Category Archives: Politics

James Bovard: Why I Write

Here is a terrific article by James Bovard at the Mises Institute website. Bovard’s article, “Why I Write,” goes into his many years in covering government corruption, abuses, criminality, incompetence, and buffoonery. I personally share his enthusiasm in writing, particularly when it comes to exposing the aforementioned aspects of government.

Bovard writes:

After moving to the Washington area in 1980, I was appalled to see what passed for good writing inside the Beltway. The prevailing standards seemed designed to make magazine and newspaper subscribers regret ever learning to read. Many articles resembled a numbing four-hour politburo speech. Voiceless prose with a low-watt righteous drone was the tacit ideal. “Go team, go!” was the epitome of literary excellence.

I swear to you, NOTHING has changed in 40 years! It has gone from bad to worse, as I referred to in my previous post. So, I share Mr. Bovard’s frustration or anguish. And he also explains,

If I could lucidly explain government shenanigans, perhaps people would finally recognize how political and bureaucratic racketeering were leading the nation astray.

And I believe he really has exposed a lot over the years, and certainly has informed me. And I know he has informed a lot of other people who are willing and able to learn with an open mind that the rulers we might have put on a pedestal in our childhood years are not the good people those rulers have been made out to be.

Bovard gets into a lot of memories and policy issues regarding his writing over the years during the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump administrations.

Besides the Mises Institute, Bovard’s recent articles have also been at the Future of Freedom Foundation, USA Today, The American Conservative, American Institute for Economic Research, Counterpunch, and The Libertarian Institute. They have also been in Barron’s, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times (and I’m sure others as well). If you like books, and those which expose government corruption and incompetence (and mainly from a libertarian-minded viewpoint), here are James Bovard’s books at

Libertarians Have the Right Solution for the Coronavirus Crisis

For many decades the two major political parties, Republicrat and Demopublican, have been stealing from the people (“taxes,” taken without any mutual contract), imposing property-violation and person-violation intrusions by making up “laws” and enforcing them at gunpoint. It’s not the “America” envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

And it’s just gotten much worse, with the coronavirus panic incited by corrupt government officials and promoted by their brain-dead media spokesmen and governors ordering businesses shut down, and the economic collapse which mainly began in February with Wall Street panic selling.

So the solution for the statists in power is to print more Monopoly money and helicopter money and give people an extra thousand or two to prevent or delay the inevitable protests in Washington and state capitols.

So all this is yet another reason why I don’t vote for Republicrats or Demopublicans, and instead have been voting for Libertarian Party candidates since the 1980s. Except for the terrible Gary Johnson and the neocon Bob Barr, two invaders of the Libertarian Party in recent presidential elections.

But a current Libertarian candidate for President, Jacob Hornberger, is someone that people who value liberty and prosperity can and should vote for. He is certainly much closer to past Libertarian presidential candidates, including Ron Paul in 1988 and Harry Browne in 1996 and 2000. I have mentioned Jacob Hornberger here before. He is the founder of the Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF). Here is Jacob’s campaign website.

For instance, in a recent blog post Jacob points out that there is only one way out of the coronavirus crisis: separating healthcare and State. Like separation of church and State.  “In other words, no governmental involvement in healthcare at all. No regulations, no controls, and no central planning. No FDA. No Center for Disease Control. No Medicare. No Medicaid. No medical licensure.” (And no National Institutes for Health, no disease commissar Dr. Fauci!)

Jacob writes:

Americans don’t like to admit that they live under a socialist healthcare system. They like to think of themselves as capitalists, free-enterprisers, and ardent supporters of the Chamber of Commerce. But the fact is that while America doesn’t yet have a healthcare system that is fully owned and operated by the federal government, the core features of America’s healthcare system are based on socialist principles.

The U.S. healthcare system is also based on a core feature of socialism: central planning, control, regulation, and management. That’s what the FDA and the Center for Disease Control are all about.

Medicare and Medicaid are based on the federal government’s forcibly taking money (through the IRS) from those to whom it belongs and use it to provide healthcare to seniors and the poor. That is the essence of the socialist principle of coercive redistribution of wealth.

Prior to America’s socialist healthcare system, our nation had the finest healthcare system in the world. Prices were so low, stable, and predictable that no one needed major medical insurance. Doctors and hospitals provided free medical care to the poor, on a purely voluntary basis. Doctors loved what they did in life. Medical innovations, inventions, treatments, and cures were soaring.

That’s what a free society is all about. That’s also what a charitable society is all about.

And then came central planning, regulation, and control, along with Medicare and Medicaid, two socialist programs that launched America’s decades-long, ongoing, never-ending healthcare crisis. Owing to the enormous government-imposed demand on the healthcare system, healthcare costs began soaring. People began buying insurance for protection. Doctors began forming contorted associations to adapt to the crisis.

And no one can rationally doubt that America’s socialist healthcare system is a major cause of the high death toll from the coronavirus. Every day, one can read any number of articles in the mainstream press about the incompetence of the central planners — about the shortages of masks, supplies, ventilators, and other essential medical supplies — about the ludicrous restrictions imposed on healthcare providers from providing treatment — about the shortages of healthcare providers.

All that dysfunctionality is classic socialism. The economist Ludwig von Mises called a system of central planning “planned chaos.” Can you think of a better term for what is going on today?

In contrast, things wouldn’t be nearly as terrible with the coronavirus crisis today if the system in place right now were a freedom-based, free-market system in healthcare.

A free-market system produces the best of everything. In contrast to a socialist system based on central planning, which is limited to the “expertise” of government planners and planning agencies, the free market takes advantage of the knowledge and expertise of countless individuals, including entrepreneurs, each of whom is coordinating his efforts with others that always reaches fantastic results that no central planner, in all his wisdom, could ever conceive. In a free market, people are free to make rapid adjustments without governmental permission or interference. Essential supplies and equipment and innovations flood the market.

If we had had the free-market healthcare system that FFF has been advancing for 30 years, today we would be looking to the healthcare industry, not politicians, bureaucrats, and mini-dictators for guidance and direction. Test kits would be cheap and plentiful, even delivered overnight to people’s homes. Those testing positive would be urged to self-isolate while everyone else would be going to work, keeping the economy going. Testing kits, ventilators, masks, and other essential supplies would be in abundant supply. Entrepreneurs would be rushing into the market with new and innovative tests, treatments, and even cures. The death toll would have been minuscule compared to what we have today, especially among seniors.

Now, there are many people who think that such a change back to that freedom way of life would be too radical a change. But believe it or not, things really were better prior to the imposition of Medicare and Medicaid. He is right about medical care being much less expensive prior to the 1970s, many more doctors having more ability financially to provide for the poor for free, which many did, including Dr. Ron Paul in his ob-gyn practice.

The problem is government central planning. That is indeed the problem in our society in every single area of life in which government has seized control away from the people.

And Jacob also has addressed Donald Trump’s dictatorial response to the coronavirus crisis, including Trump’s ordering companies to make ventilators or other products they ordinarily don’t make. And this outright fascism has been exercised by governors as well, quite frankly, in their ordering private businesses to close down.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano commented, these are violations of people’s rights as protected by the U.S. Constitution. Napolitano reiterated those comments in his excoriation of governors and mayors’ police-state crackdowns. (All those “public servants,” by the way, swore an oath to obey, support and defend that Constitution, whether they agree with it or not!)

In this video, Jacob Hornberger and his FFF colleague Richard Ebeling discuss the police-state crackdowns and constitutional rights-violations imposed by dictator governors and mayors as well as Trump, and why all that is a bad thing.

So, if you believe in freedom and want to live in a free, prosperous and healthy society then you might want to consider ditching the two major political parties and supporting the Libertarian Party this time around.

Gangsters Invade New Hampshire (Primary)

I’m pretty sure I have mentioned here that I’m in the northeast U.S., but I don’t want to be specific as to where. But I will say, in New Hampshire it’s that time again, the every-4-years invasion of the political hacks, statists, crooks, thugs and degenerates. Yes, the candidates for the 2020 presidential election. Ack!

It turns out that Mayor Pete Buttigieg is not the squeaky clean, young fresh-faced good-guy he portrays himself to be. According to this article, not only did he have high-up positions with the military in counter-intelligence (sic), but he worked with the CIA as well as the Drug Enforcement Administration in Afghanistan. Some people actually view all that as “good” (because they have been overly propagandized, in my opinion), but I view that as “bad.”

Worse, Buttigieg supports “national youth service,” which I think he justifies by saying it should be “voluntary,” but in my opinion, I don’t think he is sincere there. Buttigieg would probably also be in support of the draft. Investigative reporter James Bovard has called Buttigieg’s authoritarianism and promoting a “call to service” as a “summons to submission.” So, he’s not exactly a freedom kind of guy, that Buttigieg guy.

Neither are Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren freedom promoters. They both want a totally centrally-planned economy, in which workers and employers must do everything the bureaucrats in Washington tell them to do. Sanders and Warren are control freaks. And I think that Joe Biden is already showing signs of Alzheimer’s.

And Donald Trump is also in New Hampshire having his campaign rallies, etc. He is bad, too, like the aforementioned. The new budget supposedly is a whopping $4.8 trillion! That’s in the news today. There’s no such thing as a “trillion.” Since Trump became president, the national debt has gone up $2-3 trillion. So he’s spending and borrowing “like a drunken sailor.” (Apologies to all the drunken sailors out there.) And he hasn’t “drained the swamp” or drawn down the wars overseas, just as Obama didn’t end the wars and occupations as promised. They bow to the puppet masters. So, the swamp rules.

And I haven’t voted for a Republicrat or a Demopublican since the 1990s. It’s either the Libertarian Party, or I don’t vote. “Lesser of two evils”? That’s still voting for evil. So now with the Libertarian Party there’s Jacob Hornberger as I have mentioned here. Believe it or not, Jacob has won the Libertarian Party vote in the Iowa caucuses this week. Jacob Hornberger 47% to Lincoln Chafee’s 12%, and some 17 others on the list and “None of the Above.”

But most people don’t know about the Libertarians because the mainstream media refuse to cover them. The statist “news” media in America are so bad now, they really ought to register with the SEC as political operatives!

Can We Return to the American Founders’ Vision of Freedom?

Jacob Hornberger, a Libertarian Party candidate for president, has written a blog post at his organization the Future of Freedom Foundation, on the American founders’ distrust of centralized government officials. And that is why they insisted on including a Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution also includes specific enumerated powers of the federal government, so if a function or office was not enumerated, then the feds may not do it, according to Hornberger.

He expands on why the people forming a new government insisted on a Bill of Rights in the Constitution:

Why did Americans see the need to expressly prohibit the federal government from destroying such rights as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the right to own and bear arms? Because they firmly believed that that is precisely what federal officials would do if they were not expressly prohibited from doing it!

Why did Americans demand the enactment of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments? Because they firmly believed that without those express restrictions on power, federal officials would use their power to do such things as kill or jail people or seize their money and property without due process of law, use kangaroo Star Chamber-like courts to convict them, barge into people’s homes or businesses without warrants to search for incriminating evidence, jail people indefinitely without trial, and subject people to cruel and unusual punishments like torture.

Hmmm, sound familiar? Yep. That’s today’s America. Bush-Obama-Trump’s America, that is. And there are millions and millions of Americans who agree with policies that do away with those protections in the Bill of Rights.

And what about a crisis or emergency? Hornberger writes:

The fact is that there is no emergency or crisis exception in either the original Constitution or the Bill of Rights. That is, there is no provision that says, “In the event of an emergency or crisis, the federal government will be permitted to exercise powers that are not enumerated and to ignore restrictions on its power.”

There is a good reason why the Framers and our ancestors chose not to include an emergency or crisis exception that would enable federal officials to exercise omnipotent, totalitarian-like powers over the people. The reason is that they understood that throughout history, emergencies and crises have furnished the excuse for federal officials to wield and exercise tyrannical powers.

In fact, that’s one of the reasons that rulers oftentimes do their best to generate emergencies or crises. They know that it is during emergencies and crises that people become so afraid that they are willing, even eager, to surrender their liberties and their rights, “temporarily” of course, in exchange for being kept “safe.” Of course, “temporarily” almost always means “permanently” because rulers are loath to give up powers once wielded and exercised.

And in his very next blog post, Hornberger points out how different America was during the first century or so of its freedom and independence. Back then, there was no “military-industrial complex, empire of domestic and foreign military bases, CIA, NSA, or FBI,” there were no drug laws, no immigration controls, and there were very little to no economic controls. The founders wouldn’t have approved of centralized economic planning from the feds, because the federal government has no moral authority to get involved in the people’s economic and financial lives, and it especially had no constitutional or moral authority to demand any of the fruits of their labor.

As I have mentioned here recently, the Democrats and Republicans are all the same, except for their social programs that each wants to shove down our throats. They all believe in government central planning, central economic planning, and coveting your earnings but letting you have some of your earnings by their acts of legislation. They all believe in tax-funded empire abroad in search of monsters or opportunities to create new monsters to destroy. They do not believe in civil liberties and due process.

More recently the Libertarian Party candidates for president have been largely in agreement with the Demopublicans and Republicrats, such as Gary Johnson and Bob Barr. Those were terrible presidential nominations, and the Libertarian Party really should be ashamed of that political compromise of principle. But in the old days of the Libertarian Party, there were Ron Paul, Harry Browne, and David Bergland. Let’s hope the Libertarian Party nominates Jacob Hornberger for president to present a real choice between the usual statists, authoritarians and communists.

The Swamp Impeachment Farce and Kooky 2020 Candidates

Every once in a while I want to write my thoughts on various matters here, but for some reason I “self-censor,” because I’m afraid of “offending” someone. Oh, well.

Anyway, there are a lot of issues and kooky characters in the news these days, including an impeachment “trial,” remarks by presidential candidates, and so on. A lot needs to be discussed. So, I will discuss.

Regarding the impeachment “trial,” I first want to reiterate that I am not a supporter of Donald Trump. He’s bad on immigration, trade, foreign policy, the “war on drugs,” and many other issues. But I do like his “Drain the Swamp” message, even though he has been feeding the swamp with all the military generals, neocon hacks and bureaucrats he has had in his administration.

And unfortunately, the establishment in Washington has two political parties known as the “major” parties, Republicrat and Demopublican. They are two sides of the same coin, the statist swamp coin, that is.

First the Democrats and the news media (redundant?) had acted in cahoots with the “dirty cops” of the FBI and DOJ to falsely accuse Trump of “collusions” with Russians to “hack” or steal the 2016 election. The Mueller report exonerated Trump after a 2+ year investigation.

See that ultra-conservative Trump-supporter Glenn Greenwald on that exoneration.

Now, obviously I’m being facetious, as Greenwald is a progressive-left commentator and policy analyst. But because he believes in exposing the actual truth of something, and because he rakes the “news” media propagandists over the coals regarding their cover-ups and hypocrisy and their revolving door with bureaucracies, they have been calling him a “Putin puppet,” “Russian asset,” etc.

Much of the “news” media have been acting like programmed robots in their propaganda crusade against all things Trump.

And the “news” (sic) media get a bad grade (from me) for their coverage of the whole congressional, FBI and Mueller investigations of the collusion allegations, because the media basically acted as stenographers for everything the D.C. swamp creatures tell them, without any investigative research whatsoever.

We might as well close down the Columbia School of Journalism, Emerson College, et al. They are now useless (except for training up-and-coming propagandists for the establishment, the swamp), so it seems.

After the Mueller Report didn’t work for the Democrat-Swamp-FBI-DOJ complex, when the Report was released in March and April of 2019, members of Congress immediately demanded Trump’s tax returns to see if a new fishing expedition would help them. They had no probable cause, reasonable suspicion, no specific tax-related allegation of any kind, but no matter. That was April 3rd of 2019, according to the New York Times and the Washington Times. I don’t want to link to them.

And then a CIA-experienced White House employee calling himself a “whistleblower” leaked second-hand info regarding a Trump phone call, to begin a new impeachment inquiry. The dishonest Rep. Adam Schiff had been in cahoots with “whistleblower” starting the day after the Trump-Ukraine phone call. Actually, the “whistleblower” began in his crusade to get Trump removed from office just days after Trump was inaugurated!

On the first day of the House Impeachment Inquiry, the dishonest Schiff read a fake transcript of the phone call, that read like a mafia boss, to fool listeners (and many in the media) into believing what he was reading was the actual phone call transcript. Just a day or two before that, the White House had released the actual phone call transcript. (Joe Biden, former vice president, corrupt?)

Now, the so-called “whistleblower” was NOT a whistleblower. If you want to know who is a whistleblower, see info on Chelsea Manning, John Kiriakou, William Binney and Thomas Drake, who were all imprisoned by the feds to punish them for releasing info on corruption and criminal behavior by government bureaucrats and military. Exposing wrongdoing is a no-no in Washington!

No, the White House CIA “whistleblower” is not a whistleblower in the true sense of the word, he is just a leaker, not only a leaker but really a propagandist, who leaked hearsay information to the media and Congress.

ANY phone call between ANY president and ANY foreign leader can be manipulated and used to falsely accuse someone of anything! Which is exactly what this situation is.

So what we will have from now on is Republicrat or Demopublican politicians going on fishing expeditions against a president of the opposing party, starting impeachment inquiries and “trials” in the Senate. This is just the beginning, folks.

This is yet another reason why I haven’t voted for a Demopublican or Republicrat since the ’90s! I have been supporting Libertarian Party candidates or “None of the Above,” quite frankly.

And what else has been in the news lately? Well, the 2020 presidential campaign, of course. Besides the senile-sounding 77-year-old Joe Biden, there is the grouchy, cranky 78-year-old Bernie Sanders, who is so much “against the rich” that he has become rich himself. They are both Republicrats, I say.

And Tulsi Gabbard, who is supposedly anti-war, as I am. But as Jacob Hornberger has pointed out, Gabbard is anti-war only in opposition to “regime-change wars,” but not other foreign wars in which American troops are sent off to get killed or crippled for no reason except to enrich the so-called “defense” (sic) contractors. So, she’s kind of hypocritical when it comes to “anti-war,” or she’s just ignorant and confused.

Now Gabbard is suing Hillary Clinton for “defamation,” because Hillary referred to a Democrat running for president as a “Russian asset,” even though Clinton didn’t even mention Gabbard’s name. The suit is completely frivolous, and would be so even if Gabbard’s name was mentioned, and Gabbard will not win the suit.

And one of my favorite libertarian blogs, Target Liberty, has a comprehensive post on the “matronly” Amy Klobuchar, who apparently is a “perfect puppet for the behind the scenes puppetmasters of the Empire.”

Actually, like Trump, any one of these phony-baloneys would be a “perfect puppet for the empire.”

So anyway, impeach away The Donald, I really don’t care. But President Mike Pence? He’s an even worse warmonger than Trump and those other Demopublicans and Republicrats.

Jacob Hornberger, the Libertarian Party, and the 2020 Election

The 2020 presidential election campaign seems to give us an incumbent Trump, who looks like he will survive this impeachment stuff, and a bunch of anti-freedom candidates who want to oppose him. If he is removed by the Senate, that will give us a President Pence, who is an even worse warmonger and socially repressive than Trump! But, I don’t think he will be removed.

I have been either voting for third parties or not voting since the 1990s. I refuse to vote for the “lesser of two evils,” because the “lesser of two evils” is still evil, in my opinion. Both major parties are evil. They are anti-freedom, warmongers, anti-due process, and fascists. It used to be that the Libertarian Party, the “party of principle,” was for the principles of freedom that America was founded on.

But then the Libertarian Party had Gary Johnson whose only issue was pot legalization, not on principle but because he just loves pot. And he’s also a “social justice” guy, no understanding of freedom, property rights and freedom of association. If you ask me, the “social justice warriors” in recent years are not concerned with justice when they shout people down and attack people physically at demonstrations. So, they aren’t even concerned with acting decently, you know, in “social” interactions with others. How about treating others with respect, even those with whom you disagree?

But now we have a more principled candidate for president with the Libertarian Party, Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF). I have linked to his articles here before (I think). Unlike Gary Johnson and Bob Barr, we can definitely compare Jacob Hornberger with Ron Paul who was the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee in 1988. However, Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 was perhaps a little less libertarian and principled especially on the immigration issue, when Paul ran for president as a Republican.

But Jacob Hornberger is more principled in his views and support for the non-aggression principle, private property rights and freedom of association, and non-interventionism in foreign policy. He also has the same kind of understanding of free-market economics that Ron Paul had, unlike Gary Johnson. Well, I’ll try not to bring up Gary Johnson again.

Imagine abolishing the IRS and the income tax and the federal reserve, closing down all the foreign U.S. military bases abroad and bringing all the troops home, ending the feds’ wars on drugs and immigration, getting rid of the FBI, CIA, NSA, and all those other unconstitutional agencies in Washington. If you think that all that is extreme, you can read Jacob’s blog on the FFF website and read his explanations for those things. Abolishing the welfare/warfare state and restoring our freedom is not extreme. It’s those bureaucracies and the feds’ thefts of the people and intrusions into their lives — that’s extreme!

Also read Jacob’s blog on his campaign website. He frequently cites the works of economists Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. I very much recommend their writings at those links.

However, Jacob may have his work cut out for him in getting the Libertarian nomination, because the party has become more “social justice” oriented i.e. abandoning the principles of freedom, such as freedom of speech. So, his dealing with things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may be like walking on eggshells.

And also, Jacob is definitely not on the side of the “lone nut shooter” theory promoted by the government and the mainstream media regarding the JFK assassination. He certainly has written about that many times as well. See this by Jacob Hornberger, and this page that contains a reading list regarding the JFK assassination that includes some of Jacob’s articles. I can predict that when some people google Jacob Hornberger they will see his JFK assassination articles and say, “conspiracy theorist,” albeit naively and ignorantly, in my opinion. But we learned a lot as far as what the feds have been up to, especially since 9/11 and the “War on Terror” i.e. war on freedom, and the hysterical campaign to get rid of Trump as well. The FBI and CIA don’t like Trump because he criticized them during the 2016 campaign, and that’s a no-no.

Anyway, I hope that people have an open mind. If you don’t like Trump or Pence, and don’t like what the Democrats have to offer, maybe consider the Libertarian Party and Jacob Hornberger.

British Politicians!

Anti-Brexit politicians are trying to call on Parliament to sabotage the U.K.’s leaving the European Union. Some of them and their supporters and twitterers are saying that Boris Johnson’s getting the Queen to suspend Parliament is “anti-democracy”! But the people of the U.K. voted in a democratic election on Brexit, and the majority of them voted to leave the European Union.

So, the people trying to stop that (trying to reverse that decision) are the ones who are “anti-democracy”! Am I wrong about this? (I’m glad I don’t live in the U.K., quite frankly.)

The Democrats Had More Debates – Who Cares?

The Democrats running for President of the U.S. had two more debates this past week, and, once again, there was a lot of campaign demagoguery, but none of them seem to get what’s wrong with our society. And their solutions are no different from the solutions that have already been implemented which have caused further problems.

I have been observing politics since the early 1980s, since college. The situation just gets worse and worse.

So, the Democrats are not that different from the Republicans. I’m sure that if these two establishment parties hadn’t imposed so many restrictions on third parties’ ability to get on election ballots, we would have a different situation by now.

And if the news media were not so enmeshed with both these establishment parties, we would hear more about the other parties.

For example, the Libertarian Party used to be the party of freedom, and freedom of thought and conscience, free markets and private property rights, voluntary association, and non-interventionism. Ron Paul was their nominee for president in 1988, and he was consistent with libertarian principles.

But we hardly heard about him at that time, because the news media are the Establishment media. If a candidate comes along and proposes to dismantle the national security state (abolish the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.) and close down the military bases occupying foreign countries and bring all the troops home, I guess the thought of ending Washington’s acts of violence against foreigners is a frightening thought for the news media. Such a candidate is dismissed as a crackpot by many people.

And the news media acted the same way in 2008 and 2012 when Ron Paul was a Republican candidate for President. The Republicans are generally warmongers, they support all the wars overseas and the DHS and TSA, and support the failed war on drugs, but Ron Paul is the “fringe” candidate.

And then we have the Democrats, who are mainly ignorant of economics and history, but are also warmongers. They say nothing about the hundreds and hundreds of U.S. military bases overseas, but they do say a lot about “Medicare for All” and the many handouts they are promising, with no answer as to how a multi-trillion dollar program will be funded.

Like the Republicans, who want to give handouts to military contractors and Big Pharma paid for by the average worker, the Democrats are the same.

But do I have any comments specifically on this past week’s Democrat debates? Nope. Not really. (Except that they all suck. Sorry to sound like a “nattering nabob of negativism” there.)