As IF Times

source:  https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/04/joe-biden-nobody-should-have-to-pay-30-of-their-income-for-housing-including-people-on-the-street/

The Democratic candidate running to become the next President of the United States could not have been made up by a work of fiction. Teams of professional writers could not have come up with the comedy gold offered by the extemporaneous utterances of Joe Biden.  Joe Biden is a caricature of himself.

His record of 47 years of public service doesn’t exactly exude a record of thoughtful and effective public service.  As someone pointedly observed, Joe has been on the wrong side of every policy issue he has ever backed.  It doesn’t help that he’s been a Democrat all of these years since that explains away most of his poor legislative worldview.

But now, once again, he’s thrown his figurative hat into the ring to become the leader of the free world.  At this point in the process, people will have had a chance to assess his life’s record of work of 47 years working exclusively in government employment.  Voters can scrutinize his policies and their resulting effect on their lives.  Interestingly enough, there’s enough videotape of his impassioned arguments for any number of issues that he’s championed over the years which will show him decidedly on both sides of those issues. 

And this is why Joe’s not known as much for his intellectual gifts as he is for being likeable.  How can you not like a guy who is for everything and anything?  Recently however, Joe’s had to come out and stand definitively for or against some pretty core issues that affect the lives of Americans. Things such as whether or not they would be okay with being beat up in their streets, accosted in their homes, having their businesses looted and burned; simple stuff.

While it rarely happens, when Biden speaks to the public and takes questions, his appearances draw the crowds who are there only to sadistically witness the latest verbal train wreck.  Every session is like an episode of Jeopardy.  Vegas has an active over/under betting line on how many times he says, ‘hey man’ during a speech.

It’s pretty clear to any observer that Joe’s convictions on any topic are as flimsy as his tortured rhetoric.  You can virtually see his handlers standing just a few feet away ready to squirrel him offstage to be replaced by a sign stating that “we are experiencing technical difficulties”.  This can be explained away of course by his age; but upon looking back on some of his old speeches, it may not be just age.  He may really be that vapid.

So the point of the discussion is this: Pollsters regularly claim that either the incumbent Donald Trump or the contender Joe Biden is leading in their polls.  Those polls always show an ‘undecided’ vote.  We can state categorically that there is no such thing as an undecided vote; especially with all that’s happened in the last 6 months.  Only two possibilities exist.  One is that ‘undecided’ means they told the pollster to piss off, or that two, those responding are genuine morons.

It is impossible for any rational person to have lived through the past 6 months of the nation’s existence and have no opinion on who would make the best leader for the next 4 years.  It’s not exactly Sophie’s choice.

Few people that I know of (in fact none), want to wake up in world where an avowed Marxist and racist organization sets the tone for national policy; where the nation can be shut down for an indefinite time because of some wacko medical wonks; and where the President of the nation needs an English interpreter every time he speaks, even though it’s his only spoken language.

If such a thing as an ‘undecided’ voter actually exists, it’s far better off for everyone if they don’t vote.  These are the idiots who are tortured by chocolate or vanilla at Homer’s. If people are still vacillating over whether Joe is their guy given his 47 year record of incompetence, they should not be allowed to influence the lives of people who are not so otherwise mentally challenged. For these lyin’ dog faced pony soldiers,  it means that Darwinism is at a low ebb.

Source: Leaving NATO Would Make The U.S. And The World Less Safe | HuffPost

There has been ample teeth gnashing over recent geopolitical events, centering of course, around the adventures of Donald Trump.  This nemesis of the entrenched status quo has dared to question the arrangement of the decades old NATO agreement.  We did some research on the history of NATO because there should be a reality check on the howls of outrage emanating from the usual quarters.

As the link shows, the formation of NATO post WW2 was envisioned as a bulwark against the intrusion of influence from communist states, namely the old Soviet Union. Financial and military support would be provided to member nations, principally by the US and Great Britain, to rebuild after WW2 and to create stability to those nations with preferred western alliances.  The treaty provided a collective defense: if one of their nations were attacked, then all of the nations were bound to defend them.

This has worked quite well, since in the many years following the war, East Germany is gone and many of the old Soviet satellite states have moved into the western orbit.  The Soviet Union has shrunk to become the Russian Federation and their geographic reach has been reduced considerably.  Economically, Germany, France, Poland, Italy and Spain and many former Eastern bloc nations have flourished in world trade.  There’s no question that Europe has recovered.  And yet, the Americans are still providing the bulk of the funding for NATO’s defense operations even as the contracted amount of GDP spending of member nations for their own defense has fallen.  For those who believe in statistics, here is a graphic depiction of the trend:

This is an old set of statistics sourced from NATO and the trend clearly shows that the US bears the majority of the costs involved not only in absolute dollars but even worse, in terms of percentage of GDP.

So this is very much analogous to a parent giving financial support to their children while they develop and then to see the children buying iPhones and electric cars instead of providing for their own self sustenance.

The bizarre part of this is that while the alliance was established to protect them from an adversary, long since diminished, many of these countries have willingly allowed themselves to be effectively taken over by massive immigration, principally by refugees from Muslim dominated regions.  It’s not a secret that the flood of immigration has brought along all kinds of social and political unrest in the host nations even as funds are funneled towards supporting these policies and away from self defense.  So, while everyone watches the front door for an enemy long gone, their nations are hollowed out, with open arms, by enemies welcomed at the rear door.

Why would they be characterized as enemies?  Well, historically when a group comes into a nation en masse and wants to change the entire form of government, the foundations of religion and the very structure of society including language and law, that was considered an invasion.  NATO is worrying about the dog at the door, long gone, while the mice are ravaging the rest of the home.