In early World War II, on Nov. 30, 1939, a Soviet-Russian army invaded Finland in a surprise massive attack.

The Finns were eventually outnumbered nearly 3 to 1. The population of the Soviet Union in 1940 was 50 times larger than that of Finland.

Finland’s former anti-Soviet ally, Nazi Germany, had sold it out under the August 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which made Germany and Russia de facto allies.

Finland’s other allies, particularly France and Britain, were slow in giving aid. Both were unsure whether Finland had any chance of survival.

And they were further confused as to whether their archenemy Germany was friendly or hostile to Finland.

Yet for nearly the next four months, the Finns fought ferociously. They were led brilliantly by their iconic general and commander-in-chief, Carl Mannerheim.

By March 1940, however, the brave but exhausted Finns were being slowly ground down.

Soon they were facing abject defeat—even after courageously inflicting nearly 500,000 Russian casualties, 10 times the number of their own dead, wounded, and missing.

Finnish ferocity shocked Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.

“It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.”

Those are the ill-timed words Joe Biden used in a political call to action days before the attempted assassination of  Donald Trump, which our team covered in real time.

There is no direct association between those words and the attempt on Trump’s life other than they characterize Biden’s caustic campaign rhetoric asserting that Trump is a grave existential threat to “democracy.”

Biden, whose administrative record is littered with a plethora of domestic and foreign policy failures, has centered his whole campaign on the diversionary theme of saving our nation from the Trump threat, and his low-information voters are sucking it up.

As I have noted, the proliferation of Biden’s faux “democracy” rhetoric is very deliberate in its obfuscation about the founding tenets of American Liberty.

When he autocratically demands that you “support democracy,” he means the statist authoritarian rule of democratic socialism, now the foundational platform of his Democrat Party.

That reveals Biden and his leftist Demo cadres are the real threats to our Republic and Liberty.

Given that Biden’s notion of “democracy” is the antithesis of our nation’s founding tenets, in that context, in fact, Trump is an enormous threat to Biden’s statist authoritarian “democracy.”

What follows is a mix of observations and analysis regarding the attack on Trump by Biden, his leftists, and a radicalized assassin.

[TTP:  The news is out that President Trump’s VP pick is J.D. Vance (see Monica Showalter’s article in American Thinker) but this writer has some very important points to make about the Veep position regarding the future.]

President Trump will be announcing his running mate within the next few days, and opinions are flying about the qualities he should seek in his next vice president.

Experience, state of origin, race, sex, loyalty, and past comments regarding President Trump are all factors voters are focusing on when deciding their preferred candidate to round out the Republican ticket.

The common goal is to draw turnout from as many typically non-Republican voting demographics as possible. However, the most consistent theme is that many seem to believe that Trump needs to pick someone who can be his successor.

This belief may be based in ignorance.

A prominent topic that economics students anywhere cannot avoid is market failure.

Students everywhere are taught that the free market is inherently unstable and causes problems that can only be fixed through legislation and regulation.

As a result, most of those who take an economics class come out of it believing that the state helps counter the shortcomings of the free market.

However, the concept of market failure is fallacious as it is based upon faulty economic reasoning.

Belief in market failure is often complementary with seeking to promote politically desirable goals rather than to promote economic growth.

First, a free market operates on freedom of association and property rights. Therefore, for any transaction or exchange to be conducted on a free market, it must be voluntary.

Further, if both parties agree on an exchange, then both parties must assume that the exchange is beneficial to themselves.

Whenever consumers buy a product, they value the product more than the money they pay for it. Similarly, the store sells them the product since it values the money earned more than the loss of the product that they sell to consumers.

It may be the case that one party is mistaken and ends up not preferring the exchange retroactively, but this is not a determining factor in the choice to transact.

Through this process, value is created through free markets. As people are free to interact and exchange, they make mutually beneficial trades that benefit both parties.

Executive Summary:

• Moscow’s forces in Ukraine face increasing problems with the military, both at the front and at home. These issues are bound to affect Russia’s ability to fight in the coming months.
• At the front, Russian commanders are dealing with fragging, desertions, and corruption. At home, Moscow has been compelled to offer larger bonuses to recruit more men and has even asked Russians to turn in their privately owned guns.
• Public hostility is growing toward veterans of the war, who are committing violent crimes upon their return. These are precisely the people Putin says will become Russia’s new elite.

For quite a considerable amount of time, the topics of job creation and unemployment have been central to every political campaign in almost every country.

It hasn’t been without good reason, either, since job security is one of the most important factors in a person’s career. Therefore, a candidate who can promise to create more jobs and sustain job growth would appear on paper to be the better candidate.

However, there are few policies that promote greater havoc than job-creation programs. This should not be a surprise since the state is ultimately not responsible for financing jobs, so it need not worry about profit or loss.

Politicians are inclined to include job-creation programs in their promises because they are often popular with voters.

After all, if there are more jobs in the economy, unemployment will be lower, and there is a greater likelihood that workers in the country will not fall on hard times.

Since nearly every household has a member of their family who works, job-creation programs have nearly universal appeal.

If a politician can position themselves as a job creator, they garner a massive boost toward their odds of being elected.

Thus, they all aim to one-up each other with what they promise to voters. Unfortunately, in this case, competition does not lead to better results.