On Friday, December 4th CNBC posted an article entitled, "Dow briefly adds 350 points after jobs, Draghi":

"U.S. stocks traded nearly 2 percent higher Friday . . . as investors cheered a solid jobs report and remarks from ECB President Mario Draghi.

"Equities extended gains in early afternoon trade as European Central Bank President Mario Draghi said in a New York speech that "there is no particular limit to how we can deploy any of our tools." 

In other words, European Central Bank (ECB) President Draghi was promising Quantitative Easing (QE) to infinity! The ECB will keep printing more fiat currency until Hell won't have it-and even beyond.

Investors cheered!

Why? Because, in theory, persistent QE (printing of mo', mo' money) should cause inflation which should stimulate the European economy or at least support the European stock markets.

In fact, QE has yet to cause significant inflation or economic stimulation anywhere in the past 25 years. Japan has tried QE and it hasn't worked. The US has tried QE without much success. China is trying QE and, so far, it's failed to stimulate the Chinese economy. The EU has heretofore tried QE without significant success.

But, not to worry. ECB president Mario Draghi has promised that the ECB will never abandon QE, will never stop trying to cause inflation and stimulation. And, apparently, when Draghi talks, everyone listens.

But should they?

Draghi promised QE to infinity for European markets. Why anyone would believe Draghi's promise is hard to fathom. But what's really strange was the result: based on Draghi's promise to ignore objective reality in Europe, the US stock market temporarily jumped 350 points.

That reality is:

1) QE hasn't worked well anywhere for 25 years.

2) Nevertheless, the ECB promises to push ahead with more QE-perhaps to infinity.

3) The reason ECB President Draghi is committed to QE (which he should know is unlikely to work) is that he has no other viable strategy to use that's more likely to work.

4) The reason the US markets cheered Draghi's promise with a 350-point rise may be that US investors know that there's really nothing objective to sustain the US market highs and therefore rely on subjective cheers and pep rallies for market support.

5) There's not a single instance in American sports where the cheerleaders won the football game. In other words, victory depends on more than cheers, smoke and mirrors.

In the face of those realities and high probabilities, should Draghi's promise make sense to anyone?

Remember that definition of "insanity": "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"?

How long have various governments tried to make QE work without success?

25 years more or less?

Is it true that "this time it's different"?

Or is it true that, this time, it's just like it was in the last few episodes when QE failed?

More, just how strong and reliable is a US stock market index that jumps 2% in one day because a European central banker promised to keep playing the fool?

Should that 2% increase provide an objective reason to inspire investor confidence?

Or does that 2% jump warn of a coming moment with the excess stupidity and irrationality seen in the stock markets will be flushed out by means of a dramatic, downward "correction"?

(* If you're old enough to remember the movie "Cool Hand Luke" (starring Paul Newman) you might recall that when Luke broke the prison rules, the warden explained the breakdown as follows: "What we have here, is . . . failure . . . to communicate".)

Yahoo News published an article on the recent murders in San Bernardino, California. I thought the headline-"Mosque members on San Bernardino shooter: 'He was living the American dream'"-was particularly revealing.

"Several Muslims who worshipped with the San Bernardino shooter say they were shocked by his killing spree because he had appeared mild mannered and 'peaceful'."

The Jihadists did not spend their days swinging scimitars above their heads and shouting "Death To America!" over bullhorns. They didn't look or sound like "terrorists".

"Members of the California mosques where gunman Syed Rizwan Farook prayed . . . told NBC News that they did not understand how he turned to violence when he appeared to have everything going for him.

"He was living the American dream. . . . .He had a really good job, really good pay. He had a wife. . . . He had a warm house. He had a baby."

Point: The "American Dream" was not enough to overcome Farook's Muslim faith and inclination to Jihad. No matter what America might've provided for Farook and his family, it wasn't enough-it could never be enough-to overcome the violent implications of his faith.

Farook and his wife, no matter how well they might've lived, no matter how much freedom they might've enjoyed-would never be "assimilated" into the American culture.

Implication: No devout Muslim will ever be "assimilated" into the American culture.

More, devout Muslims will not settle for isolation or "segregation". They are compelled by their faith to overcome and even destroy any native culture that's foreign to the Muslim faith.

* I don't believe for one minute that the two Jihadists in San Bernardino were an anomaly. Their refusal to "assimilate" into the American culture is stark evidence of the insanity of allowing more Muslims to enter into this country.

Not all Muslims, but many, perhaps most, have no intention of ever "assimilating" into the American culture. They enter this country as invaders who aren't simply interested in sharing the American Dream. Instead, they are determined to destroy the American culture and replace it with a Muslim theocracy or at least terrorize it into becoming a police state.

Why? Because the American culture that provided the basis for whatever prosperity we may still enjoy was based on principles found in Christianity. Those principles are not of the Muslim faith and are therefore contrary to the Muslim faith.

Would you like an example of a principle that's central to the American culture that Muslims can't tolerate?

How 'bout "freedom of speech"? Muslim demonstrators routinely carry signs saying "Death to All Who Insult the Muslim Faith".

How 'bout "freedom of religion"? Like most people who are religious, the Muslims presume theirs is the only true faith. But unlike the Protestants and modern Catholics who believe theirs is the only true faith, the Muslims take their faith a step further by arguing that non-Muslims should be enslaved or killed.

How 'bout freedom, in general? Muslim demonstrators routinely carry signs that say "To Hell With Freedom!" At bottom, the Muslim culture is conducive to a strict theocracy enforced at the edge of a sword.

* I'm not a student of the Muslim faith, but I recently heard someone (can't recall who) who seemed credible, and who claimed that the Qur'an does not include a word equivalent to the English word "compromise". I don't know if that claim is true. However, it's definitely true that Muslims (like all religious people) refuse to compromise the basic principles of their particular faith.

For example, as a Protestant, I have no intention of compromising what I see as the fundamental principles of my faith. I am, in some regards, just as intransigent as Mr. Farook and his wife. However, as much as I intend to cling to my own faith, I am very different from Muslims in that I have no inclination to force my faith on others by means of law, violence or beheadings.

A (perhaps, "the") fundamental idea behind Christianity is that each man or woman voluntarily chooses to follow the Christ and thereby become a Christian. No one is forced to be a Christian. Freedom to choose-or reject-the Christian faith is fundamental to determining who is and is not a Christian.

And, more than anything else, my disinclination to force my faith on any else is the hallmark of the difference between myself and most western peoples and Muslims. Those of us in the West embrace the idea of freedom of religion. If you want to be a Catholic, be one. If you choose to be a Protestant, be one.

Even if you want to be an atheist, Hindu, or Satanist-be one. You'll get some dirty looks. Your kids might not be invited to play with my kids. You'll probably never be elected to public office so long as you openly embrace a faith that not biblical. But, insofar as a fundamental principle of western culture is freedom of religion (that is, freedom to choose your religion), your unconventional faith will generally be tolerated.

But, at its hard core, the Muslim faith does not embrace recognize or tolerate a freedom of religion-a freedom to choose your religion. If you want to be Jew, die. If you want to be a Catholic, die. If you want to be a Protestant, atheist, Hindu, Satanist or anything other than a Muslim, you die.

* Imagine a faith-and then a culture-and then a people-who have no use, or even word, for "compromise". Imagine a faith, culture and people who are fervent in their denial of the fundamental freedom of choosing your religion.

Could such a faith, culture or people ever be assimilated into another culture foreign to their own? For such people, assimilation would be tantamount to suicide. Such people would always refuse to be assimilated.

Even people like Farooks in San Bernardino who "had it all" would rather kill and die than be assimilated. Remember, according to members of the mosques they attended, the husband "appeared to have everything going for him. . . . He was living the American dream. . . . a really good job, really good pay. . . a wife. . . . warm house . . . .[even] a baby."

Clearly, those Jidadists were devout Muslims. They gave up everything, including a new-born baby and even their lives, to serve their faith. On a personal level, their sacrifice was comparable to that of the Christ.

I'm not here to mock the Muslims.

I think they're crazy. I think they're diseased. But you have to respect their commitment. I admire their faith, up to a point. I wish more Christians were similarly devout in terms of recognizing and holding tight to the principles of their faith and culture.

However, I am here to call a spade a spade.

Devout Muslims are like wild animals. The West is just as foolish to admit devote Muslims into the western world as it would be to allow crocodiles in public swimming pools. It ain't gonna work. You can't mix the public with the crocodiles and you can't mix the Muslims with Christendom (the western world).

You can't "assimilate" crocodiles into public swimming pools and you can't assimilate devout Muslims into Christendom. Ohh, such "assimilations" might seem to work for a while (it seemed to work with Mr. & Mrs. Farook). But whenever the crocodiles and/or the Muslims reach a certain population density, there will be "holy wars" marked by "ethnic cleansing" and the worst kinds of violence man can manage to produce.

Muslims don't belong in the Christian world. Christians don't belong in the Muslim world. Make a line. Muslims stay on one side; we stay on the other. Muslims and Christians are not compatible-they can't be compatible-because Muslims insist on no compromise, no assimilation and no freedom-especially the freedom to not only practice, but to choose, your own religion. The essence of Christianity is voluntary choice. The essence of Islam is involuntary compulsion. The Muslims are right. No compromise is possible a faith that believes in compulsion and another faith based on voluntary choice. Segregation is essential.

The Washington Times reported on President Obama's reaction to the San Bernardino terrorist attack in "White House says stricter gun laws can prevent terrorist attacks".

Oh, please. That contemptible s.o.b. is exploiting the deaths of 14 people to advance his gun-control agenda.

"Despite mounting evidence that Islamist terrorists were responsible for the mass slayings in California, the White House said Thursday that stricter gun control could have prevented the attack and vowed to keep "scrubbing" the nation's laws for ways that President Obama can take executive action to restrict gun ownership."

Gun control is President Obama's solution to every problem.

Got global warming? Cure it with more gun control.

Falling leaves clogging your gutters? Cure it with more gun control.

Unseasonably warm, cold or moderate weather choking the economy? Gun control will solve your problems

In fact, Barack Hussein Obama is a shameless, tin-horn, lying Kenyan who can't even produce a birth certificate to prove he's even eligible to work in the White House as a butler.

In fact, there's no way that "stricter gun control" would've prevented the 14 deaths and 21 injuries caused by the shooters in San Bernardino. To claim otherwise is a blatant, bold-faced and shameless lie.

* How 'bout we have stricter candidate control for the Presidency? How 'bout we criminalize running for the Presidency if you're not born in one of the States of the Union? How 'bout we make the political parties civilly liable for, say, $20 million, if they nominate an unconstitutional candidate for the White House-and $40 million if they manage to elect another one?

The American people would get more protection and greater safety out of "stricter candidate control" than they ever will out of "stricter gun control".

Stricter gun control laws won't work any better than stricter drug control laws. Drugs are here in abundance and the government can't or won't do anything to stop it. There's no reason to suppose that stricter gun control laws will work any better to defeat criminal activity.

In fact, no one seriously believes that stricter gun control laws would have stopped the Jihadists from acquiring guns to kill 14 and wound 21. True, stricter gun control might've caused the Jihadists to spend two months acquiring their guns rather than two weeks-but they were Muslims and motivated by their faith to launch an attack. They were profoundly patient, persistent and unperturbed by gun control. They could not have been stopped by more gun control laws. If they had to smuggle guns in from Saudi Arabia, they would've got their guns.

But, increasing restrictions on access to guns helped leave the 14 who were shot and killed defenseless. Increased gun control regulations made owning and carrying a firearm inconvenient and difficult for law-abiding people. Therefore, gun control laws left the 21 who were wounded, defenseless. Those people died or were wounded largely because they obeyed existing gun control laws. Their resulting inability to defend themselves got them killed.

What if the Jihadists had known that 2, 3 or 10 of the people who they planned to kill were packing heat? What if they'd known that if they showed up with two AK-47s, they'd have to face off against ten people packing 9mm pistols or .45 caliber semi-automatics?

More gun control would not have saved the San Bernardino victims. It's gun control that got them killed.

That opinion is not radical hyperbole.

In fact, the English magazine The Economist implicitly agrees with that opinion and has evidence to support that agreement.

Here are excerpts from an article published by The Economist several months ago that was more recently described by The Washington Examiner ("The Economist Speaks on U.S. gun control"):

"Gun saleshave doubled under President Obama while the gun murder rate has been cut in halfsince 1993, making America "a much safer place," according to a new Economist analysis. . . . Over 16 million new guns entered the U.S. marketplace in 2013, up from about 7 million [per year] when Obama was elected in 2008.

"America has become a much safer place over the past two decades, but public sentiment has yet to catch on to the fact. In 1993, near the peak of America's crime wave, seven out of every 100,000 people aged 12 and up were gunned down. That number has since halved," it said.

The obvious lesson in the Economist's report is that more guns in the hands of more people actually make people safer.

The 14 who died and the 21 who were wounded in San Bernardino weren't the victims of gun control that was too weak-they were the victims of gun control that was too strong. If half a dozen of those 38 victims had had their own guns with them, the death and injury toll would've been smaller. It's possible that, if the Jihadists had known they were bringing their weapons into a venue where their intended targets were also armed, those Jihadists might not have dared to attack.

The 14 victims who died in San Bernardino didn't die simply because the Jihadists had guns. The victims died because they didn't have guns.

If Barack Hussein Obama really wanted to protect the American people from gun violence he'd help pass laws that mandated people to own fire arms and also allowed and encouraged people to carry those firearms in public.

It may be counterintuitive for many to suppose that more guns result in fewer gun deaths, but that's only because we've been conditioned by government propaganda to believe gun control is a rational agenda that serves the public interest.

Despite the propaganda, the evidence is clear. Over the last 22 years-and especially during the Obama administration-the number of guns sold annually in this country has doubled and the number of killing attributed to guns had fallen by half.

Gun control advocates are, at best, ignorant-at worst, treasonous. Whether they know it or not, the gun control nuts are working to make this nation and its people less safe.

Punch Line:

Yahoo! Finance reports in "Gunmaker Smith & Wesson up almost 100% in 2015," that:

"One stock that continued to rise through much of Thursday and throughout gun-related violence headlines this year? Gunmaker Smith & Wesson-which clocked in over $500 million in sales last year-up 93% since January.

Was ObamaCare the "signature achievement" of President Obama's administration?

Nope.

President Obama's "signature achievement" has been to almost single-handedly double the sale of firearms-and thereby reduce the number of gun fatalities.

Congratulations, President Obama! Maybe that Nobel Peace Prize wasn't as stupid as it seemed. By inadvertently causing an increase in gun sales, you've played a big role in diminishing gun deaths and increasing public safety. That must be your signature achievement.

Makes me laugh.

God, guns and gold. Is this still a great country, or what?

Maybe so.