Wednesday, October 19, 2016

For a Glimpse at Your Future under President Hillary and the Left, Just Look at the Nightmare in Venezuela

Emphasis in bold is mine.  ~CW

“It’s nothing less than the collapse of a large, wealthy, seemingly modern, seemingly democratic nation just a few hours’ flight from the United States.”                    ~Moisés Naím and Francisco Toro, The Atlantic                                                     

The article continues:

“In the last two years Venezuela has experienced the kind of implosion that hardly ever occurs in a middle-income country like it outside of war. Mortality rates are skyrocketing; one public service after another is collapsing; triple-digit inflation has left more than 70 percent of the population in poverty; an unmanageable crime wave keeps people locked indoors at night; shoppers have to stand in line for hours to buy food; babies die in large numbers for lack of simple, inexpensive medicines and equipment in hospitals, as do the elderly and those suffering from chronic illnesses.”


Reporters for the leftwing journal The Guardian paint a similar picture:

“Venezuela is suffering the worst economic crisis in its history. Ordinary people in the oil-rich country are regularly going without food. Three-quarter empty supermarkets are being ransacked by angry, hungry mobs. The government has declared a state of emergency, food is now being transported under armed guard, and basic necessities are being rationed. People have to queue for hours and sometimes overnight on their assigned days to receive staples like rice and cooking oil.”

 “By IMF figures, it has the world’s worst negative growth rate (-8%), and the worst inflation rate (482%). The unemployment rate is 17% but is expected to climb to near 30% in the coming few years.”

 “The shadow of hunger, the desperation of the crowds and the spread of unrest and criminality threaten the government of Nicolás Maduro, three years after he was bequeathed power by the dying revolutionary strongman, Hugo Chávez.”

Venezuela’s socialist government has also brought devastation to its healthcare system, as reported by The Guardian:

“For years, among the proudest boasts of the Bolivarian Socialist administration was that it eradicated hunger, reduced poverty and improved healthcare for the poor.”

“But the trend is now appears to be moving in the opposite direction at an alarming speed. [That’s the funny thing about socialism]  Reliable data is hard to find. The government has acknowledged that maternal mortality – a key healthcare indicator – has doubled in the past year. The opposition says the deterioration is five fold – and that death of newborns increased 100 fold.”

“We are seeing a collapse in the public health system.” said Maritza Landaeta, a senior member of the Health Observatory. “Venezuela is witnessing a miracle, a miracle of destruction.”

“Earlier this year, the president of the Venezuelan Association of Clinics and Hospitals in the state of Carabobo, was detained by police and questioned for three hours after he went on TV to complain about medical shortages.”

“Doctors have also accused the government of downplaying the threat of the Zika virus.”

“Diphtheria is making a comeback….”

““Nine thousands doctors have left the country and the exodus is continuing,” says one of those who stayed, Yamila Battaguni.”

 “His hope is for political change. ‘We have two options: leave or be part of the change,’ he said. ‘I hope this bad stimulus can make us want something better.’”

So what happened that caused the citizens of Venezuela to be cast into hell on Earth?

Per The Atlantic: 

“The real culprit is chavismo, the ruling philosophy named for Chavez and carried forward by Maduro, and its truly breathtaking propensity for mismanagement (the government plowed state money arbitrarily into foolish investments); institutional destruction (as Chavez and then Maduro became more authoritarian and crippled the country’s democratic institutions); nonsense policy-making (like price and currency controls); and plain thievery (as corruption has proliferated among unaccountable officials and their friends and families).”

In other words, the socialist policies of Hugo Chavez and his successors brought this ruination upon Venezuela, and though it’s not mentioned (it never is) the greed and complacency of the Venezuelan people are also responsible.

Here’s how The Guardian explains it:

“The government’s tendency to subsidise many products below the cost of production is a major reason why the economy is in such a mess. It is a habit formed by oil, which warps price perceptions like a pyschotropic drug.”

Oil is the culprit?  I think not, but let’s read on:

“Historically, abundant supplies have made Venezuelans regard cheap petrol as a birthright, so for political reasons – and despite hyperinflation, collapsing government revenues, global markets and climate change – the current price for a litre of high-grade gasoline is just 6 bolivars (less than a penny or a cent) – more than 100 times cheaper than the same volume of mineral water. This meant the fuel bill for the entire 1,400km journey was less than a pound or dollar.”

 “When Hugo Chávez came to power in 1999, he took this way of thinking a step further and used petrol dollars to subsidise essential products such as rice, sugar, toilet paper, sanitary towels and medicine.  His successor, Nicolás Maduro, has tried to continue and even extend this policy, despite a 60% fall in crude prices since 2014. Even in the midst of crisis, the government still hands out free or massively discounted homes, cars, DVD players and microwave ovens.”

 “It was an altruistic, populist move that allowed the poor to finally share in the nation’s oil wealth. But it also stifled incentives for producers and created a system of dependency and black-marketing that was already causing economic problems before Chávez died in 2013 and the global crude market collapsed the following year.”

Altruistic?  There’s nothing altruistic about a power-hungry socialist buying the loyalty of the public by squandering the country’s resources, but there you go, folks.  Venezuela is on the verge of suicide by socialism, a consequence of greed and stupidity.  Over time the country may survive if the adults can wrestle control back from the children who’ve been in charge, but what of the people who are suffering today?  I’m guessing the possibility of a turnaround in the way distant future is not much consolation to the mother who is watching her children go hungry today, or who is watching her child die for lack of medicines that are readily available in other countries.  How tragic is it that they did this to themselves?  Hugo Chavez, leftwing socialist revolutionary and father of these destructive policies, was democratically elected by Venezuelans and then re-elected multiple times, and I’ll go out on a limb and guess that Venezuelans were attracted to his promises of free stuff.  Sound familiar?  Those who propelled him to power are responsible for the terrible suffering that is happening right now, though they will never be made to answer to their children or their fellow citizens for their part in this man-made disaster.  This is what happens to a society that allows itself to be enticed by promises of something for nothing.  Hope those free DVD players were worth it.

Are you listening, Hillary and Bernie supporters?


I invite your thoughts.  Please leave a comment on this and other posts at The Pesky Truth.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

The Conscience of a Progressive

This page intentionally left blank.


I'd love to know your thoughts.  Please leave a comment at The Pesky Truth.  Thanks!

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Do You Love Your Children Enough to Reject Hillary?

I could talk about the serial lies of Hillary Clinton and what this says about her respect for the citizens of this nation, but I won’t because I know that you don’t care.

I could talk to you about private servers set up for the intent and purpose of denying Americans their right to see what our employee, the Secretary of State, says and does on our behalf, but I won’t because I know that you don’t care.

I could talk to you about BleachBit, and the illegal destruction of information subpoenaed by your representatives in congress, but again I won’t because I know you don’t care.

I could talk about Hillary Clinton’s claims to be a champion of women even when she contributes to their victimization in order to protect her husband and advance her own political ambitions, and how her hypocrisy proves her empathy to be just another lie, but I won’t because really, you don’t care.

I could talk about Benghazi and the Americans who died as a result of Hillary Clinton’s disregard for their safety, or her disregard for the rights and safety of an ordinary video producer who she sacrificed for the sake of diverting attention from herself, but once again, I know you don’t care.

I could talk about Russia, Libya, Syria, Iran and other regions of the world where our foreign policies have failed and made us weaker as a nation, but let’s face it, you still don’t care. 

I could talk about Wall Street and Hillary’s cozy relationship with those who make their millions and billions by playing the rest of us.  Maybe you care, maybe you don’t.

I could talk about The Clinton Foundation and how we all know that it is a façade for an organization that’s real purpose is to pedal influence, but in all likelihood, you don’t care about that.

I could talk about environmental hypocrisy, and ask what it means when a politician campaigns on fears of environmental catastrophe all while they live a life of gluttonous energy consumption, but maybe you don’t want to ponder that.

Or I could talk about the many former employees and associates who have written accounts of shocking verbal abuse by our former first lady and how this is a telltale sign of the way Mrs. Clinton views the less powerful people around her, but apparently you don’t care.

Can I presume, at least, that you care about your children and grandchildren and about their futures?  That you care whether they are able to not merely survive like ants but to thrive economically in this world and to achieve the increasingly elusive American Dream?  That you care whether they can enjoy basic freedoms to speak their minds, practice their religions and protect themselves and their families in their own homes?  That you care about their abilities to make choices about medical care and education and that all of the things we once took for granted are not driven further and further from their reach by deceitful, power-hungry government bureaucrats?  That you want them not to be turned into slaves to their fellow citizens by big-government policies that continually rob Peter in order to support Paul?   That you care enough for your children to not want them saddled with massive debts that could crash their economy and condemn them to years or even life-long struggles to survive?   That you care whether or not their country is illegally overrun by intruders who trespass here without our permission, strain our resources and influence our politicians to put the intruders’ interests ahead of theirs?  Do you care if they will have the security of police protection if and when they need it, and that our police departments will not be made useless and impotent by politicians who coddle to groups that resent law and order?  That you care whether their own nation is weak or strong and able to exert influence in this world, rather than have the influence of others forced upon them by corrupted world bodies and opportunistic adversaries? 

If so then you need to care about the fact that Hillary Clinton, the bleached and coiffed, robotically smiling former first lady and grandmother, is a committed leftist, and all that this implies. 

In the days before America was brainwashed, people understood all too well what a leftist was.   Leftists are committed to undoing the Constitution, not with the permission and approval of the people by the open and forthright process incorporated therein but quietly, incrementally and surreptitiously so that when people realize what has happened, it’s too late.  Leftists understand this is a numbers game.  All they need to do is amass a bigger voting block than anyone else.  How do you sell voters on their own self-destruction?  You don’t.  You divide The People into groups – white, black, male, female, Latino, gay, straight, rich, poor, students, union members.… - then you win over those groups one by one with promises of special treatment and handouts at the expense of others so that in the pursuit of these trinkets they stop thinking about what they’re giving up, particularly for their children.  I say particularly for their children because the cliché that there’s no such thing as a free lunch is absolutely true, and the bill will eventually come due one way or another.  Will it be this generation or the next?  That’s the gamble you set your children up for when you hand your government over to the leftists.

I know you want free college.  I know you want free daycare, free healthcare and high wages imposed by the government rather than earned via skills and experience.  I know you want to feel as though you’re being charitable or making a difference for the environment or making history by electing the first woman president.  It’s all about you, and what I’m asking is this:   Are you willing to sacrifice what you want in order to insure a better future for your children?  Will you earn and pay your own way, make your own charitable impact, sacrifice your own convenience for the environment and forego your claim to fame so that your children and theirs can enjoy the freedom and economic opportunity that you had?  That’s the test of character Americans are facing today, and the final exam is on election day.  


For the sake of your children, please re-read Animal Farm.

I welcome your opinion.  Please visit this post at The Pesky Truth to leave a comment.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Democrat Racketeers

“A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, will not be affected, or would not otherwise exist. Conducting a racket is racketeering.[1] Particularly, the potential problem may be caused by the same party that offers to solve it, although that fact may be concealed, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this party.”

Sound familiar?

Back in the 60’s and 70’s, liberals in the U.S. decided marriage was an unnecessary and outdated tradition (now that same-sex couples want to get married marriage has, of course, become a noble cause worthy of a civil war, but I digress).  Whereas it was once a sin to bear children out of wedlock, the Left made it a sin to pass judgment on those who behave self-indulgently and without any apparent regard for the consequences of their actions.  The result is that we’ve seen an enormous social shift, including an alarming increase in the rate of illegitimacy and children being raised by single mothers who struggle financially to support themselves and their children.  This self-inflicted dynamic then leads to hand-wringing by those same liberals, who demand to know what we’re going to do about poverty and the challenge of single parents to afford daycare, after-school supervision, healthcare and adequate nutrition, smugly oblivious to their own culpability.  So Democrats get together with purposeful looks on their faces and cluck like hens to come up with the same solution they have for every crisis they instigate:  higher taxes and more government control.  Welfare, food stamps, Headstart, Medicaid, all-day kindergarten and subsidized daycare – these are the rackets that have been birthed from leftwing meddling in social tradition. 

Create the problem, then force taxpayers to subsidize the solution.

Speaking of education, let’s talk about the astronomical rise in costs that have created, as the Left likes to say, a “lack of access” to college.  Would someone please remind me who’s had control of higher education in this country for the past 50 years or more?  Oh yes, I remember – the Left.  They’ve been busy little bees, creating bloated administrations and paying themselves very handsomely for the back-breaking task of brainwashing our young.   That champion of the poor consumer, Elizabeth Warren, pulled down about $350K per year at Harvard, and we all know what a nice living Hillary Clinton made taking lucrative speaking fees from our institutions of higher learning.  Nice work if you can get it but unfortunately those fat salaries and speaking fees make college very expensive.  To keep the gravy train going and the peasants from revolting the Left has to figure out a way to shift that burden onto someone else.  Thus we have a million ways that someone can qualify for a tax-payer subsidized education as long as they are not too honest or too hard-working (those folks have to pay for themselves).  Our government and banks hand out student loans like candy, comforted in the knowledge that should anything go wrong it will be taxpayers – not those making the loan decisions – who take the loss.  And now the racketeers, - Elizabeth, Bernie and Hillary – want to save the day.  Is that rich irony or what?  They are predictably demanding free college for everyone, to be overseen, naturally, by more government.

Create the problem then extort the cost from taxpayers.  That’s the name of this racket.

How about the housing “crisis?”  Whose idea was it to legislate the lowering of credit standards to encourage home-buying by people who couldn’t afford it?  Who dreamed up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  Liberal politicians like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were behind these schemes but The Left likes to blame the whole thing on George Bush on the logic that he happened to be sitting in the Oval Office when the music stopped (that’s about as complex as their analytical skills get).  To be fair, Bush presided over policies that kept interest rates artificially low, and that certainly contributed to the economic bubble; but the game was already set up for failure.  How much did this racket cost taxpayers?  Somewhere between a trillion dollars (stimulus) and a hell of a lot more than that.

Create the problem - be the solution.

Now let’s talk about the artificially manufactured “crisis” in healthcare.  Healthcare is like any other service commodity.  When left to its own devices, it’s kept in check by natural market forces like supply, demand and price sensitivity.  But alas it is not the nature of a racketeer to leave a market to its own devices; thus government liberals brought us Medicare, Medicaid and the federal HMO Act, all of which led to greater and greater separation between consumer and provider, which in turn led to increased demand, rampant fraud and higher prices.  Our great champions in government brought us more regulation so that we now collectively subsidize things like contraception, dieticians, rehab, in vitro fertilization and other things that were once the responsibility of the customer, and like anything that’s subsidized, the demand has gone up accordingly, as have the costs.  It’s liberals who stand with the trial lawyers and block tort reform, adding billions to our healthcare costs for lawsuit payouts and – more importantly – lawsuit prevention.  It’s liberals who block interstate sales of health insurance, stifling competition.  Each of these, and probably a million more, contribute to the unnecessary increases in the cost of healthcare, a cost that’s borne by only a fraction of Americans while the rest get a free or subsidized ride.  What’s the racketeer’s solution:  Obamacare.  And when Obamacare fails?  Then we’ll be talking “single-payer” or full government takeover of our healthcare delivery, and this may be the biggest racket of them all.  Touché to Obama & Company.

Al Capone was an amateur compared to these guys.  The only big difference is that people recognized Capone for the despicable crook he was.  This election cycle will you stand up to the Capones at last or will you continue to let the thugs call the shots?


Share your thoughts on this post and others at The Pesky Truth.  Thanks!

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Disappointed but not Surprised by Trump’s Debate Performance

Every four years conservatives are offered a rare opportunity to make their case to the American people when voters, who would normally never give them the time of day, tune in for the presidential debates.  Some voters may be tuning in just to cheer on the Democrat nominee; but whatever the reason, they’re there, and the chance to influence the thinking of the close-minded is both rare and priceless.  Republicans essentially pre-squandered this precious opportunity when they chose to nominate yet another non-conservative for the job this time around; consequently I let go of high expectations early on, but there is always the consolation prize to hope for, that being that the Republican nominee will at least deliver an oral ass-whooping to the Democrat.  On Monday I was guardedly hopeful based upon my naïvely held belief that certain truths, no matter how ineloquently spoken, will always triumph over the lies of the Left, but alas on that score I was to be disappointed as well. 

Trump showed himself to be unworthy of the task from the very beginning when he failed to adequately challenge the moderator’s false, opening premise of an improving economy under Barack Obama by pointing out that the numbers have been manipulated to hide the truth about massive under employment, long-term income stagnation and widening income inequality.  That’s an important fact that the average Democrat probably doesn’t hear in his normally limited circle of influence.  This was followed by an abundance of missed opportunities by Trump that many analysts and pundits have already noted.  There was no mention of the fatal failures in Benghazi, pay for play in the Clinton Foundation, our massive illegal immigration crisis, the refugee debate, the rise of Black Lives Matter or Obamacare, to name a few.  Furthermore it would have behooved Trump to take a sharp jab at Clinton for her typical leftwing hypocrisies on things like gun control and climate change, because those hypocrisies expose the lies without Trump having to evoke the word, “liar.” 

Trump scored a few points by calling Clinton out on her empty promises after “30 years” of being in a position of influence, but she managed to soften that blow with the comment that Trump was ready to blame her for everything wrong with the country, and his retort of “Why not?” left many, I’m certain, with the impression that his criticisms were merely gratuitous.

Clinton was able to score points by hitting Trump on his failure to provide tax returns, proving the fairy’s rebuke to Pinocchio that “A lie keeps growing and growing until it's as plain as the nose on your face.” Trump looked foolish by first raising the audit excuse but then immediately offering to provide the supposedly unavailable returns if Clinton provides her emails.  It’s abundantly clear to everyone, even the most stubborn and fanatical Trump fans who are lying if they claim to disagree, that he simply doesn’t want to reveal his tax returns to the public.  Given that the average person doesn’t have a clue how to understand the complicated taxes of a businessman like Trump he’s probably wise not to put them out there, but he would have been far wiser still to come to the debate prepared with a strong, unapologetic answer.  Personally I’ve always thought it a good policy to simply tell the truth, such as: 

Unlike Hillary Clinton I haven’t been running for political office for 30 years and like most sane people I’ve made it my goal to minimize my tax burden, but with our criminally complicated tax system the average person is not going to understand my complex returns and Democrats like Hillary will simply use the information to distract voters and avoid talking about things that matter, such as our 20 trillion dollar debt crisis, our illegal immigration crisis or ISIS.  But since we’re on the subject of finances, how about The Clinton Foundation and Hillary’s pay to play politics?”  

Just a suggestion, Mr. Trump.

Further adding to my frustration was Trump’s inexcusable failure to correct the record when Clinton falsely and astonishingly blamed the economic meltdown of 2008 on wealthy Americans when the truth is that it was Democrat policies, spearheaded by Jimmie Carter and her husband, good old Bill, that set those wheels in motion.  Sure, Wall Street played a role too, but WHO is in the pocket of Wall Street?  That’s right:  Hillary Clinton & Company.  It might have been nice for Trump to mention all that.  Instead his failure to challenge her lies surely helped to cement them further in the minds of the uninformed.

Finally, there was the moment where Trump let pass the opportunity to respond when Clinton criticized his treatment of women.  We’re supposed to believe that Trump just didn’t have the heart to hit back with the obvious retort.  Call me a cynic but I found it glaringly disingenuous, which made it a double failure for Trump.  There’s absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that the woman who claims to be righteously indignant over Trump’s ill treatment of women has a well-known history of her own in that regard.  Once again, pointing out the hypocrisy would have reminded voters of what a liar she is, but….sigh.  I’ll give Trump credit for getting in a few good points and hits, but I was hoping for that great moment when he would pull a rhetorical bucket of water from under his podium and dump it on Clinton so that we could watch her disappear while screaming, “I’m melting!  I’m melting!” and leaving nothing but a puddle of water with an over-priced red pantsuit lying in it.  It never happened. 

As for Hillary, what a joke.  I know the leftists are happy and/or relieved with her “performance,” but I am reminded of my old joke about the man who laughs as hoodlums destroy his car because, unbeknownst to them, he’s moved from the spot where they told him to stand when they weren’t looking.  If you think a presidential candidate who has to repeatedly lie and practice for days to memorize a few pages of talking points is anything to be proud or happy about, then I’m sad for you (but much more so for the rest of us).  I found Hillary’s non-stop smiling to be utterly phony and grotesquely cartoonish; and her clear attempts to disrespect Trump with faux amusement displayed a childishness and cowardice that no one should applaud.  In other words, SHE’s the one who behaved like a jerk.  Trump may have the misfortune of having aged into the human form of Grumpy Cat, but at least he comes off as genuine.  Given the sad state this nation is in his serious demeanor was far more appropriate and relatable than Hillary’s demented smiling, which reminds me of one last point on Trump with respect to the question of temperament.  Clearly he had rehearsed an answer in the event that the issue of temperament came up, but by throwing it out seemingly out of the blue the words “he doth protest too much” sprung to my mind.  Ironically I agree with him that he has the better temperament of the two, but his incoherent reference to Hillary’s shrill labor union video didn’t convey that.  Perhaps he should have said, “With me, what you see is what you get.  I’m genuine.  With Hillary, the laughing and forced smiling you see on the stage tonight are just a façade that hide the real Hillary Clinton, as has been written about in many books by people who know her well.  I implore you to educate yourself before you vote.”


I invite you to add your comments to this post at The Pesky Truth blogsite.  Thanks!

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Obama and Clinton: ‘Don’t Fear the Terrorists’

Painful as it was I watched press conferences by both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama yesterday on the recent bombings in New York and New Jersey.  This is something that I rarely do, so annoying is it to watch and listen as these committed leftists deliver their carefully crafted messages designed to manage the perceptions of the gullible.  But I felt that, as a blogger, it was sort of my civic duty.

I don’t believe either one of them mentioned the term “radical ISLAMIC terrorism,” but it’s possible that I just I missed it when my brain automatically tried to tune their voices out (it can’t be helped, sorry).  I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that I didn’t miss it.  Obama pre-scolded the press, warning them not to get ahead of the investigation and to wait for information to be selectively doled out to them.  I read that to mean that the investigation will be overseen by the feds, with Obama’s people micromanaging the distribution of information so as not to conflict with the Left’s propaganda about Islam being the religion of peace and other crapola.  In other words, he doesn’t want the press asking any annoying questions or uncovering any inconvenient facts about the people who are trying to kill us.  Then he knitted his brows together in a stern look that said, “Don’t mess with me.”  I resisted the urge to hurl tomatoes at the TV (it’s a new TV).

What really struck me about both Clinton’s and Obama’s statements today, however, was the unified message that Americans must not “give in to fear” because this is what the terrorists want (assuming they really are terrorists; maybe they were just out for a stroll one day and decided to leave a few bombs around).  I find it kind of ironic that the Left, who are always trying to stir up fear about one thing or another (racism, homophobia, “climate change,” etc.), are conveniently unified in their message on rejecting fear of terrorism (Islamic terrorism, but of course this goes unsaid by Clinton and Obama).  As I listened today I thought again how disturbingly contradictory this is to our natural instincts for self-protection.  Fear is the God-given, inner mechanism that tells all creatures to get into self-defense mode, and do the things we need to do to protect ourselves.  Why does the Left keep warning us against it?  Common sense would tell us to be reasonably guarded of all things Muslim, just as common sense makes us teach our children to be wary of strangers.  Nobody worries about hurting the stranger’s feelings.  We expect strangers to understand that the safety of the child comes first.  Similarly, we shouldn’t be made to feel guilty or bad because we listen to our instincts about protecting ourselves; but unlike the parent caring for the child, the leftists don’t care about us and our safety.  That’s critical to understand.  Being liked by Muslims, inside or outside of this country, and appearing to be superior in their acceptance of others (while they themselves are heavily guarded, of course) is what Clinton and Obama and other leftists care about.  And of course they have their political motives as well.  They don’t want voters switching sides to the candidate that appeals to their desire for security, therefore the leftists remind those voters every chance they get not to be “ruled by fear.”  In her statement Hillary Clinton was careful to add that if we should see something, we should say something.  Each of understands, however, that doing so is likely to get us branded as “racist” or “Islamophobic” by the Left if our suspicions happen to be wrong.  They’ve made sure of that.

I remember the many times when I was a girl and then a young woman that I would be walking somewhere and men that I didn’t know would pull up in their cars and offer me a ride.  With the words of my father echoing in my head (“Don’t ever accept rides from strangers”) I would always decline, even if they seemed nice and even if I was tired of walking.  Now I watch crime shows about girls and women who end up raped and/or dead after accepting rides from men they didn’t really know, and each time I’m thankful that I heeded my father’s warning.  He cared about me.  Parents who warn their children to stay away from strangers do so because they care about them.  The leftists don’t care about you.  They care about themselves.  But at least one person cares about you, and that’s you.  Listen to the voice in your head, and when it tells you to be afraid, be afraid.  Then act accordingly.



To leave a comment please see this post at The Pesky Truth.  Thanks!

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Predictable: Trump Launches Plan to Buy Votes with OUR Money

And so it begins.  Who would’ve predicted this?  Oh that’s right – we did.  And it didn’t take long.

Yesterday, Donald Trump and his daughter, Ivanka, unveiled a plan that “makes childcare more affordable.”  Definitely it will be more affordable, lucrative even, for the poor families who will receive yet more subsidies in the form of hand-outs via the tax code.  Usually this is a favorite way for Democrats to stealthily steal money from tax payers and reward their base but that sly Donald Trump is going to challenge them at their own game.  From CBS News yesterday:

“Under Trump’s proposed plan, there would also be additional tax incentives on the employer side to provide on-site child care.”


“Those who have no tax liability, who are on the low end of the income scale, would be allowed to claim an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), equivalent to half of their payroll tax contribution.”


“In addition to the child care expense deduction, Trump would also guarantee six weeks of paid maternity leave. This, the aide said, would be paid for by eliminating fraud in the unemployment insurance program, estimated to be about $3.4 billion.”


Trump would also offer dependent care savings accounts available to everybody in the U.S. Those on the lower end of the income scale, would see the government contribute $500 for every $1,000 contributed by individuals. Everybody else would be allowed to contribute up to $2,000 to this account tax-free, and this flex spending account could be rolled over each year.

I just have one question for Mr. Trump, and no, the question is not, “How are you going to pay for this?”  That’s the question liberals and faux conservatives are asking.  Instead I would ask the question that any principled conservative should ask, which is:

What gives you the right to forcibly take money from one American and give it to another American to pay for their childcare?

This is a question of rights.  The right to decide what we do with the money that we earn.  After that it’s a question of consequences.  What is the consequence for choosing to have children before you can afford them?  If Trump has his way there will be no consequence because the rest of us – even if we did things the right way and put off having our own children until we could afford it – will now be forced to subsidize irresponsible choices made by others.

What you reward, you get more of.

This kind of socialism is what you get when you nominate a “Republican” who holds no conservative principles, and YES, we told you so.

Donald Trump introduced his ingenious plan with his usual flare for words:  “It’s a big thing. Wow. I’m hearing wow. I like to hear wow. The congresswomen like to hear wow. Makes your life a lot easier, right?”

At one Trump-loving site the rationalizing has already begun:   “Honestly, who can afford childcare these days?  Something needs to be done about it.  Hell, Reagan wanted to address it back in the 80’s yet nothing was ever done about it….The kids are our future.”

It takes a village, eh?  In the words of that colorful populist, Mr. Trump……Wow.


To leave a comment please visit this post at The Pesky Truth.  Thanks!