton speaks on Donald Trump

trump-crazy-nuts-Alexander Hamilton rose briefly from his grave upon the announcement that Trump is now the presemptive GOP nominee to become the first orange-skinned president, and said:

“If we must have an enemy at the head of government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible.” *

Hamilton is counseling that we should prefer Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. “Better to lose to a true enemy whose policies you can fight and repudiate, rather than to a false friend whose schemes will drag you down with him. This is a painful choice, but it also embraces realism while protecting the possibility of recovery in the future. The need to live to fight another day is why conservatives should adopt a Hamilton Rule if, God forbid, the choice comes down to Hillary and Trump.”

This is a mighty hard pill to swallow but it just might be the one that allows us to return and fight another day. This is especially hard because Hillary Clinton is one of the worst human beings in politics. Trump, however, has no moral anchor. He’s an emotional kook and a crony capitalist of the worst kind. He has no principles to which he is solidly committed, other than his own ego and his “deals.”

Perhaps we don’t really need to think about voting for Hillary Clinton in order to stop Trump. He may be stopped without conservatives doing anything. Polls show that approximately 70 percent of women voters have an unfavorable view of Trump. The electorate in the November electioin will be much differnet than in the GOP primaries.

We don’t know yet how much the press and the media have focused on Trump’s business dealings and various other unpleasant history. Once the nomination is firmly in the bag we can be sure they will laser focus on Trump and all the lies, cheating and other rotten stink in his past dealings. I bet they find more than even they can imagine. It’ll probably get dumped in their laps without them even have to work for it.

*Hamilton was actually talking about John Adams when he made this statement in 1800. He didn’t rise from his grave upon Trumps’ Indiana win, I made that up. He might have turned over though.

Even after yesterday, I found something to be cheerful about

Looking around for something to cheer me up after yesterday’s sad defeat of a good man like Ted Cruz by the repulsive Donald Trump, I found this:

Vietnam, ruled by communists for 40 years, is now the No. 1 fan of capitalism on the planet

That is good news, that is something to be cheerful about. Capitalism is in the DNA of the Chinese, including the Indo Chinese. Everywhere on earth where they’re allowed freedom they thrive as capitalists. Brought to America as “Coolees” to build the railroad in the 19th Century, they not only made the best lives for themselves as they could then, and later when they were released from their bondage to the railroad interests they went about creating their own family  businesses in San Francisco and Vancouver. Today some of the wealthiest families in both of those cities came from a “Coolee” background.

The Vietnamese in America have a similar story to tell, Many came here as “boat people” who arrived on the California coast after a long and harrowing trip across the Pacific in rickety contraptions that barely stayed afloat. They arrived with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Today they send their children to Stanford and Harvard.

Knowing how the Chinese and Vietnamese used their capitalist freedom in America to build good lives for themselves stirs a lot of good feelings, and today I sure needed it.  I have to savor any distraction I can find to forget the impending doom that I believe will surely come from either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump winning in November. You missed a great chance, GOP voters, to make America great again.

America’s Millennials prefer socialism. A reality check is in order for them:

Socialism Has Created a Humanitarian Disaster in Venezuela

The Pursuit of Happiness — With Lottery Tickets?

There is no evidence to show that money buys happiness. Instead, research shows that happy people tend to: express gratitude on a regular basis; practice being optimistic; engage in frequent acts of kindness; savor joyful events, and practice forgiveness.

I’m a happy guy who is financially comfortable, for now at least. I’ve been poor and was just as happy then as I am now, maybe more so. When you’re poor and have few possessions, life is so much simpler. It’s easier to make a simple life complex than the other way round. If you are poor you need to have a goal that you hope will  get out of your state of penury. If you work on it realistically you will achieve success a little at a time. Those successes are joyful events that enhance one’s overall state of being. Since no one ever advances without occassional setbacks, the pursuit of happiness is imperative so we can leap the hurdles that are inevitably thrown in our path.

Many people in America spend their time blaming others for their condition. They are unwittingly making themselves more miserable because the people they blame are never going to fix anything for them. Wallowing in one’s misfortune leads to non-ending misery and despair. Only if and when the we come to realize we are responsible for ourselves will we ever find true happiness, and a way out. The only way out is through.

Lottery winners don’t suddenly become happy if happiness is defined as a general condition of well being that allows for normal swings between joy and sadness. Bad things are going to happen and even a generally happy person cannot avoid bouts of sadness when they do. Good things also happen and lead to celebrations of joy. Happiness is the general, joy and sadness the specific at any given time.  A general state of happiness helps one balance it all out.

So, if someone who was already pretty happy with their life hits a lotterly jackpot there will be a flash of joy, but since joy is a specific response to that event, one’s overall level of happiness may continue as is, improve, or be destroyed. There is evidence that winning a large lottery jackpot can as likely turn out to be a curse as a blessing.

I can hear readers muttering under their breath, “Oh yeah, let me win and I won’t screw it up.”

Right, but you won’t win the big one because the odds are astronomical.  One in 36,000 of winning a $100, one in 292 million of winning the jackpot. If you’re an addicted lottery player I bet you’d like to have back all the money you’ve wasted on lottery tickets. One-half of that money has gone into government coffers and the other half to a very small group of lucky winners.

What about the people who haven’t won but say it doesn’t matter because they’ve had lots of fun playing the lottery. I think psychology has names for that, like bias confirmation, cognitive dissonance, magical thinking, defense mechanism, denial, self deception, etc.

Lotteries beneift politicians and bureaucrats the most. They get a lot of money to play with. Government at every level already has money coming in from lots of sources and giving them more money is hardly ever a good idea because the more money a government has the worse it seems to be at serving the public interest.  If more people could accept this simple premise and understand its truth, we’d all be happier.

Lotteries especially hurt poor people who spend way too much money on lottery tickets thus robbing themselves of the ability to improve their lives in more productive ways. If they put the money they spend on lottery tickets into a saving account they would achieve more happiness, even in today’s totally screwed up financial system of near zero interest earnings on savings.

The great majority of lottery players never win enough to recoup what they have spent on tickets. That’s why some call the price of a lottery ticket a stupidity tax. I mean, if you are reasonable you know you won’t win. If you buy a chance anyway, well then you’re being stupid, no? The solace you can take is that the only reason the jackpot is so large is because a whole lot of people are stupid. [I know someone with a Mensa IQ who buys powerball tickets, so perhaps you can take some solace in that] Powerball aside, all state lotteries offer worse odds of winning than the casinos in Las Vegas. Did you know that?

Politicians and misguided voters who have foisted lotteries on us and themselves should have some explaining to do when and if they meet their creator. Their schemes are interfering with the pursuit of happiness by untold thousands who are lured by the false promise of lottery winnings..

 

Five Reasons Marijuana is Not Medicine

Bertha Madras, in the Washington Post:

To approve a medicine, the FDA requires five criteria to be fulfilled:

  1. The drug’s chemistry must be known and reproducible.Evidence of a standardized product, consistency, ultra-high purity, fixed dose and a measured shelf life are required by the FDA. The chemistry of “dispensary marijuana” is not standardized. Smoked, vaporized or ingested marijuana may deliver inconsistent amounts of active chemicals. Levels of the main psychoactive constituent, THC, can vary from 1 to 80 percent. Cannabidiol (known as CBD) produces effects opposite to THC, yet THC-to-CBD ratios are unregulated.
  2. There must be adequate safety studies. “Dispensary marijuana” cannot be studied or used safely under medical supervision if the substance is not standardized. And while clinical research on long-term side effects has not been reported, drawing from recreational users we know that marijuana impairs or degrades brain function, and intoxicating levels interfere with learning, memory, cognition and driving. Long-term use is associated with addiction to marijuana or other drugs, loss of motivation, reduced IQ, psychosis, anxiety, excessive vomiting, sleep problems and reduced lifespan. Without a standardized product and long-term studies, the safety of indefinite use of marijuana remains unknown.
  3. There must be adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy. Twelve meta-analyses of clinical trials scrutinizing smoked marijuana and cannabinoids conclude that there is no or insufficient evidence for the use of smoked marijuana for specific medical conditions. There are no studies of raw marijuana that include high-quality, unbiased, blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled or long-duration trials.
  4. The drug must be accepted by well-qualified experts. Medical associations generally call for more cannabinoid research but do not endorse smoked marijuana as a medicine. The American Medical Association: “Cannabis is a dangerous drug and as such is a public health concern”; the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: “Medicalization” of smoked marijuana has distorted the perception of the known risks and purposed benefits of this drug;” the American Psychiatric Association: “No current scientific evidence that marijuana is in any way beneficial for treatment of any psychiatric disorder … the approval process should go through the FDA.”
  5. Scientific evidence must be widely available. The evidence for approval of medical conditions in state ballot and legislative initiatives did not conform to rigorous, objective clinical trials nor was it widely available for scrutiny.

See also, Scientists want to study marijuana; Big Pot just wants to sell it

At the very least there should be scientific studies to show that marijuana is safe and effective for treating specific illnesses. Big Pot doesn’t want that because they know marijuana would never pass the test.

It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that “medical marijuana” is a fraud.  It’s just pot heads wanting to toke up.

 

The latest load of crap from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

If you haven’t already guessed that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has nothing to do with highway safety and everything to do with keeping auto insurance a highly profitable business for its  members, the latest lies and deception emanating from that organization should convince you.

They’re once again trying to get you to believe that repealing the worthless and universally hated “National 55 mile per hour speed limit” back in the 1990s has resulted in a blood bath on the highways. It.is.a.big.lie.

If you are at all tempted to believe the Big Lie, I implore you to read this: History Repeating Itself: NMA E-Newsletter #381.

Reinstituting the 55 MPH speed limit would be profitable for auto insurance companies because it would result in nuisance speeding tickets to drivers who do not pose any sort of danger to anyone. These citations not only saddle drivers with undeserved speeding fines, they increase insurance rates for drivers that do not represent a commensurate insurance risk. To an insurance executive, that’s good work if you can get it.

The most profitable lines of insurance are those that allow the insurance company to set premiums at a level higher than necessary to cover the risk.  Nothing does that like an artificially low speed limit that many drivers will routinely violate giving the insurance company the perfect flimsy excuse to raise your insurance rates.

But please read the NMA newsletter for a better explanation of what is really going on with the latest attempt by IIHS to pick your pockets.

Proof positive that Obamacare was designed to fail

Screen Shot 2016-04-29 at 2.28.10 PMThe only proof we need to know that Obamacare was designed from the beginning to fail and pave the way to full government controlled single payer health care is this: Obamacare relies on having lots of young people sign up to sustain the costs of insuring older people. The reason lots of insurance companies are losing money on Obamacare and leaving the Obamacare exchanges is because only older and sick people are signing up. Not enough in the 18-34 crowd are buying Obamacare policies. They’d rather pay the fine because it’s cheaper.

Is this a bug or a feature of Obamacare? Simple, it’s a feature. We know that because Obamacare also provides that those in the 18-26 age group can stay on their parents policies.  That’s not the entire 18-34 group, but it’s probably a majority of that group. There you have it. The architects of Obamacare didn’t really want young healthy people signing up. They know that without them Obamacare self destructs. That was the plan all along.

Here’s more evidence if you don’t remember it.  Obama gave a talk to the AFL/CIO before he ran for President. He’s recorded on tape as saying that the goal is government controlled single payer healthcare. He then says, “We know we won’t get there right away. It may take 15 years, but eventually we’ll get there.”

It’s beginning to look like his 15-year prediction was too pessimistic.

For some reason a lot of people don’t seem to believe Obama when he says what he wants to do. This makes no sense. They believe him when he lies, but not when he’s telling the truth.

Obama’s sad record on economic growth

obama_kingJust a few days ago Obama was bragging, “I saved the world economy from a great depression.”

The world did not go into a great depression but to give Obama the credit isn’t much different than giving him credit for saving the world from a global knockout meteor strike because it didn’t happen. It comes closer to the truth to say Obama is one of the worst presidents ever for the economy with average annual RGDP growth of only 1.55% for his presidency so far.

The rate of real economic growth is the single greatest determinate of both America’s strength as a nation and the well being of the American people. It’s almost impossible to list all the ills that befall a country with stagnant economic growth since they include such phenomena as the recent rise in suicides among white middle-age Americans. Poor job prospects leading to economic collapse hits especially hard on people who have reached middle age and don’t see much chance to recover.  Going on welfare is a lousy choice for sustaining the pride and well being of those who have been self sustaining before losing everything.

Obama’s record in this area has been truly dismal.The much-hated George W. Bush did better although not by much with average RGDP of 2.05%.  Obama is the first president in which economic growth was below 3% every single year of his presidency. Bush’s record showed 3% or better growth for two of his years in office, all the rest were below. At least Bush didn’t lie about the economy while he was president.

For a historical perspective consider this: From 1790 to 2000, U.S. RGDP growth averaged 3.79%, according to Louis Woodhill in the article from Real Clear Politics that is quoted below. We don’t have the number for Obama’s next three quarters but with a first quarter GDP growth of only 0.5% it’s hard to see the year ending up at 3% or above.

I don’t think Obama is bothered one bit by all this. Economic growth is not his thing. As a great “progressive” Obama’s idea of a good president is the one who can say he redistributed the most income from those who earned it to those who did nothing to produce it.  His idea of a great country is one of crony capitalist billiionaires financing an ever expanding government, with bums and the misfortunate scrambling for crumbs, and the middle class barely eking out an existence.

It’s madness to believe that finding new ways to slice the economic pie is preferable to policies that allow the pie to grow bigger resulting in more for everyone without stealing from anyone.

Louis Woodhill on Obama’s Sad Record on Economic Gorwth:

So, it seems a bit surprising that Hillary Clinton would be running for president by promising the nation the equivalent of a third Obama term. However, in another way, it isn’t.

Hillary is a progressive. Progressives believe in “progressively” expanding the size, power, and reach of government. And, Obama has done more to further the progressive cause of anyone since FDR. So, yes, in that sense, it is completely authentic for Hillary to be promising “more Obama” if she wins.

With respect to the economy, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are offering what amounts to “hospice care.” Their “tax the rich” redistributionist proposals are not intended to restore strong growth. They are designed to make the middle class more comfortable in the face of economic stagnation. “Hey, you may be unemployed after you graduate, but at least college was free!”

The only way that the voters will elect a Democrat as president in the fall is if the Republicans nominate someone that seems crazy and dangerous, or if they run on budget-cutting “austerity.” If confronted with a choice between hospice care and “surgery without anesthesia,” the electorate will opt for the hospice care, and try to survive until the next election.

Woodhill doesn’t say who he thinks is “crazy and dangerous” but I’d guess he means Donald Trump.  So far Trump hasn’t inspired confidence of his economic understanding or what he would do to pave the way for a much needed economic recovery. In fact, he talks so much about imposing new tarriffs and raising taxes one has to think he’s sort of dunce on economic matters.  Clearly, if a good economy with prosperity for all is your idea of happy days again, I believe Ted Cruz should be your guy.

UPDATE: As GDP Flatlines, Obama Brags About His Economic Record.

Investors Business Daily runs through the list of Obama failures in the economy and end with this:

Delusional doesn’t begin to cut it.

Even Sorkin, who is clearly trying to help Obama burnish his economic legacy, notes out that Obama’s two biggest legislative achievements — ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank — hurt economic growth. He also pokes Obama for his green energy policies, noting that the heavily subsidized Florida battery factory where Obama recently gave a speech is 100% foreign owned and losing money.

More remarkable is the disdain for the public that Obama unintentionally reveals in the Times piece. Basically, he thinks that people can’t be trusted to form their own opinions about the economy based on their own experiences.

In that sense, Obama is like Chico in the Marx Brothers movie Duck Soup, who when caught red handed in a lie said: “Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?

John Boehner calls Ted Cruz “Lucifer in the flesh” and a “miserable son of a bitch”

Breitbart:

During a conversation about politics at Stanford University, the former Republican Speaker described Cruz as “Lucifer in the flesh.”

“I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life,” he said, according to The Stanford Daily.

I consider this one of the best reasons yet for wanting Ted Cruz to be the GOP nominee. It certainly puts the lie to Cruz being a member of the GOP establishment as many GOP voters apparently believe.

John Boehner gets along swimmingly with a lot of people, such as Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Hillary Clinton.

UPDATE: Ted Cruz responds: