The Washington Post—a fantasy

I have a dream. No, it's more a fantasy. Jeff Bezos needs money (See? A fantasy since he's the richest man in the world). So he decides to sell the Washington Post which daily poisons the minds of elitist, sourpuss coastal Leftists and Democrats, those self-righteous, angry haters of America and those terrified of cleaning up the DC mess. He has every technological trick known to spew 1,200 articles a day, mostly anti-Trump . He doesn't get a lot for the fish wrapper in my fantasy--maybe $14.97--but a smart conservative snatches it up, and we again have a vibrant, interesting, fair and balanced, well-written, mature source of information and opinion in the land. We'll have real news instead of constant opinion written by 20-somethings. Some men want money, some want power. Through digital magic, he has both. [Businessinsider, this source, is also controlled by Bezos.]

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-washington-post-changed-after-jeff-bezos-acquisition-2016-5?

Democrat debate debacle

"I am on page 520 of the Gorbachev biography, and learning how he tried to change the Soviet Union by undoing the exact policies that I heard espoused last night by the debaters. When Gorbachev was leader, the Soviet Union was collapsing in very similar ways to today’s Venezuela, all because of anti-business, anti-profit motive, central run, heavily regulating government. There was nothing in shops, farm products were rotting in the fields, and people were poor and starving. All as a result of the same policies Warren and the others were saying they would put into effect." From Ross Rant, June 27, Citadel Realty, newsletter.

Friends, relatives and casual readers:  Don't say you weren't warned both by history and by people who have been there. "Free stuff" is not a policy, it's a recipe for disaster. You may not like Trump, but do you love socialism?

“Much like Wednesday night’s debacle of Democrat discourse, the candidates screamed for socialism over a strong economy. They assailed the evil 1 percent. They assured the American people, 71 percent of whom feel we have a pretty good thing going, that they were wrong. Like a bad therapist telling a patient, “You’re only happy because you think you're happy.” Fortune cookies dispense greater wisdom.”  Townhall, https://townhall.com/columnists/paulcurry/2019/06/28/the-democratic-debate-debacle-part-ii-darkness-falls-n2549175

Why are Democrats so inconsistent—power. Michael Smith, guest blogger

How can one justify a city-wide ban on E-cigarettes and fund "safe injection sites" for drugs?

How is it even remotely logical to ban cigarettes and promote legalization of marijuana?

What sense does it make to ban private assistance to feed the homeless and then complain that there isn't enough funding for food programs for them?

How can you argue for free healthcare for illegal non-citizens when American veterans can't get help?

How can you argue that it is discriminatory to refuse to bake a cake for a same sex wedding but forcing a baker to do so against their will is not?

How can you cry about the sanctity of elections and then refuse to put measures in place to validate the eligibility of the voters?

How can you argue that a particular redistricting is unconstitutional and then promote open borders?

How can you argue argue for background checks and restrictions to own a gun and ammunition because "if it can save one child, it is worth it" and then say that abortions should be free without restriction?

How can you argue that school shootings are aberrations when more children are aborted each day in abortion clinics than are killed in all school shootings?

This is your modern Democrat party.

They no longer are required to make sense.

This is all about power and pandering to anyone who will vote to give it to them.

Michael Smith, guest blogger.

A business lesson for socialists

A good business lesson for socialists and for those who work as teachers or in government or in academe or for "non-profits" and have never examined who or what is a business or a capitalist.

https://townhall.com/columnists/laurahollis/2018/08/16/a-business-lesson-for-socialists-n2510256

“The article is constructed on one flawed assumption after another.

First, the authors seem to be equating business with huge multinational corporations. But most businesses in the U.S. are small. The U.S. has approximately 28 million firms. Of those, about 21 million -- nearly 80 percent -- employ no one but the owner(s). Of the remaining 7 million companies, the vast majority employs fewer than 20 people. Further, most businesses in the U.S. aren't incorporated, but of those that are, fully 80 percent are small, closely held corporations owned and operated by families.”

Barack Obama's relationship with the New Party.

The following appeared in the Post Journal written by Dr. Warren Throckmorton . I know nothing about either the publication or the author, but I had seen before that New Party had endorsed Obama (possibly the Illinois legislature web site).

"The New Party is a political movement aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America. The New Party actually endorsed Barack Obama's successful 1996 Illinois state Senate campaign. Obama, in turn, encouraged New Party involvement in his voter education and registration efforts. According to a 1995 issue of the Democratic Socialists of America newsletter, the New Party required endorsed candidates to sign a contract to have a ''visible and active relationship'' with the party. While the New Party's influence has waned, the Democratic Socialists of America remain an active movement.

What do the Democratic Socialists of America believe? Here is what the group's by-laws advocate:

... a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships.

Surely, we can all agree with the values of racial and gender equality and non-oppressive relationships. Free-market adherents believe in those principles as well. However, consider the group's support of income distribution. There, one can see the intellectual foundation for Barack Obama's answer to Mr. Wurzelbacher. Redistributing wealth, which is a foundational principle of socialism, is part and parcel of the Obama tax plan, even though Obama has avoided using the S-word.

And why not? Despite periodic, and hopefully temporary, interventions in free markets (such as is occurring in the financial sector), most Americans do not want to live in a socialist economy. We value the personal freedoms inherent in a free-market economy.

When the productive plumber protests that his tax burden will increase, Obama intuits the problem inherent in "equitable distribution." He says to his questioner, "It's not that I want to punish your success. ..."

Unfortunately, punished success is precisely the kind of mischief that successful Americans fear. Obama's desire to "spread the wealth around" may not come with malevolent intent, but, to be sure, such policies, which, again, are advocated by the Democratic Socialists, may result in inhibitions of initiative and innovation.
Rudolph Penner recently said on a C-Span call-in show that capitalism isn't perfect but it is better than the alternatives. Indeed, many have suggested that the current mortgage mess derives from well-intended attempts to spread the wealth around. In unraveling the causes of the housing bust, one finds multiple targets of blame. However, it seems clear that government policies which encouraged home ownership beyond a borrower's means were part of the chaos. In light of the federal government's inability to manage markets, it is a fair question to ask: Do we need more central planning or less?