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!

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

The Dummy, Colin Kaepernick

Like a lot of people these days, Colin Kaepernick does not discriminate.   He does not discriminate between the actions of individuals versus the policies of a state, nor does he discriminate between what’s fact and what’s fiction.  That’s nothing to be proud of.  Far from being special, he is part of a growing and dangerous epidemic of easily brainwashed people who have traded their minds and their maturity for the short-term thrill of basking in faux heroism.  This is the garbage that liberalism has wrought.

Thanks to liberals and their lock-grip over education and the media in this country, Colin Kaepernick, at 28 years old, is pathetically incapable of distinguishing between the actions of a few bad apple police officers and a nation that is a completely separate entity.  Kaepernick could do a great deal, given his wealth and high profile, to help change the dialogue and encourage black men to achieve respect through accomplishment rather than violent protests, but he chooses instead to take the easy, selfish route in which he ignores the self-destructiveness of the black community while wrongly blaming every other American for their failures.  That’s the liberal way but, hey, Kaepernick likes the attention.

Speaking of those who love attention, the other day I read a news story about Beyonce’s performance in some music awards show.  Apparently she showed up with the mothers of Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin and others, then did her act which included songs about black oppression.  The only thing missing, I presume, was the banner reading, “Look How Saintly and Awesome I Am!”  But it was the next story I read that day that really got to me.  It was the story of a 17-year old (white) girl who, according to the FBI, was kidnapped by a black teenager and taken to a “stash house” where she was gang raped, murdered and tossed in an alligator pit.  According to a witness, the kidnapper/rapist’s father was present at the house during the crime.  It doesn’t get much more barbaric than that, does it?  The people who would do such things are sub-human in my humble opinion.  What’s worse is that such stories aren’t all that uncommon.  For every black “victim” rightly or wrongly martyred by the Black Lives Matter people I can name a hundred or more real victims, black and white, of senseless black violence.   Even so, as a mature, thoughtful and discriminating woman I don’t indict all black men for their crimes.  That would be wrong; therefore my conscience would not allow it.  The same holds true for this country as a nation.  Even though blacks murder at a rate seven or eight times higher than whites we still have the conscience and the will, as a nation, to refrain from indicting an entire group for the crimes of a few.  That, I guess, is the difference between us and self-styled ‘heroes” like Colin Kaepernick and Beyonce.


To comment please follow this post at The Pesky Truth.  Thanks!

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Lochte’s Out, but Hillary’s Up. Make Sense to You?

Curioser and curioser.  That’s how I would describe the state of our national principles and priorities.  People are up in arms about Ryan Lochte’s lies, and that’s fine.  Lies hurt people and they ought to have consequences.  But where is the commensurate disgust and outrage with one of this country’s most infamous and far more dangerous liars, Hillary Clinton?  Depending on which poll you see some 65-80% of voters distrust her and understand that she’s dishonest, yet she basks in cheers and applause while poor little Ryan Lochte is taking a huge loss in endorsements.  Remember the big headlines over “inflate-gate?”  Any outrage over Clinton’s web of corruption pales in comparison.  It’s a sad world when people care more about ethics in sports  than for presidential candidates, but I guess if the Clintons and Democrats have taught us anything it’s how to be, um, flexible with our standards.  “Flexible” might be too soft a word, actually.  Schizophrenic is more like it.

On an interesting and related note, Fox News has noted how the leftwing media is doing its best to tie Lochte to Donald Trump.  Although there seems to be no evidence that Lochte supports Trump (he was for Obama last time around, according to the piece, which explains his casual relationship with the truth), the MSM apparently believes that tying a known liar to Trump will taint Trump.  Once again I’m left scratching my head.  If Lochte’s lies taint Trump, why don’t Clinton’s own lies taint her in the minds of the MSM?  It makes little sense…..unless you understand who the MSM really are, as we do here.  When they say they’re here to “make a difference,” it’s not the kind of difference you might think.

Regular readers here understand that I’m no Trump fan, in part because he too plays fast and loose with the truth when it suits him.  But Trump’s no Hillary.  She’s in a class all her own.


Also posted at the site, The Pesky Truth.  Please leave a comment there.  Blogger is annoying - I can't comment at my own site anymore!

Friday, July 15, 2016

Obama Imitates Art

I can remember watching soap operas back in college.  Every show had its resident villain, an evil character who was always scheming and up to no good but who had just about everyone fooled with his or her lies and phony charm.  We at home would shake our heads at our TV sets as we watched them carry out their wicked plans, impatiently waiting for the other characters on the show to finally catch on so we could have that wonderfully satisfying moment of seeing them exposed at last.

I feel exactly the same way about Barack Obama.  For eight long years I’ve watched this evil man as he’s lied and schemed his way through the highest office in the land.  I’ve waited impatiently for Americans to wake up and see through the phoniness and dishonesty that’s so clearly transparent to so many of us, but it never happens, and in all likelihood it never will because in real life, just like in the soaps, some people see only what they want to see.  Others, sadly, are just as corrupt as Obama is.  Those are the character flaws that separate Left from Right.

Of the many things about which Obama has lied and schemed, perhaps nothing has made me more anxious for America’s wake-up moment than his barely disguised, purposeful agitations on race.  The Trouble-Maker-In-Chief uses his unique access to the national stage to draw the nation’s attention to selected local events in ways that he knows will unduly incite the black community and nourish the seeds of victimhood sown decades ago by a prior generation of leftists.  In contrast to better presidents who’ve been careful in these situations not to abuse their power and taint the process of justice, Obama often plods forth in a shameful, juvenile rush to judgment.  He can’t help himself.  He’s a leftist, and causing trouble is what leftists like to do.  Thousands of other Americans have been victims of crimes committed by blacks during the Obama presidency.  Does he take the time to opine on any of those?  No. Focusing on the epidemic of black violence in our cities wouldn’t serve his purposes and is therefore not worthy of Obama’s time or political capital regardless of how many lives – black or white – might be saved.  That strain of cold-heartedness would be worthy of the most calculating TV villain, and it shouldn’t take a genius to see it, yet time and again I’ve listened with amazement as pundits and “journalists” (are there any real journalists anymore?) defend or even applaud Obama’s rhetoric on racially charged events as if his intentions were good.  What does it take for these mindless chair-warmers to recognize deviousness?  The mind-dulling influence of liberalism, it seems, has turned too many people into children without the desire or capacity to identify evil when it’s right in front of their eyes.

Polls tell us that racial divisions have worsened considerably since Obama took office.  No kidding.  Those of us who aren’t part of the script can plainly see this for ourselves, and we can see who’s responsible for it, thus we are not fooled when Obama now reassures us, in his most patronizing performance, that we are not as divided as we seem.  Barack Obama is like a daddy who sexually assaults his child and then wants to sing her to sleep, and his devoted Democrat followers are the enabling mothers who look the other way because they don’t want to upset their lifestyles.

And me?  I just desperately want to change the channel.


Also posted at The Pesky Truth.  Come on by!

Friday, July 8, 2016

Democrats Redefine “Partisan”

Partisan:  a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially :  one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
~Merriam-Webster Dictionary (emphasis in bold is mine)

Facts are stubborn things.  That’s why when facts become a problem, Democrats simply redefine the language and voila!  No more problem. Not for them at least, but as is always the case, dishonesty has a way of harming the innocent.
We are a country that’s become destructively divided thanks to liberalism, yet just about the only time you’ll hear the word “partisan” uttered from the lips of a Democrat is when another Democrat is in trouble, and then you’ll hear it a lot.  It came up many times in yesterday’s hearing when FBI Director James Comey testified about his decision not to recommend filing charges against Hillary Clinton despite clear evidence that she broke that law and placed our national security at risk, and did so intentionally.  After watching this and other hearings where Democrat misbehavior is the subject, anyone unfamiliar with our language might have concluded that “partisanship” is what happens when Republicans hold a Democrat accountable to the law and/or to the public.  So in order to help anyone who’s confused about what partisanship really is, let’s review what happened and have a little quiz.
A U.S. Secretary of State intentionally ignored the established rules and guidelines with respect to communication procedures, and as a result placed potentially sensitive government (i.e. belonging to The People) information at risk.  This official then proceeded to have her lawyers (who have no security clearances) go through her emails and decide which ones to keep and which to destroy, and we learned that many of those destroyed concerned the government’s business (so much for Freedom of Information, eh?).  The official is investigated by the FBI, after which the FBI Director holds a press conference where he confirms that all of this wrong-doing took place but then concludes that no charges should be filed.  Oh yes, and that official is running for election to be this country’s next president.  Now let’s consider the different reactions to these events.  We have one group that’s rightfully disturbed and insists on holding public hearings to investigate, ask questions and – yes - condemn the misdeeds of this official.  We have another group that defends the official in spite of her misdeeds and instead attacks the other group.  Here's your quiz:  
Which one is “…exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance?” 
This blind allegiance is a pattern with Democrats that we see again and again, hence the reason we so often hear the phrase “circle the wagons” used to describe the actions of Democrats whenever a fellow Democrat comes under fire.  That doesn’t mean Republicans never engage in partisanship, but how are people supposed to know when real partisanship occurs after they’ve been brainwashed to believe that seeking the truth and holding people to account for misbehavior is what is meant by “partisan?”  And to make matters worse, the news agencies are all too eager to go along with this dangerous ruse.  Like too many others they have no appreciation for the harmful game they’re playing along with.
Why should it matter so much when a word here or there gets abused?  Language, to a society, is like the unseen nuts and bolts that hold a space shuttle together.  Those nuts and bolts are underappreciated until enough of them fail to cause a disaster.  Likewise, language is a critical tool for preserving our liberty, and when we allow it to be destroyed one word at a time just for the benefit of one group’s self-serving pursuits we lose some of that precious liberty. 
Those who won’t stand up for liberty deserve to lose it. Don't acquiesce to the Left's corruption of our language. 
Also posted at The Pesky Truth.  Please visit!