When the next President is inaugurated in less than a year from now the United States will have added $30 trillion in debt within a generation.
In fact, almost $2 trillion in additional debt has been added just since the debt ceiling limit was suspended by legislation passed in June.
The United States had just over $4 trillion in debt in 1992. Just over 30 years later we will have hit $34 trillion in debt.
Louis Gave is an economic and market research analyst from France who speaks and writes about global markets and trends.
He recently asked the question as to '"What has the United States gotten for $30 trillion in debt?
It is a great question.
Let's break it down and put some context around it.
The United States got a lot for the $4 trillion in debt in the seven generations or so from the nation's founding until the early 1990's.
We completed the Louisiana Purchase that doubled the land mass of the U.S. We opened up the West through railroads. The union was saved in the Civil War. We purchased Alaska. We established most of the nation's national parks. We won two World Wars and saved the world from despotism. We overcame the Great Depression. We built the Hoover Dam. the Tennessee Vally Authority was established and we have an interstate highway system to show for it. We put men on the moon. The debt we took on to achieve those results looks like a bargain today.
It is harder to point out anything real tangible that we have to show for the $30 trillion of debt we have added in the last generation.
We spent a bunch of money in Afghanistan over a couple of decades and then abandoned it and a whole bunch of military equipment to Muslim extremists. We paid a lot of people to not work during the Covid lockdowns. We funded a vaccine that turned out to be ineffective and mandated that people had to take it or lose their jobs. We spent a pile of money on green energy projects that have largely not panned out. For the most part, we funded a lot of social programs with trillions of dollars of borrowed money only to see little change in levels of poverty, homelessness, out of wedlock births and the health of the American people.
Debt is constructive when it is used to produce something that will provide a continuing return on that investment. Debt is destructive when the money is spent but there is nothing to show for it that produces a return that can be used to pay off the debt and interest in the future.
What have we gotten for $30 trillion in debt?
It does not look to have given us much of tangible value.
To put this in further context consider the fact that the amount of money that the federal government spent on Covid initiatives and relief payments through borrowed money was more than the total cost (inflated into current dollars) to fight and win World War II.
Considering that almost all of these Covid costs were the result of the economic lockdowns I doubt that there has ever bern more spent for less result in the history of mankind outside of failed war efforts.
The result of all of this is that future generations have gotten stuck with paying off an enormous amount of debt with little to help them pay the bill.
This is also debt, unlike student loans, that Joe Biden and the Democrats cannot just cancel.
In fact, every student debt that is cancelled just makes the U.S. debt even larger.
I doubt that $30 trillion is going to look like a bargain in a few years.
The next generation is going to face some unique challenges and difficult choices because of this debt.
I don't like making political predictions because it is too easy to be wrong. I prefer analysis based on data.
However, if I were to place odds on Biden 2.0 vs. Trump 2.0 right now, I would suggest there is only a 1% chance that both Biden and Trump will be the candidates on the final ballot in 2024.
We will find out once again whether I should stay out of the prediction business.
We also have the interesting chart on the aging of our politicians that follows below.
This shows the percentage of those in Congress who were 70 years of age or older in all years dating back to 1800.
It shows that the percent who were 70 or older jumped from 8% in 2002 to 23% in 2022.
I have mixed feelings about term limits. I like the fact that it forces new blood and new ideas into our political system but I also see value in having those with institutional experience in charge to provide the necessary leadership and perspective to the legislative process.
We have had legislative term limits in Ohio since 1992 (limit of no more than four 2-year terms in the House and two 4-year terms in the Senate) but I have seen little evidence that it has had much effect on the political class. It seems to have mainly created a lot of political gamesmanship. A House member is term-limited and then moves to the Senate. A Senator becomes a County Commissioner and then comes back and runs again for the Senate.
As I wrote in "It's All In The Name", the largest asset a politician has is their name identification. The substantial "asset value" that a politician has in his or her name is also the reason why so many politicians have a hard time stepping away. They know they have an "asset" and they want to use it. It really becomes a question of "use it or lose it."
It's been two decades since Ohio voters amended their constitution to cap the number of consecutive years a state lawmaker can hold his office.
But today, five state representatives and a senator who were here in the General Assembly when the term-limits clock first started ticking are still here, their service uninterrupted as they've jumped from one chamber to the other and back again.
Two will have 30 or more years under their belts by the end of the current session.
Term limits were very popular in the 1990's. 14 of the 15 states that now have term limits on the books enacted that provision during that decade. Nebraska was the last to enact term limits in 2000.
After thinking about all of this I believe that it might make more sense to consider age limits or a mandatory retirement age rather than Congressional term limits.
I know that it would spark cries of ageism and all the rest but it would prevent some of the problems with term limits while also providing the opportunity to infuse new blood into Congress from time to time.
It seems that I am not the only one thinking about this. Consider this question that was put to Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on the CNN Town Hall this week that was hosted by Chris Cuomo.
CUOMO: "I have something for you along these lines. You gave as you good segue there. I want to bring in Mary Pat, retired, lives in Maryland. Mary Pat, what is your question? A beautiful scarf you have on."MARY PAT: "Leader Pelosi, quorum.us says more than half the senators running for re-election this year are over 65 years old. If they win, their term of service will be six years. Their constituents are about 20 years younger. Isn't it time for some members to return to private service and to encourage younger folks run for office so --"[ applause ]
I am certainly not suggesting that there is a certain age at which someone is not fit to serve. For example, consider this story and video of 83-year old Senator Chuck Grassley pounding out 19 push ups to best a teenage student at an Iowa school meeting. No one should say that Grassley is not fit to serve.
It just seems logical that at some point the decisions affecting the nation and its future should be turned over to the next generation. Does it make sense for an 80-year old to be voting on legislation that will affect the lives of those much younger who will have to live under those laws for a much longer time than that Senator?
It should also be remembered that the U.S. Constitution already has an established minimum age criteria for the U.S. House (25 years), Senate (30 years) and President (35 years). Our Founders saw the wisdom of that minimum age to insure that there would be a basic level of maturity and life experience in our elected leaders. Perhaps there should also be a maximum as well?
It is also not uncommon to see required retirement ages in the corporate world for CEO's and Board members. It seems to be understood that at some point there comes a time when you should step aside for the good of the organization to let a new generations of leaders have their opportunity.
My suggestion would be to cap the maximum age at which a federal elected official could be sworn into office at 40 years from the minimum age to serve that is currently established in the U.S. Constitution. Thus, a House member could not be more than 65 years of age or a Senator older than 70 when beginning a new term of service. I would add an age 75 limit to the President in addition to the term limit already in place. This effectively would mean that there would be no House members older than 67, Senate members older than 76 or a President who was 79 or older based on the required retirement age limit.
What effect would this have if it was in place right now?
President Trump would still be eligible to run for re-election in 2020 as he would be under the age 75 age limit on Inauguration Day January 20, 2021. (Trump will not be age 75 until June 14, 2021)
Interestingly, not one of the 45 Presidents we have had would have been precluded from serving if this provision had been in place from the beginning of the nation's founding.
However, this provision would prevent Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden from running for President in 2020 if it were in effect. It would also mean that Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren could run in 2020 but each would be precluded from running for re-election in 2024 as they would be beyond the age limit on Inauguration Day 2025. If you are a Democrat can you honestly say that it is a bad idea to have these people step aside and allow for some fresh faces in the party?
There are currently 7 Senators that are at least 80 years of age. (Shelby-AL, McCain-AZ, Feinstein-CA, Grassley-IA, Roberts-KA, Inhofe-OK, Hatch-UT.
There are an additional 18 Senators that are at least 70 years of age.
The average age of a Senator right now is 61 and the U.S Representative average is 57. These are both about the oldest averages in our nation's history. By comparison, as recently as 1981, the average Senator's age was 53 and the average Representative was 49. On average, both are now 8 years older than they were 35 years ago.
Quorum recently did a study for the 115th Congress and found that in 44 of U.S House districts the age of the Representative was at least double the median age of those they represented. In 38 of the 44 districts the Representative won re-election with at least 60% of the vote. Name ID is everything and the reality is that most of these politicians are not leaving the pay, privileges and perks of Congress voluntarily. It is almost as if they have a lifetime taxpayer-paid annuity.
There are merits to term limits but they also have inherent limitations.
Perhaps it is time to start thinking about retirement age limits instead?
I recently came across some interesting global data on intentional homicides published by the United Nations.
When you see the data you wonder why any woman would want to become a transgender male.
Here are the numbers for the United States for 2021 (the most recent year reported),
Males are almost four times more likely to be murdered as females in the United States.
Here are the numbers for Mexico.
There are many more homicides in Mexico than the United States despite the fact that the population of Mexico is only about 38% that of the U.S.
Males are almost 8 times more likely to be murdered in Mexico as are females.
You see similar ratios in various South American, Central American and Caribbean countries.
The data also shows that the perpetrators of these intentional homicides (as measured by those arrested or convicted in intentional homicide cases) is even more skewed towards males.
For example, in Honduras 97% of those arrested and/or convicted of intentional homicides (in 2016 the latest year data is available) were males.
In July alone, 54,000 illegals came in from Mexico, 26.000 from Honduras and 22,000 from Guatemala.
Look again at the numbers on intentional homicides above and ask whether the Biden border policy is in the best interests of Americans.
CBP data also shows that the overwhelming number of illegals entering the country are single adults or minors. These singles are almost exclusively males.
We live in a world today in which there is no middle ground.
It seems everything has become black or white.
There is no nuance.
You are either totally pro-life with no exceptions or pro-choice up to the minute of birth.
You have to believe that Covid is nothing more than a cold or it is so dangerous you need six vaccine shots and be wearing an N-95 mask wherever you go.
You need to be for abolishing the IRS or be in favor of hiring 97,000 new IRS employees.
The same seems to also be true as people in the Republicans party state their preferences between Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis.
This is particularly the case if you spend any time on social media platforms.
If you favor Trump, DeSantis is the worst candidate of all time. He is boring, inauthentic, lacks charisma and does not make connections with voters.
It is Trump or bust with them.
Trump is the biggest loser around if you favor DeSantis, Haley or another GOP candidate the next time around.
For example, this guy was probably the biggest cheerleader in the country for Trump on Twitter in the 2016 election and in his four years in office. He now has decided that Trump is a loser and does nothing but screw things up. He now loves DeSantis.
Am I the only persons in America who likes both Trump and DeSantis?
I can get behind any of the other Republican candidates as well.
As I have said before, there has never been a President in my lifetime who governed more consistently in comparison to what he said he would do when he was a candidate than Donald Trump.
There was no bait and switch.
Yes, I wish Trump toned down his personality and was not as bellicose and bombastic. It wouldn't hurt if he was a little less authentic.
However, I have watched Trump closely over the years and what he says is largely an act to give himself some strategic or negotiating advantage.
The stuff he says may be over the top but what he actually does when it counts is not.
He doesn't make crazy decisions. He makes practical ones that are well grounded in reality.
Look at his Supreme Court picks. His dealings with North Korea. The negotiations on NAFTA. The deal he worked out with Mexico on the border. When it came down to doing a deal he was practical and reasonable.
Despite all the predictions that Trump was going to be a disaster as President, none of it proved true. The economy flourished, energy supplies were abundant, ISIS was destroyed and he made significant inroads in brokering peace in the Middle East and with North Korea.
It is hard to see how Trump would not have been easily re-elected if if was not for Covid.
If I have anything to fault Trump about during his time as President it would be his handling of Covid. His instincts were clearly correct that locking down the country over Covid was insane. However, he deferred to Fauci and the so-called experts. He took the mainstream position to avoid controversy and he made the wrong call.
One of the things I like about DeSantis is that he did not fall into that trap. He initially followed the consensus but soon analyzed the data and listened to other experts who disagreed with Fauci. As a result, Florida came through Covid better than almost any other state. He opened the economy and schools faster than most everyone else and Florida benefited as a result.
DeSantis has also been ahead of the game on challenging much of the liberal woke agenda. I don't know of another governor who has pushed back harder.
The 20-point win that DeSantis produced in Florida, which used to be considered a swing state, is a strong endorsement of the job he has done in Florida.
Many make the argument that Trump can't win because he is not popular with suburban women.
Trump is weak with this demographic and it is concerning.
DeSantis may be a more attractive candidate for this group.
However, it is also clear that Trump has a unique ability to connect and bring out the vote of disaffected voters who don't normally see the need to vote. Many of these voters are traditional working class Democrats.
That is why you see general election poll results that do not show much difference in how Trump or DeSantis perform against Biden.
This is the most recent CNN poll.
This is a poll from Echelon Insights.
From Morning Consult.
A poll from Premise Data that shows Trump running much stronger against Biden than DeSantis would.
As I said, I like both Trump and DeSantis.
I saw what Trump did as President. I have seen what DeSantis did as the Governor in Florida.
I am confident that both would steer the nation in the right direction.
Most importantly, it would be far removed with what we have seen with Joe Biden.
However, as I have written before, I favor DeSantis right now because I don't think Biden will be the Democrat candidate a year from now.
Trump will do better against Biden than any other Democrat candidate for the simple reason that voters can easily compare their lives under Trump to what they have experienced with Biden.
Trump will not have that advantage against a younger potential Democrat candidate that does not have a clear record for comparison and which voters do not have established views about.
Trump has a high level of unfavorability with many voters. However, Joe Biden's unfavorables are much higher now than when he ran in 2020.
Trump beat Hillary in 2016 because of her unfavorable rating with many voters. Trump also had a negative approval rating in that election but he was a more attractive option than Hillary in the end.
DeSantis and the other GOP challengers trail Trump badly right now in primary polls but it is a long road to the nomination. A lot can happen between now and the first votes. That is true for both Trump and Biden.
At this time in the primary process for the Democrats in 2008 no one thought Barack Obama would beat Hillary and no one in 2016 was putting money on Joe Biden.
I am content to sit back and watch this play out with the voters confident that the best candidate to take back the country from the Democrats will be identified.
I like both Trump and DeSantis and Haley, Scott, Ramaswamy and the rest.
Even if I am the only person in America who will say it.
Wouldn't we all like to know that our future lives would be cloudless?
Every day of our lives would be sun-filled.
We would have no cloudy days.
No rain would ever fall on anyone's parade.
We would have no cares and no problems to deal with.
It would be an ideal life in every way.
With respect to our weather and climate if there were no cloudy and rainy days it is easy to see it would be a lot warmer.
I play a lot of golf in many types of weather during the year.
One thing that is very clear is that there is a big difference in temperatures when the sun is out compared to when it is behind some cloud cover.
In the summer, of the sun slips behind a cloud it makes it feel 5-10 degrees cooler immediately.
In the spring and fall, a cool day can become very comfortable when the sun is unhindered by any clouds.
However, if the sun disappears in cloud, cover you better be prepared to put that jacket on as the chill is immediate.
Would it surprise you to know that all of the famous climate models that are being used to predict rising future temperatures assume that there will be no clouds in the future?
In other words, despite the fact that clouds have been a mainstay in our weather and climate since the beginning of time on earth, the models that are being used assume the future will be cloudless.
Is it any wonder you could show a global temperature increase of a couple degrees in a climate model if you assumed a cloudless future compared to a world in which clouds cover a portion of the earth every day?
For example, here is the first image of earth taken last year (May, 2022) by the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-T (GOES-T) (later renamed GOES18) weather satellite after it first became operational. This satellite is positioned 22,236 miles above earth to monitor weather patterns, storms, fog and wildfires in the Western Hemisphere.
Mr. Clauser said he believes he has identified a significant oversight in prevailing climate models.
"I believe I have the missing piece of the puzzle that has been left out in virtually all of these computer programs," he stated. "And that is the effect of clouds."
While many theories of anthropogenic climate change focus primarily on the impact of human-produced CO2, Mr. Clauser argues that these models overlook the significance of cloud dynamics.
He referenced the 2003 National Academy report, which, he said, "totally admitted" its lack of understanding about clouds, and made "a whole series of mistaken statements regarding the effects of clouds."
Drawing attention to Al Gore's film, "The Inconvenient Truth," Mr. Clauser noted, "[Mr. Gore] insists on talking about a cloud-free earth ... That's a totally artificial Earth." According to Mr. Clauser, this cloudless portrayal of the earth reflects the approach taken by many in the climate science community.
"That's a totally artificial Earth. It is a totally artificial case for using a model, and this is pretty much what the IPCC and others use—a cloud free earth."
Mr. Clauser pointed out that satellite images consistently show wide variances in cloud cover, which can span anywhere from five to 95 percent of the Earth's surface.
"The cloud cover fraction fluctuates quite dramatically on daily weekly timescales. We call this weather. You can't have weather without clouds.
This is not a small error.
These models are the basis by which it is claimed that climate change is an existential threat to humanity.
It is the argument for why all fossil fuels should be banned.
Joe Biden says that not even nuclear war is a greater threat to human existence than what those climate models show.
Trillions of dollars of spending are being proposed to combat a problem that may only exist in the imagination of the climate modelers who have chosen to not consider the effects of cloud cover on the earth and its temperature.
Clauser sees it as a colossal misuse of resources and waste of time and money.
Mr. Clauser criticized U.S. government efforts to reduce CO2 and methane as a colossal misuse of resources better allocated for humanitarian endeavors. Such initiatives, he argues, "should be stopped immediately."
"[It's] a total waste of money and time and effort. It is strangling industry," he said.
But Mr. Clauser is not holding his breath.
"My suspicion is what I am saying here will be totally ignored because people don't like being told that they've made big mistakes of this magnitude," he said.
Another Nobel laureate and 1,600 other science professionals have recently signed a declaration with Clauser declaring that there is no "climate emergency" and that climate change science is not conclusive.
So much for the "consensus of scientists" narrative.
So much for Joe Biden calling those who disagree with the climate change narrative as "lying dog faced pony soldiers".
A couple Nobel laureates and 1,600 scientists are "lying dog-faced pony soldiers"?
Could it possibly be the reverse?
Does anyone believe that Biden has the slightest idea about how the models being used to support the climate change narrative have been developed?
In addition, there is no one on earth that can find the John Wayne movie that Biden refers to when he used the "lying dog faced pony solders" line.
This report contains research of those who have attempted to confirm Biden's explanation. They could not.
The president has used the alleged movie line "lying dog-faced pony soldier" multiple times in the past to indicate that someone is lying through their teeth or the person is dishonest. However, the quote has baffled many social media users as it doesn’t exist.
A cloudless future?
That is not going to occur. You can count on that.
However, Joe Biden's mind (and future in politics) gets cloudier with every passing day.
A few random observations, charts and factoids to provide some context on what is going on in the world.
Most Regretted College Majors
Is this a possible reason the media leans so far left?
They are angry about their career and the freedom they had in this country to make their own choice?
If you doubt this observation consider the political contributions of those working in newspapers and print media. They are almost exclusively donors to liberal candidates and tilted to the most extreme left-wing ideological views.
Political contributions based on liberal/conservative ideology of candidates Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-show-the-political-bias-of-each-profession-2014-11
You Cannot Blame Elon Musk for Inflation
Despite the efforts of Elon Musk the Chief Economist of Cox Automotive suggests that 50% of Americans are now priced out of the car market due to a combination of higher prices of new and used vehicles and rising interest rates.
You may remember that Donald Trump wanted to fill the SPR to the brim during the early days of Covid when oil prices had collapsed. Trump proposed buying oil when prices were around $20/barrel but his plan was blocked by the Democrats in Congress who would not fund the proposal.
Now with oil prices around $90/barrel Joe Biden is running out of options to keep a lid on oil and gasoline prices.
Source:https://oilprice.com
Biden's only hope now to lower the price may be a recession that would curb the demand for oil.
Bidenomics at work!
I Graduated From Harvard With a 3.8 GPA
Congratulations for being smack dab in the middle of your class.
Tattoo Predictor
This is about what I expected.
However, 46% of those in the 30-49 age group having a tattoo is a little higher than I would have guessed.
OnlyFans
OnlyFans is a website that represents the seamier side of social media.
It is a platform that allows "creators" to post content that subscribers pay to view. Musicians and physical fitness experts use it but it has become most popular with models and adult entertainers who are using it in a manner in which The New York Times has called "the paywall of porn".
What caught my eye recently had nothing to do with the content. I was much more interested to see the financial side of this business.
If anyone has any doubt whether sex sells take a look at this summary of the financial results of Fenix International Ltd. which operates OnlyFans.
3.2 million creators (+47% in last year).
239 million subscribers paying for the content (+27% in last year).
Fenix and OnlyFans are owned by Leonid Radvinsky.
That $338 million dividend paid in 2022 would have given him $1.3 million for every working day during the year.
It was recently revealed that while he was Vice President, Joe Biden used aliases to communicate via email with various people in and out of government. This appears to include his son Hunter.
The National Archives and Records Administration has admitted that it is in possession of nearly 5,400 emails, electronic records and documents that potentially show President Biden using a pseudonym during his vice presidency, it was revealed on Monday.
NARA confirmed the existence of the trove in response to a June 2022 Freedom of Information Act request by the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a nonprofit constitutional legal group.
The request sought emails pertaining to the accounts of Robin Ware, Robert L. Peters and JRB Ware — pseudonyms the 80-year-old president was known to use in the White House during his time as President Barack Obama’s vice president.
Why does someone do this?
The intent is clearly to not be transparent in whatever they are doing. It is done in an attempt to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act laws involving the dealings of government officials.
How much attention did the mainstream tv outlets give to this story when it came out?
We also know that Hunter Biden paid $300/month for a private global cell phone that Joe Biden could use when he was VP to communicate with.
Did Joe not get a cell phone from the U.S. government?
If Joe needed a personal cell phone could he not pay for it himself?
PETER SCHWEIZER: It's interesting, what is the line of communications between Hunter Biden and his business partners and Joe Biden when he's vice president of the United States? It's not the government phone, it's not Joe Biden's personal phone. We know from the laptop that Hunter Biden's business paid for a private phone line that Joe Biden used while he was vice president. It was from AT&T, it was $300 a month, it was a global phone where you could access somebody anywhere around the world.
Nothing to see here.
We also know that Hunter Biden and associates used a complicated web of 20 companies surrounding his business interests.
The Biden family, their business associates, and their companies received more than $10 million from foreign nationals’ and their related companies, the records show. These payments occurred both while Biden was in office as vice president and after his time in office ended.
If Hunter Biden was such an outstanding intellect, attorney and business adviser why was it only that "his business" took off when his father became VP?
Nothing to see here.
Finally, we have the recent disclosure from House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer and other members of the committee that six banks have submitted 170+ Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) to the Treasury Department in recent years involving bank transactions by the Biden family.
Financial institutions are required to file a suspicious activity report to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) no later than 30 calendar days from when it detects a suspicious transaction that could have links to money laundering or terrorism financing.
First originated as a “criminal referral form,” suspicious activity reports were established through the 1970 Bank Secrecy Act. In 1996, according to FinCEN, the form became the standard way to report suspicious activity in the financial system.
The rules around the reports were later amended under the U.S. Patriot Act. Today, banks and credit unions routinely submit SARs.
Industries that deal in large sums of money are required to file SARs to the government when they detect a transaction with possible links to money laundering, counterfeiting, fraud or illicit finance — this includes banks, casinos, loan companies and depository firms.
For example, in the case of Hunter and Jim Biden it appears that SAR's were filed by various banks when million dollar deposits from foreign entities suddenly were wired into bank accounts that had previously had almost no activity.
The money was often wired out to another bank account (or multiple accounts) within a day or two to other bank accounts.
Apparently the money went through a number of accounts before finally being deposited into the personal bank accounts of Hunter Biden, Jim Biden or other Biden family members according to some members of the House Oversight Committee.
I have not heard yet that any money ended up in Joe Biden's bank account but what possible reason would there be for this type of money to end of in the bank account of his granddaughter which it supposedly did according to some reports?
Have you heard anything about this on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC?
Nothing to see here.
At this point there is a lot of smoke circulating around the Biden family business.
The mainstream media sees the smoke but has decided that there is nothing to see here.
Perhaps there is nothing to see.
However, when there is this much smoke circulating my instincts tell me that there is a fire burning somewhere.
Will anyone take the time to see whether there really is nothing to see here?
Tucker Carlson gave a speech in Budapest, Hungary recently in which he explained to the Hungarians what was happening in the United States.
He talked a lot about how modern life and nature explained why there had become such a large political divide between the liberal Democrats who populate urban areas and the conservative Republicans who lived in small towns and rural areas.
It is an interesting insight.
"Who votes for the people who run the United States right now? People who are working for big banks, living in crowded conditions, very often alone, in big soulless cities, having their food delivered by immigrants, and spending their time glued to a screen. What does that sound like to you? It sounds like prison, actually."
"Who are the people who oppose this? Where do they live and how do they live? Well, they are poorer generally on paper. But are their lives worse if you live in a place where you can see the sky? Where you can make your own food? If you can go outside and identify three species of trees or hear birds, or experience silence, the rarest commodity in the modern world. Those are the people who are not with the program. People who have a daily experience of nature. And those people are much more likely to acknowledge a power beyond themselves and their government. And there's a reason for that because they can see it. When you're living crowded as you would on an industrial farm as a cow, you are not liberated. You are enslaved. Your reference points are gone. You can't see the stars. You cannot see God's creation. All around you you see drywall and screens. And your ability to think clearly goes away."
This is a video of the full speech.
If you have the time it offers some very interesting perspectives on what Tucker sees is happening in the United States.
Tucker's insights on the urban/rural divide conforms with an observation I have made previously in BeeLine.
We live in a modern world in which all of us are increasingly dependent on all manner of things and other people in order to survive.
We are dependent on electricity.
We are dependent on food being in the grocery store.
We are dependent on gasoline being at your local gas station.
We have become dependent on the internet and our cell phones.
Many are dependent on government benefits like food stamps, housing subsidies, student loans, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
The list in endless.
However, the fact is that those in urban areas are much more dependent than anyone else.
A mass disruption in any one of the items I listed above would mean that many would not survive.
As Tucker points out it is akin to being in prison or enslaved.
I believe it is a big reason we see the political leanings we do between urban and rural areas in this country.
People in these urban areas know they are vulnerable. They seek security and look to government to provide for them them because of that insecurity.
The result is a lot of people vote in the way they do because of that dependency.
Of course, they vote Democrat.
The Democrats tell them they will take care of every problem in their lives.
Of course, history shows us that the problems don't go away. The only thing that occurs is that dependency increases.
Contrast that with the story I heard about Susan Butcher when I was in Alaska recently.
Susan Butcher was raised in Massachusetts but moved to Alaska when she was 20 years old to raise sled dogs with the goal of competing in the Iditarod sled dog race.
Butcher went on the win the 1,000+ mile Iditarod race four times.
No man has won it more times than Butcher did.
In her early 20's Butcher moved to a remote part of Alaska in the Wrangell mountains to a cabin with no running water and no electricity.
There was no grocery store, no heat and nothing to get around the harsh climate and terrain except with her dogs.
Every day for three years she needed to chop wood, hunt and bring water to her cabin in order to live.
Survival was a 24/7 objective every day.
She said doing all the things she needed to do to survive consumed all of her waking hours.
As Butcher put it, "When there is so much to do each day in order to survive, there is not much time to contemplate your belly button."
When you are on your own and you are in charge of your destiny and survival there isn't a lot of time to think about what is "owed" to you, what you "deserve" and who has "wronged" you.
I would say Butcher's experience is the polar opposite of dependency.
All of this came home the other day when I happened to hear the following song on the radio.
I like country music but it is not something I listen to every day. I am more likely to be listening to news or sports talk.
The theme in the song is consistent with everything I have written about above. You could say it struck a chord with me considering what I heard from Tucker and what I learned about Susan Butcher when I was in Alaska.
I have to admit I never heard the song before and was surprised to learn that it actually was recorded in 1981 by Hank Williams, Jr.
You would think it was written today.
The Lord does work in interesting ways in that I went from Susan Butcher to Tucker to Hank Williams, Jr. in a matter of days for the inspiration to pen this blog post.
The song is titled "A Country Boy Can Survive".
Here are the lyrics.
The preacher man says it's the end of time
And the Mississippi River, she's a-goin' dry
The interest is up and the stock market's down
And you only get mugged if you go downtown
I live back in the woods you see
My woman and the kids and the dogs and me
I got a shotgun, a rifle and a four-wheel drive
And a country boy can survive
Country folks can survive
I can plow a field all day long
I can catch catfish from dusk 'til dawn (Yeah)
We make our own whiskey and our own smoke too
Ain't too many things these old boys can't do
We grow good-ole tomatoes and homemade wine
And a country boy can survive
Country folks can survive
Because you can't starve us out and you can't make us run
'Cause we're them old boys raised on shotguns
We say grace, and we say ma'am
If you ain't into that, we don't give a damn
We came from the West Virginia coal mines
And the Rocky Mountains, and the western skies
And we can skin a buck, we can run a trot line
And a country boy can survive
Country folks can survive
I had a good friend in New York City
He never called me by my name, just Hillbilly
My grandpa taught me how to live off the land
And his taught him to be a businessman
He used to send me pictures of the Broadway nights
And I'd send him some homemade wine
But he was killed by a man with a switchblade knife
For 43 dollars, my friend lost his life
I'd love to spit some Beech-Nut in that dude's eyes
And shoot him with my old .45
'Cause a country boy can survive
Country folks can survive
'Cause you can't starve us out and you can't make us run
'Cause we're them old boys raised on shotguns
We say grace, and we say ma'am
If you ain't into that, we don't give a damn
We're from North California and South Alabam'
And little towns all around this land
And we can skin a buck, and run a trotline
And a country boy can survive
Country folks can survive
A country boy can survive
Country folks can survive
Source: Musixmatch
Here is Hank Williams, Jr. performing the song in 1981.
