Tuesday, June 20, 2017

We’re “All” Guilty. Or Are We?

Ever since the shooting incident in which an unhinged leftist opened fire, terrorist-style, on unarmed Republicans gathered for baseball practice Americans have been deluged with cries from politicians and pundits Left and Right who say that “both sides need to tone down the rhetoric,” as if Republicans and Democrats have been equally guilty of engaging in inappropriately heated and provocative speech.  I can certainly understand why Democrats, who are demonstrably the more vicious and irrational of the two parties, love this misguided narrative of moral equivalency that makes us all equally culpable, but I’m a bit dumbfounded by Republicans who get on the bandwagon.  Do they think throwing everyone under the bus makes them appear more statesman-like?  Are they, like parents settling disputes between children, avoiding the chore of holding the instigators accountable so that they can get on to other things?  Whatever their reasons, it’s a huge mistake to pretend that neither side occupies the moral high ground, because this is what ultimately distinguishes Left from Right.

I don’t recall any public figure on the Right beheading Barack Obama in effigy under the guise of “comedy,” nor do I recall people flocking to theatre productions that depicted the assassination of Barack Obama.  I can’t even begin to imagine the outrage that would have dominated the MSM coverage had Obama been the object of the kind of threatening “speech” routinely aimed at Donald Trump.  This isn’t a matter of civility.   The Left’s veiled threats and violent undertones are signs of their dangerous disdain for our republic, and signify their increasing unwillingness to peacefully share power and be held to the same standards as the rest of us.  It’s critical that we recognize and address this because the leftists are becoming more emboldened, as evidenced by what transpired at that ball park in Virginia.  The “we’re all guilty” mantra is counter-productive to this effort because it undermines accountability.

Having said all that, this is only half the story, and it is the least significant half.  The second and far more consequential half has to do with the construction of this false narrative of moral equivalency with respect to the governing of this nation.   In other words, the Right resisted Barack Obama and the Left is resisting – albeit more violently – Donald Trump, this makes us even or morally equivalent.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Barack Obama came to office with the dark promise of “transforming America,” which those of us paying close attention rightly understood to mean that he was going to use the power of the presidency to undermine the Constitution as given to us by our Founders, an understanding that was vindicated again and again by Obama’s actions as president.  Obama’s promise was to expand the power of the federal government and to use this expanded power to weaken, if not altogether usurp, our rights as Americans, and it was a promise largely fulfilled.  The Constitution belongs to We the People, and as such we had every right and moral reason to oppose Barack Obama and his government of helpful minions in their attempts to circumvent or redefine it.  Even so, we eschewed violence as a means of doing so, opting instead to oppose the Obama administration by simply exposing the truth about who he was and what he was doing.  It was these truths about Obama’s dishonesties and abuses of power that the Left denounced as “uncivil” in order to bully us into voluntary censorship, a tactic which too many Republicans (the same folks who now want “everyone” to tone down their rhetoric) caved in to.

But that was then and this is now.  Or should I say, that was us and this is them.  With the election of a Republican president it is once again okay, courageous even, to be uncivil, even violently so, just as it is any time a Republican is president, in case you didn’t know.  My question to the Left is this: 

What, pray tell, is the great threat posed to this nation by Donald Trump that supposedly justifies not only your abandonment of the much ballyhooed “civility” but actions and speech laced with threats of violence? 

Trump came to office on the promise of “making America great again,” which he defined as restoring law and order, enforcing U.S. immigration policy, making better deals with other nations, fixing the healthcare mess created by Democrats, appointing judges who will uphold the Constitution, and undoing the lawless tyranny imposed upon us by Barack Obama with his infamous “pen and phone.”  If you have a problem with that, your problem isn’t with Trump, it’s with America and all that it stands for.  What you’re “resisting” is the Constitution, the rule of law, equal justice (not to be confused with “social justice,” which is the opposite of equal justice) and the God-given right of every American to pursue his own self-interest while respecting the rights of others as defined in the Constitution.  Any “rights” that you feel are threatened by Donald Trump – i.e., the “right” to free healthcare, the “right” to be in this country illegally, the “right” to free college and other welfare, the “right” to exclude other Americans from having a say on sweeping climate policies, etc., etc., etc. – are not your rights at all, and your phony “resistance” movement is exposed for what it actually is:  a movement for tyranny. 

It troubles me immensely that the protestors, organizers and other loud mouths declaring their “resistance” to the Trump administration are never asked to explain or defend just what it is they are so violently resisting, and why.  We have become so accustomed to opposition solely for the sake of opposition that we mindlessly give it respect it doesn’t necessarily deserve, and we judge it only by the means with which it is manifested, which is akin to saying that people protesting to free a guilty man from prison are as righteous as those protesting to free an innocent man.  It simply isn’t true, and we’re fools to put up with it.

I, as a conservative, have my own quibbles with Trump.  As such I will make use of my congressional representatives to resist whatever I perceive to be not in keeping with the Founder’s Constitution and the proper role of the presidency.  But the leftists and I share no moral high ground whatsoever.  As I survey the landscape from up here they are, in fact, nowhere in sight.


Got an opinion on this?  Please leave your comment at The Pesky Truth.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.  Thanks.

Monday, June 5, 2017

The Left’s INSANE Reaction to Paris Accord Withdrawal Should Mark the End of Taking Them Seriously

“…our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty.”

~President Donald J. Trump, patriot, on his decision to exit the Paris Climate Accords

I’m no great fan of Donald Trump, but as a big fan of objective argumentation and the inherent right to the pursuit of self-interest, I enthusiastically applauded his speech explaining his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords a.k.a. The Big Swindle.  Even with Trump’s ad-libbing I thought he laid out the case for withdrawal in an admirably succinct, compelling and persuasive way for anyone who still embraces logic and believes in the right of Americans to look out for their own economic interests.  Little did I know how small that group has become. 

The following remarks are my selected excerpts from Trump’s June 1st Rose Garden speech announcing the withdrawal.  If you didn’t already hear or read the speech, please peruse them so that the absurdity of the Left’s reactions, discussed afterwards, can be appreciated in full context:

The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries….
Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.

According to this same study, by 2040, compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors: paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal … down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent. The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and, in many cases, much worse than that.

…I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States … while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters.

…under the agreement, China … can do whatever they want for 13 years. Not us. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions…of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries. There are many other examples. But the bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States.

...the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries.

This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States. The rest of the world applauded when we signed the Paris Agreement… for the simple reason that it [put] … the United States of America…at a very, very big economic disadvantage. A cynic would say the obvious reason for economic competitors and their wish to see us remain in the agreement is so that we continue to suffer this self-inflicted major economic wound. We would find it very hard to compete with other countries from other parts of the world.

We have among the most abundant energy reserves on the planet, sufficient to lift millions of America’s poorest workers out of poverty. Yet, under this agreement, we are effectively putting these reserves under lock and key, taking away the great wealth of our nation … and leaving millions and millions of families trapped in poverty and joblessness.

The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.
Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree…Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. … In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America — and … would totally wipe out the gains from America’s expected reductions in the year 2030, after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars, lost jobs, closed factories, and suffered much higher energy costs for our businesses and for our homes.

As the Wall Street Journal wrote this morning: “The reality is that withdrawing is in America’s economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate.”

We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work and we’re not going to lose our jobs. We’re going to grow; we’re going to grow rapidly.
I’m willing to immediately work with Democratic leaders to either negotiate our way back into Paris, under the terms that are fair to the United States and its workers, or to negotiate a new deal that protects our country and its taxpayers.

I will work to ensure that America remains the world’s leader on environmental issues, but under a framework that is fair and where the burdens and responsibilities are equally shared among the many nations all around the world.

No responsible leader can put the workers — and the people — of their country at this debilitating and tremendous disadvantage. The fact that the Paris deal hamstrings the United States, while empowering some of the world’s top polluting countries, should dispel any doubt as to the real reason why foreign lobbyists wish to keep our magnificent country tied up and bound down by this agreement: It’s to give their country an economic edge over the United States.

My job as President is to do everything within my power to give America a level playing field and to create the economic, regulatory and tax structures that make America the most prosperous and productive country on Earth, and with the highest standard of living and the highest standard of environmental protection.

The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense. They don’t put America first. I do, and I always will.

The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions of dollars through tough trade practices and, in many cases, lax contributions to our critical military alliance. You see what’s happening. It’s pretty obvious to those that want to keep an open mind.

I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.

Beyond the severe energy restrictions inflicted by the Paris Accord, it includes yet another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States through the so-called Green Climate Fund — nice name — which calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments. So we’re going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars, and we’re already way ahead of anybody else. Many of the other countries haven’t spent anything, and many of them will never pay one dime.

In 2015, the Green Climate Fund’s executive director reportedly stated that estimated funding needed would increase to $450 billion per year after 2020. And nobody even knows where the money is going to.

America is $20 trillion in debt. Cash-strapped cities cannot hire enough police officers or fix vital infrastructure. Millions of our citizens are out of work. And yet, under the Paris Accord, billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here in America will be sent to the very countries that have taken our factories and our jobs away from us.

Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia, and across the world should not have more to say with respect to the U.S. economy than our own citizens and their elected representatives. Thus, our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty.
Our Constitution is unique among all the nations of the world, and it is my highest obligation and greatest honor to protect it. And I will.

Staying in the agreement could also pose serious obstacles for the United States as we begin the process of unlocking the restrictions on America’s abundant energy reserves, which we have started very strongly. It would once have been unthinkable that an international agreement could prevent the United States from conducting its own domestic economic affairs, but this is the new reality we face if we do not leave the agreement or if we do not negotiate a far better deal.

The risks grow as historically these agreements only tend to become more and more ambitious over time. In other words, the Paris framework is a starting point — as bad as it is — not an end point. And exiting the agreement protects the United States from future intrusions on the United States’ sovereignty and massive future legal liability. Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in.

As President, I have one obligation, and that obligation is to the American people. The Paris Accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risks, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world.

Unless someone can prove that Trump is lying about what’s in the Accord, no sane person could rationally conclude that the Paris Accords were good for America.  The definitive proof of this, the nail in the coffin – so to speak, is the fact that it was negotiated by our former Leftist-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, the most anti-American president in this nation’s history. 

The NYT’s Maureen Dowd writes,

“We’ve been conditioned by Hollywood to see the president of the United States step up to the lectern to confidently tell us how he will combat the existential threat to the planet — be it aliens, asteroids, tidal waves, volcanoes, killer sharks, killer robots or a 500-billion-ton comet the size of New York City.  So it was quite stunning to see the president of the United States step up to the lectern to declare himself the existential threat to the planet.”

Apparently Ms. Dowd has been watching movies as a way of learning about existential threats and presidential heroism.  She got goosebumps when Barack Obama was valiantly saving the planet from killer climate change.  That’s so special, isn’t it?  But seriously, what you’ll note if you read this column by this top-notch, leftwing opinion journalist for the NYT is that she didn’t rebut even a single one of the persuasive points made by Donald Trump.  Her great refutation to Trump consisted entirely of name-calling.  Is that all you’ve got, Maureen?  How pathetic.

From Sasha Abramsky at The Nation: 

“Trump Echoed Hitler in His Speech Withdrawing From the Paris Climate Accord”

Oh no, not Hitler!

From Staff Writer Lauren McCauley at Common Dreams (Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community):

“'Destructive Fossil Fuel Puppet' Trump Ditches Climate Deal with Fact-Free Speech”

But the closest McCauley’s article comes to challenging Trump’s facts was to say that, “Long-debunked fossil fuel industry talking points about lost jobs and economic "suffering" peppered the speech.”  No link to this supposedly well-known de-bunking was included with the article, naturally.

Nancy Pelosi claimed Trump was “dishonoring God” by pulling out of the Accord.  

Ruh Roh!   It seems that not volunteering to be a whipping boy for the rest of the world dishonors God but supporting abortion does not.

Bernie Sanders said, “Despite Trump’s view that he knows more than virtually the entire scientific community, the American people will move forward and do everything we can to combat the planetary crisis of climate change and I wanted you to know that.”

Everything except make any personal sacrifices, as evidenced by the fact that Sanders is jetting around the world for promotion of his new book.  Apparently “the planetary crisis of climate change” takes a backseat to making money and pursuing political power for the radical Left.

Michael Russnow, Contributor to the The Huffington Post, wrote:

“Now That Trump’s Trashed The Paris Climate Accord: Isn’t This Enough To Discuss Changing The Presidential Election System?”

Mr. Russnow gives no rebuttal whatsoever to the arguments Trump made for withdrawing from the Accord, yet he’s using this “outrage” to justify calling for a national referendum on the way we vote.  Who says there isn’t a method to the Left’s madness?  Not me!

Graham Readfearn of The Guardian wrote:

“Trump’s Paris exit: climate science denial industry has just had its greatest victory”

But Readfearn is yet another leftist who references the “long-debunked” talking points without providing any actual evidence of this famous debunking.  What’s worse is that he obsesses about the supposed denial over climate change while ignoring the economic costs, the absence of requirements for major polluters like China and India, and that tiny, best-case reward for Americans’ great sacrifice. 

The leftists have made it clear that they have no intention of ever engaging in a rational debate with respect to the many reasonable arguments Trump outlined for his decision to pull out of Paris.  Arguments which, by the way, are not Trump’s invention but are those that respected scientists, economists and other concerned Americans have been putting forth all along, only to be silenced by the Left.  Rather than engage in honest debate the Left has preferred to follow the lead of Barack Obama who arrogantly declared many times, “The debate is over.”  Our response to that declaration was the election of Donald Trump. 

I would love nothing more than to sneer that now it’s our turn to say, “The debate is over;” but the truth is that with Donald Trump holding a televised address in the White House Rose Garden to explain to Americans, point by point, why the Paris Accords were a bad deal for this country, the debate has finally just begun.  And for that I thank our president.


To leave a comment please visit this post at The Pesky Truth.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.  Thanks!

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Damn the Enablers

Actually Michael, we're not.

Some of you may remember seeing the news headlines when, in 1997, a mother of six was brutally murdered in the presence of her two-year-old quadruplets at her home in Sarasota, Florida.  Sheila Bellush was ambushed by a paid killer sent by her former husband and father of her two oldest daughters.  Bellush and her second husband, father of the quadruplets, had moved the family from Texas to Florida to escape the stalking and threatening behavior of the ex-husband, who they wisely feared.  The two oldest girls had been warned not to give the family’s new address to their father, but in a phone conversation with the younger one (12 at the time), the ex-husband persuaded the young girl to give him the address, and the sharing of this secret information paved the way for a horrendous crime that tragically altered the lives of Sheila Bellush and all those who loved her.  Such is the power of those who, wittingly or unwittingly, enable people with bad intentions. 

Evil people, or those hell bent on taking advantage of others, will always exist.  It is our curse in life that we must continually defend ourselves against them, but the task is made that much harder, if not impossible, by The Enablers.  You know who they are. 

  •  They are leftwing judges like Monica Herranz who allowed an illegal alien, under arraignment for DUI, to slip out the back door to her judge’s chambers to avoid being deported by waiting ICE agents, even though the judge is employed by the citizens of Multnomah County.  And it is the liberals who defend Herranz rather than stand up for citizens who might have been hurt or killed if the escapee had another drunk-driving incident while ICE was tracking him down.
  •  They are leftists like Michael Moore and others who ignorantly ridiculed protestors fighting to prevent the erection of a giant mosque near the site of 9-11, and who characterize common sense concerns about the spread of Islam in the U.S. as “Islamophobia” in an attempt to shame us into cultural suicide akin to what we’re seeing across Europe, where they are suffering the consequences of their own enablers for all the world to observe. 
  •  They are California Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) and other California democrats who pushed aside more important issues to spend their time passing a bill that prevents the state from firing members of the Communist Party.  Communism has only killed an estimated 94 million people, so let’s make sure we undo any boring old laws that would unfairly prevent its tentacles from reaching into California’s government, right?
  •  They are Barack Obama and his minions who strangely made it their top priority to empty out Guantanamo Bay and to empower terror-loving Iran in a deal aptly described by Charles Krauthammer as “… the worst deal since the Munich deal of 1938.”
  •  They are the politicians who cower to the racist hate group, Black Lives Matter, and who refuse to stand up for all lives, no matter the race.
  • They are legislators in the state of Minnesota who joined Washington state’s challenge to Trump’s temporary travel ban just as Minnesota’s state health commissioner “…sounded an alert on more frequent and costly threats to the public health, referencing measles, tuberculosis, and even the Zika virus and syphilis…” largely attributable to an influx of foreign born carriers.
  •  They are the reporters, journalists and no-border activists who insist on trading in the word “illegal” for the new and improved (i.e. politically correct) term “undocumented” in order to reprogram our minds of any pesky, negative associations we might have been taught with respect to the crime of trespassing. 

And there’s so many more that I’m sure to be forgetting.  Please feel free to add your favorite Enabler to the list. 

recent post by Pesky Truth resident blogger, Kathy, is a testament to the depths to which the ever-helpful Enablers have forced us to sink.  “Illegals demand subsidized healthcare, housing from Columbia University,” as reported in campusreform.org, includes a link to a list of galling demands by a group of students who don’t even have the legal right to be here, much less make demands upon their fellow human beings for free this and that.  In a sane world – i.e., a world without The Enablers – this would be laughed off and dismissed followed by the unceremonious dragging away of the undocumented snowflakes (CW’s note:  it is okay to use the term “undocumented” ONLY when it is followed by an appropriately insulting term such as “snowflake”) by ICE.  But thanks to The Enablers and the precedent they’ve helped set for legitimizing every clown who pounds his puny fist on the table, it isn’t funny.  Instead it represents yet another threat to our disappearing freedom to just say, “No.”

Getting back to the tragic story of Sheila Bellush, a 12-year old child can be, and should be, forgiven for lacking the maturity to comprehend the danger that her actions would bring and for the selfishness, typical of children, to put her own desires ahead of the safety of her family.  But what excuse is there for the Monica Herranz’s, the Michael Moore’s and the Barack Obama’s of this world?  Indeed, what excuse is there for the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of Enablers who, year after year, decade after decade, ignore the lessons of history and the pleas of their fellow citizens and become the Enablers to those intent on tearing down or taking over everything we’ve built?

There is no excuse.  Damn the Enablers.


To leave a comment please follow the link to this post at The Pesky Truth.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

White Privilege or Black Self-Destructiveness…..?

What do you do when you’ve built a lucrative cottage industry around a product but you’ve saturated the market and your product has not lived up to its hype?  Well, when you’re a liberal and the product you’re selling is indignation over phony racism, you repackage your phony racism as a new and improved product and you call it, “White privilege.”

A handout in a Wisconsin school’s “American Diversity” course defined white privilege as follows:

In critical race theory, white privilege is a set of advantages that are believed to be enjoyed by white people beyond those commonly experienced by non-white people in the same social, political, and economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.). Theorists differentiate it from racism or prejudice because, they say, a person who may benefit from white privilege is not necessarily racist or prejudiced and may be unaware of having any privileges reserved only for whites.

“Critical race theory.”  Boy that sounds very intellectual, doesn’t it?  You’re supposed to be impressed.

As charming as it is that “theorists” are attempting to differentiate “white privilege” from plain old fashioned racism it’s clearly just double-talk.  If the theory is that whites benefit from privilege strictly on the basis of skin color alone (see the definition above), that’s racism – period.  So why are we changing “racism” to “white privilege?”  Maybe it’s because you can stop being racist but you can never stop being white.  Maybe it’s because blacks can be racists, but they can’t have “white privilege.”  Maybe it’s because the “racism” claim has lost its luster thanks to the race hustlers who have gratuitously invoked it as an excuse for each and every black failure, and enough whites have finally caught on so as to weaken its effectiveness for extorting sympathy and public money.  Not ready to give up their golden goose, the hustlers have re-packaged it as “white privilege,” secure in the knowledge that the liberal sheep can be counted on to buy their revamped product.  As long as there’s money in it and as long as liberals abound to act as enablers we can look forward to a new variation of this same old game for as long as we live.  So let’s talk about “white privilege,” shall we?

If there’s one thing I don’t understand about the concept of “white privilege” it’s the success of people of color in fields like sports or entertainment.  I love football, and it’s been my observation that the vast majority of teams at the college level and in the pros consist largely of black players despite the smaller number of blacks in the general population.  But how can this be, I wonder, if whites are the ones with the privilege?  These are high-paying gigs, after all, and can set people up for a lifetime of great earning potential.  Why don’t whites want these jobs if they are entitled, via their privilege, to have them?  Ditto the same question for basketball.  And how did Will Smith and Oprah Winfrey become so rich and influential in a world where only whites are entitled to such privilege?  How did Dwayne Johnson overcome “white privilege” to become the highest paid actor in the world in 2016?

These realities alone dispel the whole “white privilege” theory as far as I’m concerned, because it represents concrete evidence that businesses will embrace the people who can best help them succeed regardless of race or gender.  Therefore, if there are other industries where blacks are underrepresented, there must logically be other explanations besides “white privilege.”  Here are a few facts to consider when reflecting on what some of those reasons might be:

·         Blacks graduate from high school at significantly lower rates than white (75% vs. 88%) or Asian students (90%).1

·         According to the latest government census report, 46.9% of whites had an associate’s degree or more compared to just 32.4% of blacks.2

·         In 2015 66% of black children lived in single-parent households while just 25% of white children lived in single-parent households.3

·         As of 2014 the teen birth rate for blacks was 34.9 per 1,000, or double that of whites (17.3 per 1,000).4

Is “white privilege” to blame for the high incidence of teen pregnancy and fatherless households in the black community?  Is “white privilege” to blame for the lower graduation rate among black high school students?  Consider the top reasons cited by blacks for dropping out:

  1. Becoming a parent
  2. Being suspended or expelled even once
  3. Having several friends drop out
  4. Feeling academically unprepared for school
  5. Experiencing a significant mental health problem
  6. Homelessness, and moving to a new home.

From Black Enterprise, September 2015

You have to stretch pretty hard to assign blame for this to “white privilege.”  Bad choices and poor patterns of behavior are the reasons blacks fall behind academically, and this ultimately manifests itself in lower college graduation rates and, of course, reduced representation in areas of employment that require a higher level of education.  Employers in those fields then have fewer positive experiences to draw upon when evaluating black job candidates and they instinctively go with what’s familiar and what’s brought them the most success in the past.  Is that bias?  Perhaps; but it’s not bias based on malice or “privilege.”   It’s bias based on experience, history and observation.  Most importantly, the ONLY way to cure it is to change experience, history and observation, and this is something only blacks have the power to do.  Let me reiterate:

“White privilege” can only be cured by positive self-change in the black community.

This is why, whenever I read the usual drivel on “white privilege,” I think:  “So what?”  “Privilege,” if that’s the word the race hustlers want to use, is around us all the time and it’s not reserved to race, though if it was we would have to shift our focus to privilege among the Asian race since they kick everyone’s butt when it comes to success as measured by education and earnings.  If we’re going to obsess over “privilege” why aren’t we also talking about the privileges that come from being taller, smarter, better looking, more talented, luckier, more creative, healthier or happier, etc.?  And who is more “privileged,” the white child born to wealthy but abusive parents or the black child born to poor but nurturing parents?  These questions take our thinking where the race hustlers don’t want us to go, because only race – or to be more specific, whiteness – lends itself easily to the prospect of wealth transfer and that, not equality, is the hustler’s ultimate objective. 

I want to close with an appeal to those who’ve bought into the message of “white privilege,” for they know not what they do.  The peddlers of “white privilege” have only two goals in mind: 

1.  To take something from you;
2.  To make you an enabler for taking from others, including your children.

That’s it.  And the question is:  Are you so desperate for a cause that you’ll allow it?  Will you be an enabler to a scam that rewards the industry of victimhood when it threatens the future of not just your own children but also the black children who are being robbed of life’s critical lessons and the chance for self-driven success?  No one in this world, white or black, is born with an automatic pass for anything, as evidenced by those born to one form of privilege or another who nevertheless end up experiencing poverty, hardship or injustice, or those born without any privilege who nevertheless come to experience great wealth or success.  Life is what you choose to make it.  Let that be the message you share in this life.


To leave a comment on this post please visit The Pesky Truth.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.  Thanks!

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

This is who The Left Really is: Patricia Esparza

Myths are funny things.  They persist in spite of all evidence to the contrary, fueled by imagination and people’s willingness – or better yet, determination - to believe them.  That’s how it is with the myth of the kind-hearted, benevolent leftist a.k.a. the “do-gooders,” and that myth is central to the Left’s ability to maintain power and influence; which means it’s long past time to debunk this myth one leftist at a time. First up:   Convicted killer, Patricia Esparza.

Esparza’s story was profiled on a May, 2016, episode of ‘Dateline on ID.’  She came from a poor family that moved from Mexico to California when she was a small child.  Despite poverty and claims that her father sexually abused her as a child, Esparza excelled in school and won a scholarship to a prestigious private boarding school in New Hampshire.  According to Dateline she probably could have attended her pick of Ivy League schools but chose to go to Pamona College “near her family’s California home.”

While a sophomore at Pamona Esparza was at a dance club one night when she met and exchanged phone numbers with a 24-year old man named Gonzalo Ramirez.  Esparza says he called her the next morning and went to breakfast with her and a friend, then offered to drive her back to her apartment.  Once there he asked to come in for a glass of water and then made sexual advances which she rebuffed, but he ultimately raped her.  She didn’t report this to the police, but the next day went to the campus medical center where she asked for and received the morning after pill.  She later claimed that she told the nurse she’d been raped, but that the nurse was indifferent and never reported the rape to police.  Records from that day make no mention of Esparza’s rape claim. 

Three weeks after the alleged rape Gonzalo Ramirez was found dead after being brazenly kidnapped by two men in a white van who intentionally bumped into Ramirez’s car.  The next day his body was found dumped on the street.  He had been brutally beaten and hacked to death with a meat cleaver.

Under questioning (her phone number was found in Ramirez’s apartment), Esparza told police about the rape and said that two weeks after the rape she told her ex-boyfriend, Gianni Van, what had happened.  That was all she knew, she said.  Investigators discovered that Gianni owned a white van and other evidence pointed to his involvement in the crime.  With Esparza being the only link between the two men her testimony was critical to the mounting case against Van, but to the surprise and dismay of police Esparza suddenly up and married Van in Las Vegas before police could arrest him.  California is a state where a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse, and without the testimony of Esparza prosecutors had a weak case with no proof of motive.  So for the time being, thanks to the actions of Patricia Esparza, the murderers of Gonzalo Ramirez would remain free.

Esparza would later claim that Van “forced” her to marry him, and that she was terrified of him and never lived with him; but smiling photos with her sitting on his lap left me to doubt the true nature of their relationship. 

While the family of Gonzalo Ramirez saw no one held to account for his murder, Patricia Esparza moved on with her life.  According to a sympathetic article in slate.com, “[Esparza] graduated from Pomona with a double major in psychology and women’s studies.  She went on to earn a Ph.D. at DePaul University in clinical psychology.  As a researcher, she focused on human resilience, studying how Latino and urban teenagers develop a sense of belonging and cope with loss and conflict.”

So Esparza didn’t seem to have any difficulty getting on with her life, in spite of her “forced” marriage.  She becomes a political activist, rubbing elbows with the likes of radical democrat socialist, Cornell West, as well as Hillary Clinton, naturally.  She meets neurobiologist and “distinguished scholar” Jorge Mancias while working on a political campaign (he 48, she 25) and, after years of “negotiation,” eventually divorces Van to marry Mancias.  They both get jobs in Geneva, Switzerland (she as a consultant for the World Health Organization, he with the Global Fund), and reside in neighboring France.  They have a daughter.  Tearing up, Mancias tells Dateline that he “admired [Esparza’s] desire to help people,” and her “honesty.” 

Back in the U.S.A. police and prosecutors never forgot about Esparza or Gonzalo Ramirez.  When they learn that Esparza has divorced Van, they contact her in France and ask her to assist with the case.  She doesn’t respond.  Through additional witnesses Police ultimately learn that, on the night Ramirez was kidnapped, Esparza had accompanied Van and his friends to the nightclub he frequented and pointed him out to them.  With new light shed on her involvement, police flag her passport, and the next time she returns to the U.S. she is arrested.  She finally agrees to be interviewed and admits to identifying Ramirez for his killers.  She is offered a plea deal of three years for manslaughter in exchange for her testimony against Van and allowed to return to France while Van is awaiting trial; but by the time she returns to the U.S. Esparza, her husband and her lawyers have concocted a plan, as leftists are wont to do.  “She would take her case to the court of public opinion,” according to the Dateline narrator.  Upon arriving she and the husband hold a press conference in front of the courthouse where, with her four-year old daughter beside her, Esparza goes on the attack against the prosecutor.  “It is unfortunate that he is willing to destroy a family, that he is willing to strip me away from my daughter knowing that I’m innocent…” she defiantly says to the cameras, painting the prosecutor as the bad guy and herself as the victim.

“This is not America.  This is not justice.  This is abuse of power.  The persecution of an innocent woman who has never harmed anyone.” cried the husband.  Poor, poor Patricia Esparza.

And then the snowflakes came out of the woodwork for Esparza.  Thousands of people signed a change.org petition on Esparza’s behalf.  They carried their signs.  They wore their t-shirts.  But the prosecutor said it best:  “I knew that she had hundreds if not thousands of supporters who had never read a single police report, never listed to a single taped interview.”   But ignorance of the facts never interferes with the Left’s activism.

Feeling emboldened Esparza rejects the three-year plea deal and opts for a trial instead.  While awaiting trial she complains in an interview with Dateline that she’s been re-traumatized every time she talks about her “ordeal.” 

Did I mention that Gonzalo Ramirez was chained up, beaten and hacked to death with a meat cleaver? 

In her interview she admits to Dateline that she watched as Van and his friends rear-ended Ramirez’s truck and then kidnapped him when he got out of his truck.  She admits that she waited in a nearby bar afterwards, until someone came and took her to the transmission shop where Ramirez was being held.  She sees him chained up and beaten.  Ramirez was “not in good shape,” according to Esparza.  She claims to have been terrorized.  “I never wanted Gonzalo Ramirez to be harmed,” she says.  She calls herself a victim.  Asked if she now wished she had gone to the police, she answered:  “I wish that at some point this whole cycle had been stopped either by an adult or by myself…” 

Esparza was 20 years old when the crime occurred. 

When Esparza rejected her plea deal Diane Tran, wife of one of Ramirez’s killers and witness to the events that took place, took her own plea deal, telling prosecutors that Patricia Esparza wasn’t forced into anything, that she took part in planning the murder, that discussions about retaliation began immediately after she told Van about the rape, and that Esparza was present when they talked about murder.  According to Tran, Esparza knew about the plan to kill Gonzales and encouraged it.

With Tran prepared to testify and prosecutors undeterred by the bullying campaign on her behalf, Esparza lost her nerve and took a plea, except the offer was now for six years instead of three based upon Tran’s testimony.

I hope you’ll excuse me for the length of this story but the details are necessary to expose Patricia Esparza for the cowardly, cold, calculating liar she is and her supporters for the attention-craving, amoral ignoramuses they really are. 

We don’t know if Gonzalo Ramirez actually raped Patricia Esparza because she didn’t report the rape to the police when it allegedly occurred.  Why not?  She didn’t want her family to know, she says.  Well isn’t that brave of our courageous leftist?  If he truly was a rapist, I guess this student of women’s studies and purported sympathizer of women’s struggles was okay with him being out on the street, free to rape other women.  Someone please explain that one to me.  Where are the champions of civil liberties to condemn Esparza and her friends for meting out their own justice?  Where are the leftists who routinely protest the death penalty as “cruel” when a man has been tortured and hacked to death without the chance to defend himself in a court of law?  At every turn this case reveals how phony the Left are, and to what extent their reputations for courage and compassion are myths conjured up in their own diseased minds. 

Whether she was raped or not I personally don’t believe Patricia Esparza ever reported the rape to the nurse or other medical personnel who administered the morning after pill she requested.  After seeing the multitude of lies that she told and coming to understand her character (or absence thereof), it seems far more plausible to me that the nurse’s account is the truth.  Why is this important?  Because Esparza threw this poor nurse under the bus when she claimed that the nurse ignored the rape charge and failed to report it, with no concern for how such a charge might damage the nurse’s reputation or endanger her job.  Contrary to the myth, the little people never matter to the Left.  They are expendable. 

Perhaps one of the most disgusting aspects of this case was the way Esparza used her “little daughter” to buttress her victimhood persona.  Again and again she wonders aloud what will happen to her little daughter, but never does she acknowledge the two little daughters of Gonzalo Ramirez, now grown, whose father was taken from them and is never coming back.  According to one report Esparza’s husband told the local City News Service:  “The first thing my wife said after she was handcuffed was to please take care of our daughter and shield her from the pain of this experience.”  Really?  Then why did she parade the girl at the news conference where she announced she would fight the charges against her, and why did her husband bring the girl to the courthouse when Esparza finally plead guilty to manslaughter?  Maybe “shield” means something different in leftist speak. 

Finally, let’s talk about Esparza’s attempt to shirk accountability for her actions by trying to intimidate prosecutors with public support, while still pretending to be courageous.  Is this how justice is supposed to work, that he or she with the most friends wins?  That’s the mentality of the Left.  The rules of the system never apply to them.  Keep in mind that prosecutors initially offered her a sentence of just three years in exchange for testifying against those who carried out the actual killing.  But Esparza says she didn’t want a conviction to jeopardize her career.  Frankly I don’t understand why she’s worried.  A murder conviction makes you a hero to the liberals who run the world’s universities.  She’ll be promoted to chair of her department as soon as she’s released.

That’s who Patricia Esparza really is, just in case you ever encounter the mythical version.

Next up:  The myth of Hillary Clinton.


To leave a comment please visit this post at the blog site The Pesky Truth.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.  Thanks!

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

A Day in the Life of Your Average Campus Leftist

Get up in the morning.  Take a shower…maybe.

Look in the mirror.  Decide that you don’t look different enough to attract attention and stand out from the commoners.  Dye your hair blue and red or tease your hair into dreadlocks.  Put on your favorite Mao Tse-tung t-shirt.  Make sure your tattoos show!  Now you’re ready to go.

Pedal your bike over to Starbucks to meet some friends.  Make sure at least one of those friends is gay.  Pay $5 of your parents’ hard-earned money for a giant latte.  Complain to your friends about Trump and capitalism while scrolling through Facebook on your Smartphone.  Make sure everyone around you can hear.  Be pleased with how smart and superior you sound.

Head to your first class, Thinking Gender:  An Introduction to Feminist Theory.  Participate in discussion using the word “like” at least 1,000 times.  Be pleased again with how smart and empathetic you sound.  Enjoy the delusion that you’re accomplishing something worthwhile.

Between classes pedal over to Planned Parenthood to pick up your taxpayer-subsidized birth control.  Be mad because they aren’t free.

Get a beansprout sandwich and Doritos for lunch.  While you eat peruse The Huffington Post because you pride yourself on being informed.  Pretend it’s not overwhelmingly biased.  Be awed by the opinions of Hollywood celebrities (because they know so much more than everyone else) and take great satisfaction in having your opinions validated.

Receive a tweet from a professor urging you to join tonight’s protest at your school against conservative b****, Ann Coulter.  Don’t think about the irony of a women’s studies professor calling another woman a b****.  Make a frowny face at the thought of Coulter’s “hateful” rhetoric about illegal immigration (they’re undocumented!).  Resolve to join the protest and shut Coulter down in the name of preserving free speech for those who deserve it.  Don’t consider the contradiction in that.

Spend the afternoon thinking about what to write on your anti-Ann Coulter poster.  After two and a half hours scrawl “F*** Ann Coulter” on a poster and smile at your own cleverness.  In a stroke of real genius write “Stop Hate” on the other side.

Go to the school and wait for instructions for your spontaneous protest.  Join the crowd blocking Coulter’s access to the venue.  Scream “Love, not hate!” while hurling hard objects at Coulter’s people and campus police.  Be righteously outraged when you think police are interfering with your sacred right to protest, and yell that you have a constitutional right to protest.  Be oblivious to your own hypocrisy about people’s rights. Whack a Coulter supporter in the head with your sign.  When he wrestles your sign away scream that you’re being sexually assaulted.

Head home, happy that you helped stop another conservative from sharing their message.  Feel relevant.  Don’t wonder what it is you’re so afraid to hear.  Suck your thumb while falling into a contented slumber.   Dream about being important.


To leave a comment please visit this post at The Pesky Truth.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.  Thanks!

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Right

As a conservative, I don’t want to take anything away from you with the exception, perhaps, of your recreational drugs, and that’s only because of their potential to ultimately impact me in some way.  Even in that respect, though, I am willing to let the people in the states decide that issue democratically and I’ll keep my objections to myself if I’m in the minority. 

As a conservative I am willing to take responsibility for myself and I took responsibility for my children when they were minors.  All I ask is that you do the same.  I will gladly chip in to help build roads, bridges and other necessary infrastructure that all of us benefit from and for niceties that I support in my local community, but I do not want to pay for your preferred niceties in your community or for the pet projects that feed the egos of politicians or help them get re-elected.  That’s fair, right?  I believe there is a small fraction of our population that truly needs assistance to help take care of themselves and will gladly chip in for that as well so long as it is done by private means.  I object to big-government-run welfare because history, both past and present, invariably proves it to be an invitation for political corruption and abuse of society’s generosity. 

As a conservative I believe in many so-called “traditional values,” and I believe in my right as a citizen to do what is within my power to preserve those values by supporting certain policies and candidates.  I respect your right to disagree, to debate and to support those policies and candidates who represent your own preferences so long as in doing so you never step on my basic, constitutional rights. 

As a conservative I honor the Constitution and will gladly respect your rights that are protected therein if you will do the same for me.  I understand that basic human nature doesn’t change and, the right to self-protection being inviolable, I believe in a strong national security system that keeps America’s enemies at bay.  I also believe in every nation’s sovereign right to decide its own immigration policy and who can and cannot enter their country.  No other nation has the right to challenge our immigration policy and no one person or group has the right to decide our immigration policy on his/their own.

Because the law of the jungle favors only the strongest and the most corrupt, I believe The People have the right to establish laws for the equal protection of everyone as well as the right to enforce those laws.  I believe my local and federal police forces are there to serve my interests – and the interests of everyone else – for law and order, and if you are interfering with a police officer who is rightfully doing his duty that is an assault upon my rights. 

As a conservative I believe in balancing environmental considerations against the right of The People to pursue economic happiness and security as well to exercise their personal property rights. 

Lastly, as a conservative I believe the policies that strengthen my nation’s standing in the world benefit me as a citizen, therefore I am a patriot and, pursuant to my right of self-interest, I support a government that is a strong and faithful advocate for the United States of America. 

And so my question to those on the Left is this: 

What is so hate-worthy about that? 

Every day now I see news reports of hate-inspired riots erupting on college campuses when conservative speakers attempt to speak upon invitation to those campuses.  The blogosphere is flush with “hate Trump” websites and blog posts (and poor old Trump isn’t even a conservative!).  Hollywood’s liberals can’t contain their raw hatred for Trump and other conservatives.  Before there was “Trump Derangement Syndrome” there was “Bush Derangement Syndrome” to describe the Left’s obsessive hatred of George W. Bush.  The comments I see on leftwing websites like The Huffington Post are seething with pure, unadulterated hatred for conservatives, and my only question is:  Why? 

I could understand if I was trying to infringe upon your liberty by supporting onerous government regulations that drove up the costs of your everyday necessities like food, housing, gasoline and electricity so that the great American dream was always just beyond your reach.  Then it might make sense. I could understand if I were continually reaching into your wallet to take money you worked for so that I could force you to subsidize those who’ve made poor choices in life.  That too would make sense.  I could understand if I put my bizarre need to feel liked by strangers around the globe ahead of your right, as my fellow citizen, to feel secure in your own country.  I could understand if I put the interests of non-citizens who come here illegally ahead of the interests of my fellow citizens.  I could understand if I protested on behalf of the comfort and “civil rights” of vicious criminals while I ignored the suffering and losses of their innocent victims.  Or it might make sense if I were the one helping to transfer massive power into the hands of elitist politicians under the ruse of saving the planet from “climate change,” or if I were electing powerful politicians to trample on the Constitution that’s there to protect our basic rights.  Then your hatred would be understandable. 

Completely understandable.


To leave a comment please visit this post at The Pesky Truth.  I am unable to respond to comments at Blogger.