Mile Post 370

Mile Post 370
Mile Post 370

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Universal Basic Income

Why Universal Basic Income Is a Pipe Dream

There are so many better ways to help people out of poverty.
One future-related proposal getting a lot of attention nowadays is the Universal Basic Income. The idea is to give everybody some money every month — typically something like $1,000 a month. That is not enough for everybody to live luxuriously, but enough for everybody to get by without needing to work.
Supporters say it’s needed because the robots will take all the jobs, plus they hope it will raise entrepreneurship. While others say robots are a false alarm, that we’ll have a surplus of jobs so why pay people trillions to sit on the couch and refuse to work. It’s a big topic, but today I’ll sketch out some of the debate.
There are really two big trends at work here. One is a desire to hand out free money, either because you’re altruistic or because you’re buying votes.
This has been politically popular for a very long time. For example, the Roman Empire gave free bread to people in Rome, to go along with the state-sponsored Circuses. 19th-century socialists talked of a “social dividend” — the idea was the state would seize and redistribute wealth. Song Dynasty China a thousand years ago handed out subsidized loans and price controls to peasants, destroying the economy in a desire to help the poor.
Handing out free money becomes more viable when a society gets rich — it’s not so painful to carve off a couple percent of GDP. And this will be true whether, again, the motivation is altruism or old-fashioned vote-buying.
The second long-running concern involved in the UBI debate is the idea that machines will take all the jobs. This has been a theme since at least the 1700’s, long before Ned Ludd started smashing machines in 1779, inspiring his “Luddites.”
And the argument has been popular even as centuries have now shown that automation doesn’t kill jobs, it changes jobs. Incidentally, it makes those jobs pay much more than they ever did. Still, it seems that robots and AI uniquely capture the imagination and convince people that somehow “this time it's different.”
First off, what, specifically, is the Universal Basic Income proposal? The most common is something like give every adult $1,000 per month, maybe $500 extra for each child. In other words, enough to provide some minimum lifestyle — for an individual, $1,000 per month would put you at about the bottom 9% — not luxurious by any means.
$3.6 Trillion Per Year
Now, how expensive would this be? To get an idea of scale, in the US today we have about 260 million adults and 65 million under-18’s, so this would cost something like $3.6 trillion per year. That would take roughly doubling the current federal budget, and note that we already borrow $500 billion today of what the feds spend. So to cover a UBI you’d have to double the federal take and still borrow a trillion dollars to cover it.
$3.6 trillion is a lot of money, and people don’t end up very rich — right at the poverty line. So why do it? There are three common arguments: first, that UBI would make people more entrepreneurial. Second that UBI can replace our current welfare system. And third is more of a fear, that robots will take all the jobs.
I want to address the entrepreneurship and welfare points. I’ll save the robots since that gets a lot deeper into how economies fundamentally work.
Claim: UBI Will Allow People To Be More Entrepreneurial
Starting with the entrepreneurial argument, the idea is that if people’s basic needs are covered they can take risks. Of course, the UBI is too small to provide actual entrepreneurial capital — you’re not going to be able to build a serious business with it. So the asset in question here is time and effort — sweat equity.
Now, note that even a full-time job only occupies about 40 hours per week — that leaves you early mornings, evenings, weekends, holidays — nearly a third of your days not going to work. In other words, even full-time workers already have 2/3 of their time off — 80-odd hours.
If they were champing at the bit to start a business, they can do it now. Indeed, not only do they have that spare time, they have an actual salary. They’ve even got the money to invest in the business.
Logically, we might be surprised if going from mostly unemployed with a nice salary to fully unemployed with only survival money sparks some entrepreneurial jump.
How Do Unemployed People Actually Spend Their Time?
That’s logic, what about the real world? Well, there’s a rush on to do pilot UBI’s, but thankfully we have many natural experiments of what happens when you give people free money. And the answer is pretty much what you expect; they sit on the couch.
A bit of data so nobody accuses me of being cynical about humanity’s work ethic. In 2009 the New York Times put out a survey of how Americans use their time. People with paid jobs spend 5 hours a day working — about 35 hours a week (remember, holidays and vacations are going to make that under 40 hours).
Meanwhile, people who are unemployed — meaning they don’t have a job but they want a job — spend 0.5 hours a day actually looking for a job. 10% of the extra time. While they spend the other 4.5 hours a day watching TV, napping, chatting with friends, and surfing the internet.
Leisure is preferred to work. 
In other words, the average marginally employable person — the specific group we’re trying to help with UBI — does pretty much exactly what you’d expect if they don’t have to work — they sit on the couch.
Keep in mind unemployment benefits don’t last forever, so even that 10% of time spent looking for work might not happen under a UBI, because it’s permanent. It’s free money forever. So we’re talking, I guess, something north of 95% lost work effort goes directly into the couch.
Now, I’m not trashing unemployed people — indeed, I’m precisely arguing that everybody, employed or not, is fundamentally pretty lazy. A UBI will inspire people of all walks of life to spend their day on the couch.
This is a core economics assumption, by the way — leisure is preferred to work. Indeed, I’d argue there’s a kind of odd magical thinking going on here by UBI advocates, that somehow if you give free money to people they somehow become enlightened and do the exact opposite of what we already know people do with free money.
Natural Experiments of Unconditional Cash Gifts
Okay, so what do we know? What are some of these natural experiments? Well, they include pensions and social security — which kick in at a given age, in the US traditionally 65, disability payments, subsidized loans to college students, and existing welfare payments today, from subsidized rent, free food, lump-sum cash payments, in-kind payments, and conditional payments like unemployment benefits.
Unemployment benefits are actually a nice natural experiment here — studies have found that if benefits last longer, people simply stay unemployed longer. In other words, free money simply encourages people not to work.
In none of these do we see a big jump in entrepreneurship. Indeed, when I went hunting for startup rates among seniors — a group that receives a basic income in many countries today — most countries don’t even collect statistics because entrepreneurship drops off a cliff.
The Kauffman Foundation does a periodic survey and records a steady 0.35% entrepreneurship rate from 35 to 64 — in other words, people start just as many businesses as they get older. They don’t get “tired out.” Until age 65, that is, when Kauffman doesn’t even bother reporting the number.
So the entrepreneurial claim involves quite a bit of magical thinking. 
Similarly, a study by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation breathlessly studies innovation among older folks, but when they get to age 65 they simply note that “Innovation seems to decline sharply after 65, the median expected retirement age of the American workforce.”
Finally, BLS tallies up labor force participation for over-65’s, which comes out to 8% working full-time and another 7% working part-time. This compares to 63% of the general population under age 65.
It’s hard to avoid the obvious conclusion that a basic income does not spark some huge jump in entrepreneurship. If you’re giving people a million in financing then we can talk, but obviously, that would be very expensive. A basic living stipend does what you’d expect it would do — takes the pressure off to do anything besides enjoy more leisure.
Now, these are government programs; we’ve got many more natural experiments in person-to-person handouts. For example, people who live in their parents’ basement or whose parents pay their credit cards, people who inherit young or get a trust-fund, lottery winners, Indian Casino payments that give dividends to all tribe members, Saudi Arabia’s payments so people don’t have to work.
And the common thread is people do not have an epiphany and suddenly get entrepreneurial. Kids who live in Dad’s basement do, once again, pretty much what you’d expect.
So the entrepreneurial claim, I’d argue, involves quite a bit of magical thinking given the many, many natural experiments we have.
UBI As Welfare Replacement
The second Universal Basic Income argument I want to address here is the welfare replacement argument. The idea is that traditional welfare discourages work, so replacing it with a UBI fixes that problem.
This is obviously a good thing, removing poverty traps, but again I’d argue this contains a very strong dose of magical thinking. 
To illustrate, let’s say today you’re getting $1,000 a month on welfare doing nothing, while a minimum wage job at 40 hours per week would pay $1,247 a month. If the job makes you lose your benefits, you only earn $247 more for 173 hours of work — $1.44 per hour. You’d have to be crazy to take that job.
This, by the way, is a long-standing critique of welfare in general, called the “poverty trap.” And economists on both left and right try to figure out ways to reduce the problem — the most popular technique is removing benefits only gradually, so the “steps” in benefit loss aren’t so dramatic.
Anyway, the idea on UBI is that there’s no “poverty trap” at all — you can take the job and keep your benefits. Now, this is obviously a good thing, removing poverty traps, but again I’d argue this contains a very strong dose of magical thinking. That what’s most likely to happen is the poverty trap remains, with a UBI tossed on top of it.
Broken Promises On the Poverty Trap
Why so cynical? Because we’ve been here before. The 1975 Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) was sold as a kind of “negative income tax” that instead of taxing the poor, tops-up their wages.
So you earn 8 bucks an hour, the EITC tops that up with government payments to 12 or 16 bucks, depending on family size. It’s the kind of poverty program economists like and, indeed, today the EITC hands out $50 billion a year topping up wages of low-income workers.
The UBI is just about the worst targeted poverty-reduction policy imaginable. 
Alas, that $50 billion got tossed on the pile along with existing welfare and nothing was repealed. So the poverty trap remained — you still lose your benefits if you take a job. The welfare lobby swallowed the $50 billion without blinking and kept on pushing for the exact same programs as before.
Given this history, it would be naive to think Universal Basic Income will replace any welfare at all. At best, it becomes 5 or 10% cheaper by replacing dollar-for-dollar current welfare spending, but like the EITC it just goes on the welfare pile. In which case we keep the poverty trap in all its horrific glory, but now we’ve piled on $3.6 trillion in new taxes that disincentivize both work and disincentivize employers to create the jobs that are supposed to pull people out of poverty in the first place.
Now, I think most of us agree there are people who need help, and that charity should be much better targeted than it is today — welfare programs often fail to help the people truly in need, and instead sometimes give money to people who don’t need it.
The UBI is just about the worst targeted poverty-reduction policy imaginable — handing the same amount of money to everybody from Bill Gates on down. You’re essentially using a fire hose to water a flower.
Considering the $3.6 trillion running through that hose cost likely millions of real jobs to collect in the first place — jobs-creators have to find the $3.6 trillion somewhere — the better metaphor may be if your fire hose actually killed the flower you paid so much to water.
Hate Poverty? Deregulate.
This doesn’t mean give up on the poor. What it does mean is smarter welfare. Namely, we get far better targeting by simply deregulating, both business and consumption.
Many jobs done by the poor are burdened by government regulations. 
What I mean by deregulating consumption is that, for example, even wealthy Silicon Valley has increasing numbers of people living in tents or vans because housing regulations are written against the poor.
If you were to simply permit smaller apartments, zoning for tiny houses, re-legalizing boarding houses, or permitting taller apartment buildings, all of these ideas are a lot cheaper than $3.6 trillion.
Alternatively, many jobs done by the poor are burdened by government regulations — hair-braiding, dog-walking, road-side vendors, freelance lawn-mowing.
Repealing these regulations often won’t cost a thing, and is far better targeted to increase entrepreneurship and to break the poverty trap than tossing trillions out of helicopters, trillions raised by taxing those very small businesses. So the question isn’t whether we want to help the poor or unfortunate. Rather, the question is whether a UBI kills the very golden goose that all of us, especially the poor, rely on to survive.
Reprinted from Medium

Sunday, March 18, 2018

Guest Post: The Rio Norte Line => Dr. Trumplove or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Trump

Today's post is not quite a year and a half old.  Written right before the Presidential Election of Donald Trump, the author of the Rio Norte Line blog, like many Conservatives (whether So-Cons, Def-Cons, or Fis-Cons) questioned whether Trump was a true believer in Conservatism.  Would he govern Conservatively?  Would he act on Principal?  Does Trump even have any Principals?

It's easier today, having seen almost 1 full year of Trump's Administration, but tell me you knew someone who actually voted For Trump rather than Against Hillary on the day of the election, and I'll respond with "Why?"

It was easy for me, as I'd had enough when Mitt Romney failed to keep up the prosecution of his campaign against Incumbent President Barack Obama.  I concluded that the Republicans were too "chicken-shit" to stand for principal.  They wouldn't defend capitalism, they wouldn't defend the Virtue of Selfishness, they wouldn't get dirty during a campaign, holding principal over tactics, they refused to counter fallacies and accusations that the opposition accused of "the last Boy Scout" in politics.  As in war, the goal of politics has to be to win.  And when lies are told, it becomes incumbent that the challenges are refuted.  Because the Republicans didn't have the stomach for the fight, I could no longer support them and left the party.  I am now unaffiliated politically, and not wearing the Republican Jersey has freed me to criticize Republicans, when they desperately need to be criticized.

And so without further ado, I present Utah  and his still prescient blog post, written on the eve of the 2016 Presidential Election:


Dr. Trumplove or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Trump

slimpickensIf the last 6 months of my political life had a movie title, it might be “Dr. Trumplove or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Trump” (with all due apologies to Slim Pickens, his heirs and successors). Or maybe “CVC: Cretin vs. Criminal” in the mode of the “AVP: Alien vs. Predator” franchise of movies.
I don’t really “love” the Trump but win or lose, it is hard not to marvel at the service he has done for America. Of him, in July of 2015, I wrote: “Trump is the GOP’s version of one of those red assed baboons. I don’t like Trump except as the disposable tip of a spear – he was/is a valuable tool in drawing fire from the progressive camps. The media covers him as if he was the Kim Kardashian of politics.” With the candidates, the GOP had to select from, I never expected that he would be the actual nominee…but throughout it all, he maintained the red-assed baboon role but somehow, he has successfully deflected that attention back onto the Hillary camp and their chicanery.
Trump is a progressive leaning populist. He’s a crony capitalist with only the most superficial acquaintance with the Constitution or the principles it holds. He stumbles and bumbles his way along against an entrenched Democrat candidate who knows the Constitution very well – well enough to skirt every provision and stricture contained within. Her knowledge of government has been accumulated as she and her husband probed the limits of the laws, looking for blurred edges as they sought (and continue to seek) to enrich themselves at the expense of the American public.
The Clinton campaign treats Trump in the manner that a Queen’s court ridicules the court jester only to find out later that the jester has two Ph.D.s and is only playing a role – he is smarter than the lot of them.
When I say that Trump has provided America a service, I mean that he has exposed ties so close between the Democrat Party, the mainstream media and the deep state that these three entities are entirely indistinguishable from a single body. He has made it possible for the average citizen to see how the sausage making of government works and what an isolated, inside game it is. He has brought out evidence of how truly arbitrary and capricious the ruling class is and that there are truly two sets of laws in America – one set for the privileged progressives and one for everyone else.
I have heard it proposed that if we had just had a Rubio or a Cruz running against HRC, either would be up 5 to 15 points right now – but I’m not so sure. I must wonder if it weren’t for a Trump candidacy would we have seen all the Wikileaks dumps – or the Clinton camp would have been goaded into the mistakes it has made. I wonder if the Clinton Crime Family Foundation and Global Graft Initiative would have been discussed if Trump had not pulled Bill into the campaign as an issue. Would the other candidates been crass enough to raise the issue of Hillary’s failing health? I’m not so sure.
General George S. Patton is reported to have said to his men that they must forget all the high-minded rules of war that were written in the parlors of the moralizing politicians. He said that the enemy doesn’t care about our rules and he will fight according to his own rules (or absence of them). He said that the only way to win was to fight according to the enemy’s rules – or even dirtier.
In our own minds, we know this to be true. On the battlefield, holding true to any rule that renders you defenseless or restricts your ability to mount an offensive will get you killed. Patton was right. War is about victory on the battlefield.
Just as I doubt that an ISIS jihadi will praise you for your adherence to high moral standards after he cuts your head off, a winning Democrat is never going to laud you for sticking to your principles. Democrats have a word for people like that – losers. An iron rule of politics is this: if you can’t win, you can’t govern.
Trump may not win but if he doesn’t, it is possible that in his run, he has vested irreparable damage to the Democrat party, the progressive movement and the mass media by exposing the collusion, coordination and corruption that has long been understood by conservatives to exist. Trump is a cretin to be sure – but then with the same degree of certainty, one knows that Hillary Clinton is a criminal. He was not my choice for the GOP nominee. I’m not necessarily against him but I do not think he represents my philosophies any more than Romney, McCain, Bush or Dole did before him – but I am left to wonder if he was the right guy at the right time. To borrow General Patton’s rationale, he might have been the only candidate who understood that to defeat someone who flings feces, you must be willing fling feces as well.
I don’t like what this says about American culture because it would imply that we are not a principled nation any longer but this is what we have come to.
There may be a bright side. Often, after an unmitigated disaster, a renaissance begins. Hopefully, history will record Campaign 2016 as such a cleansing disaster. I guess we should remember this as well: politics is war but who America is in wartime is not who we are in peace. No worse enemy, no better friend.
I think that worrying about Trump is not warranted.  I heard a radio DJ, John Hancock say that Trump was too much of an egoist to be a "bad" president.  He would make sure that he did the right things as President of the American People, for the right reason (that reason was that he needed - to be remembered positively in history).
The fact that Trump won was no surprise to me.  Libre-tards can call us the Neo-Confederacy, paint us as Racists and Zenophobes, say that we are uneducated, and unsophisticated for not voting for their candidate.  I'll simply say that people vote for their economic interests.  It wasn't in the country's best interest when a health care wealth transfer bill threatened to bankrupt me and hurt my family.  It wasn't in my best interest when I suddenly had to buy Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs that were too dangerous to be manufactured in America.  It wasn't in my best interest when Oil Pipelines were cancelled and oil was forced to be transported by trains, costing more money and often causing more environmental damage due to derailments.  It wasn't in my best interest to have to fund Solyndra or any of the other Greeniac Energy proposals that were designed to "necessarily cause electric bills to double or triple."  It wasn't in my best interests to try to alienate our ally and the only middle-eastern democracy, Israel.  It wasn't in my best interests to have Muslim outreach and to deem America a post Christian Society.  It wasn't in my best interests to see American jobs exported, because prices that could be charged for goods made outside the US could be sold for less than goods made in the US.  It wasn't in my best interests to have our culture denigrated and have the individual groups that make up our culture pitted against each other.  
I saw a wave election coming, one where an unliked character who is fundamentally dishonest was running against an outsider, a protectionist of sorts, who wanted to see jobs in America.  While understanding Economics enough to see the disaster of having a trade war, I saw that America needed to change, to allow jobs manufacturing goods here.  I believe that others could see this also.  So I voted for Trump.
The fact that he won against a stacked deck, with the Democrat Party, their Media Apparatchik and the constant barrage of negative Trump factoids, was a gift from GOD.  I thank HIM for it.  I want Trump to "Drain the Swamp," getting the Globalists and the Neo-Cons who've tried to create their vision of America for the past 50 years out of office.  It's my fervent belief that America will be better for it. 

Saturday, March 17, 2018

The End of The World As We Know It: The 2nd Civil War in America

In 2003, the Rock Group R.E.M. had a hit with the song "It's the End of the World."  It's a great song that's been parodied and it's one of those "timeless" songs that when played 20 years from today will still be relevant.  With the Election of Donald J. Trump however, many people on all sides of the political spectrum have wondered whether it is the actual end of the world.


The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule.
March 27, 2017 Daniel Greenfield 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

A civil war has begun.

This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.

The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.

It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it’s for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over.

It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become “patriotic”.

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

After losing Congress, the left consolidated its authority in the White House. After losing the White House, the left shifted its center of authority to Federal judges and unelected government officials. Each defeat led the radicalized Democrats to relocate from more democratic to less democratic institutions.

This isn’t just hypocrisy. That’s a common political sin. Hypocrites maneuver within the system. The left has no allegiance to the system. It accepts no laws other than those dictated by its ideology.

Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn’t just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.

That’s why compromise has become impossible.

Our system of government was designed to allow different groups to negotiate their differences. But those differences were supposed to be based around finding shared interests. The most profound of these shared interests was that of a common country based around certain civilizational values. The left has replaced these Founding ideas with radically different notions and principles. It has rejected the primary importance of the country. As a result it shares little in the way of interests or values.

Instead it has retreated to cultural urban and suburban enclaves where it has centralized tremendous amounts of power while disregarding the interests and values of most of the country. If it considers them at all, it is convinced that they will shortly disappear to be replaced by compliant immigrants and college indoctrinated leftists who will form a permanent demographic majority for its agenda.

But it couldn’t wait that long because it is animated by the conviction that enforcing its ideas is urgent and inevitable. And so it turned what had been a hidden transition into an open break.

In the hidden transition, its authority figures had hijacked the law and every political office they held to pursue their ideological agenda. The left had used its vast cultural power to manufacture a consensus that was slowly transitioning the country from American values to its values and agendas. The right had proven largely impotent in the face of a program which corrupted and subverted from within.

The left was enormously successful in this regard. It was so successful that it lost all sense of proportion and decided to be open about its views and to launch a political power struggle after losing an election.

The Democrats were no longer being slowly injected with leftist ideology. Instead the left openly took over and demanded allegiance to open borders, identity politics and environmental fanaticism. The exodus of voters wiped out the Democrats across much of what the left deemed flyover country.

The left responded to democratic defeats by retreating deeper into undemocratic institutions, whether it was the bureaucracy or the corporate media, while doubling down on its political radicalism. It is now openly defying the outcome of a national election using a coalition of bureaucrats, corporations, unelected officials, celebrities and reporters that are based out of its cultural and political enclaves.

It has responded to a lost election by constructing sanctuary cities and states thereby turning a cultural and ideological secession into a legal secession. But while secessionists want to be left alone authoritarians want everyone to follow their laws. The left is an authoritarian movement that wants total compliance with its dictates with severe punishments for those who disobey.

The left describes its actions as principled. But more accurately they are ideological. Officials at various levels of government have rejected the authority of the President of the United States, of Congress and of the Constitution because those are at odds with their radical ideology. Judges have cloaked this rejection in law. Mayors and governors are not even pretending that their actions are lawful.

The choices of this civil war are painfully clear.

We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.

But we cannot have both.

Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can’t be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict.

That is what we have now.

The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise.

The question is what comes next.

The last time around growing tensions began to explode in violent confrontations between extremists on both sides. These extremists were lauded by moderates who mainstreamed their views. The first Republican president was elected and rejected. The political tensions led to conflict and then civil war.

The left doesn’t believe in secession. It’s an authoritarian political movement that has lost democratic authority. There is now a political power struggle underway between the democratically elected officials and the undemocratic machinery of government aided by a handful of judges and local elected officials.

What this really means is that there are two competing governments; the legal government and a treasonous anti-government of the left. If this political conflict progresses, agencies and individuals at every level of government will be asked to demonstrate their allegiance to these two competing governments. And that can swiftly and explosively transform into an actual civil war.

There is no sign that the left understands or is troubled by the implications of the conflict it has initiated. And there are few signs that Democrats properly understand the dangerous road that the radical left is drawing them toward. The left assumes that the winners of a democratic election will back down rather than stand on their authority. It is unprepared for the possibility that democracy won’t die in darkness.

Civil wars end when one side is forced to accept the authority of the other. The left expects everyone to accept its ideological authority. Conservatives expect the left to accept Constitutional authority. The conflict is still political and cultural. It’s being fought in the media and within the government. But if neither side backs down, then it will go beyond words as both sides give contradictory orders.

The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections. Now their treason is coming to a head. They are engaged in a struggle for power against the government. That’s not protest. It’s not activism. The old treason of the sixties has come of age. A civil war has begun.

This is a primal conflict between a totalitarian system and a democratic system. Its outcome will determine whether we will be a free nation or a nation of slaves.


As the popular election counts came in from the states and it became clear that although Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote (specifically California, Illinois and New York gave her a popular vote win), but she lost Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, dashing the wet-dream hopes of the oligarchs that have had an inside access during the Obama Administration.  And Hillary Clinton, herself, has called for "Resistance" against Donald Trump as President and all of his policies, although he won the Constitutionally mandated Electoral College Vote fair and square.

Columnist Dennis Prager stated:  

"Left-wing thugs engage in violence and threats of violence with utter impunity. They shut down speakers at colleges; block highways, bridges and airport terminals; take over college buildings and offices; occupy state capitals; and terrorize individuals at their homes.

In order to understand why more violence may be coming, it is essential to understand that left-wing mobs are almost never stopped, arrested or punished. Colleges do nothing to stop them, and civil authorities do nothing to stop them on campuses or anywhere else. Police are reduced to spectators as they watch left-wing gangs loot stores, smash business and car windows, and even take over state capitals (as in Madison, Wisconsin).
It’s beginning to dawn on many Americans that mayors, police chiefs and college presidents have no interest in stopping this violence. Left-wing officials sympathize with the lawbreakers, and the police, who rarely sympathize with thugs of any ideology, are ordered to do nothing by emasculated police chiefs.
Consequently, given the abdication by all these authorities of their role to protect the public, some members of the public will inevitably decide that they will protect themselves and others.
This ability of the left to get away with violence is one of the gravest threats to American society in its modern history. Since the Civil War, I can think of only two comparable eruptions of mob violence that authorities allowed. One was when white mobs lynched blacks. The other was the rioting by blacks, such as the Los Angeles riots 25 years ago, and the recent riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland."
With Obama not being able to force his agenda down the throats of the American people get much legislation passed through Congress started "using his pen and his phone" to dictate Executive Orders.  These orders became an instant target of the Republican Administration of Donald J. Trump, as they were not codified laws and are not permanent,  being exercised at the whim of the President in charge at the time.  Now with Trump as POTUS, Executive Orders are being overturned.  
  • The Keystone Petroleum Pipeline and other pipelines that were stopped by Executive Fiat have been green-lighted, getting crude petroleum oils off of the nations railroads and back into an environmentally friendly pipeline transport.  
  • The EPA's war on Coal?  It's Over.  Although Coal eventually will be replaced by cleaner burning Natural Gas (Methane), it will be Economics that cause the change over, not an Administrative Fiat, by an Executive Branch bureaucracy that is unaccountable to the general public.  Older power plants, that were in some cases over 100 years old, were forced to close.  But these plants couldn't have been upgraded to meet the new MAPS emissions standards in an economic manner.
  • Solar and Wind Power Renewable Energy will be forced to become Economically Viable or it will remain a "fringe energy source."
  • Obamacare is dying a slow painful death, as more and more insurers come to grips with the fact that it's a money losing proposition.
  • The unvoiced directives NOT TO ENFORCE illegal immigration at our borders is over.  The border is now being policed.
  • US support for the Paris Climate Change agreement?  Dead on Arrival, with President Trump pulling the US out of a scheme to divert US tax payer dollars to competitors, killing American Jobs.
  • The Trans-Pacific (Trade) Partnership, which had the great potential to move still more manufacturing jobs away from America, further decimating what once was the middle class?  Trump wisely withdrew ALL SUPPORT of the US into this job killing deal, set up by the Obama Administration.
  • Environmental Protection Agency Waters of the US ruling?  If it hasn't been killed yet, it's being killed off as you read this blog post.
  • Supreme Court Justices?  Neil Gorsuch was nominated and Confirmed a conservative, using the Reid Rule, which Democrats used to eliminate the filibuster from the minority party.  Additionally, Trump has appointed and gotten more Appellate  Court Judges approved by Congress than even the great Conservative President Ronald Reagan did.
Liberals heads are exploding with every roll-back Donald Trump achieves from Barack Obama's draconian, job killing, socialist policies.  

Dilbert cartoon creator, Scott Adams, best describes what's happening politically as  two movies on one screen, where the filters which we have (how we look at things due to our individual preferences and prejudices) are coloring what we see.  People who voted for Trump or at least support him see that he's done nothing wrong, while people who voted or supported the losing candidate, Hilary Rodham Clinton, see pure evil and prima fascia evidence that Trump has committed a crime, for which he must be impeached.

What we have here are 2 separate, irreconcilable view points; a schism that cannot be repaired.  This a Civil War, because one group has chosen to violate the laws made by a Representative Republic  

So what do I mean by "It's the End of the World?"  I mean the civilized world.  So in making this claim, we need the definition of Civilized (we'll also include Civilization and Civil to make these points).  Here are the definitions from

Definition of civil
    1 a :  of or relating to citizens <civil duties>
       b :  of or relating to the state or its citizenry <civil strife>

    2 a :  civilized <civil society>
       b :  adequate in courtesy and politeness :  mannerly <a civil question> <It was hard to be civil when I felt so angry.>

    3 a :  of, relating to, or based on civil law
       b :  relating to private rights and to remedies sought by action or suit distinct from criminal proceedings :  established by law <civil freedoms>

    4:  of, relating to, or involving the general public, their activities, needs, or ways, or civic affairs as distinguished from special (as military or religious) affairs <got married in a civil ceremony>

    5:  of time :  based on the mean sun and legally recognized for use in ordinary affairs <the civil calendar>

Definition of civilize
civilized; civilizing

    transitive verb

    1:  to cause to develop out of a primitive state; especially :  to bring to a technically advanced and rationally ordered stage of cultural development

    2  a :  educate, refine
        b :  socialize 1

    intransitive verb  :  to acquire the customs and amenities of a civil community

Definition of civilization
    1 a :  a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically :  the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained
       b :  the culture characteristic of a particular time or place <the impact of European civilization on the lands they colonized>

    2:  the process of becoming civilized <civilization is a slow process with many failures and setbacks>

    3 a :  refinement of thought, manners, or taste <exhibiting a high level of civilization
       b :  a situation of urban comfort <Our African safari was quite interesting, but it was great to get back to civilization.>

civilizational play \-shnəl, -shə-nəl\ adjective

The Left has become anything but civil and are starting to get violent

A man who obviously was "radicalized" to the point of taking action for "The Resistance (to Trump and to and against a lesser extent, the Republican Party)," actually attempted to assassinate some Republican members of the House of Representatives.

As Republican House members were practicing for a charity baseball game against the Democrat Party team, a man came up and asked who was practicing?  After learning that it was the Republican Party team, the man took out a rifle and started shooting, wounding Steve Scalise, the Republican (Majority) House Whip among others.  There were children in the dug out during this shooting, but none were hurt.  Representative Scalise, because of his position, had a contingent of US Capitol Police with him, to keep him safe.  They fired back at the gunman with their hand guns, striking and killing him, but not before he wounded several people.

(What's really Bad Ass here is that the Capitol Police Officers assigned to protect the House Majority Whip went HEAD-TO-HEAD using hand guns against an assailant with a rifle, putting their lives in mortal danger, killing the idiot with the rifle.

It is my hope that President Trump has honored their bravery and service in a public ceremony.)

And Paul Ryan, A Libertarian Senator, who is registered as a Republican, was viciously attacked by his Liberal Democrat neighbor, breaking some of his ribs, although after the fact, the neighbor claimed that it was a dispute over the way Paul kept his yard.  

With that being said, we are in a Civil War that just got violent.  It's time to respond with LEGAL FORCE against those who would foment revolution against the Constitution of the US and the will of the VOTERS in the last election.

The longer the (legally elected) government allows this to happen, the more difficult and over the top the response to quell.  While the resistance was planned for a day of rage on November 4th, 2017. At best, it was a failure and basically did not happen.

The Resistance will keep protesting and keep breaking the law .  Those who demand resistance MUST PAY A LEGAL PRICE FOR ANY OF THEIR UNLAWFUL OR TREASONIST ACTIONS.

Maybe we should start with the following proposals:

  • The Rule of Law shall prevail in ALL circumstances. 
  • We MUST END SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT of the LAW.  If we are all Equal Under the Law, Selective enforcement, whether by Jurisdiction or Individual MUST STOP.  
  • The 2017 Presidential Election was won by Donald Trump, who won the most Electoral Votes.  Anything that Hillary Clinton has done/is doing (e.g. trying to bully Electors to change their votes, leading the "Not My President" and the "Resistance" movements to delegitimatize the election, foment revolution and overturn the will of the American people - in effect, asking others to do traitorous acts and accept full responsibility and consequences that she is too chicken-shit to do herself, trying to end the Electoral College system of choosing the president, so that large Democrat States - e.g. California, Illinois and New York - can have a greater proportion of the vote and change future elections toward the Democrat Party) is at best poor sportsmanship that SHOULD DISQUALIFY her from running for office and at worst TREASON that must be swiftly and surely punished 
  • Those accused must be considered INNOCENT, UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.  The Media's Presumption of Guilt or Innocence MUST STOP NOW.  Those accused must be tried in a court of law, not in by the Media, in the Court of Public Opinion, where a story, shaped by an Editor taints the opinions of citizens before a trial by jury can begin.
  • If an investigation and trial Finds that any legal action (e.g. the Russian Collusion Investigation) was unfounded and frivolous, that the instigator should pay for ALL costs of the trial.
A 2nd Civil War in the United States should be unthinkable.  War is never pretty as people die and are maimed, and property is stolen, desecrated or destroyed.  More importantly, old hatreds are kept fresh for generations as the winning side "Lord's it over" the losing side (e.g. ALL SOUTHERNERS are accused of being racists, Neo-confederates and had ancestors that owned slaves and treated them poorly).     

However, the longer those who would foment Resistance, Insurrection and Revolution are allowed to continue without consequence, the closer we come to that war.  Especially, disturbing are California's actions, nullifying FEDERAL LAWS, to provoke action (either the Federal Government's ignoring the Nullification or Inciting a Federal take over of that government, whether by legal court order or with Troops).

Kurt Schllicter has written an excellent column on the possibility of the 2nd Civil War.  It should be a warning to any of the leftists who are willing to break the law, not considering the consequences.  

Will a civil war occur?  No one knows.  Will the US Split?  Quite possibly, but it would never be amicable.  Much like Brexit, this is almost a religious litmus test:  You're on one side or the other, losing friends because of your strongly held core beliefs.