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!

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

The Fix is in, But Hillary “O.J.” Clinton is Still Damaged Goods

On Saturday, when I heard that the FBI had questioned Hillary Clinton for only three and a half hours, I began to suspect that the fix was in.  By Sunday, when some news agencies were already reporting that there would be no charges, I felt pretty sure the fix was in – they were getting their information from somewhere.  And today, when the Director of the FBI had an announcement just three days after Clinton’s FBI interview, I knew the fix was in.  Having watched Judge Andrew Napolitano lay out the clear case against Hillary many times now, there’s no question in my mind that this was a political decision made by the powers that be.  James Comey should hang his head in shame.

Despite all that, Hillary should not rest easy.  The Left may be very good at manipulating the public, but there isn’t time before this election to erase what the public already knows.  Had she been indicted her minions would have portrayed her as a victim and rallied the troops to her defense.  Simple-minded people might have felt sorry for her.  But now everyone knows that Teflon Hillary got away with her crimes, and even some Democrats (Bernie supporters mostly) are going to have a problem with that.  As long as the Left are running things Hillary Clinton is above the law, and that’s where she feels entitled to be.  Donald Trump will rightfully have a field day – nay many field days – with that.  It plays perfectly into the Crooked Hillary theme, even better than an indictment and acquittal would, I dare say.  And now we have the FBI Director’s official proclamation that she was “careless” in the way she conducted herself as Secretary of State.  That’s a fine endorsement, eh?

Whenever our elected and appointed officials fail to do their duties to hold the corrupt accountable, it is up to the people to do so.  O.J. Simpson may have gotten away with murder, but he rightfully became a public pariah nonetheless.  Will people today have the conscience to hold Hillary accountable?  We’re about to find out.


Visit me also at the conservative blog site, The Pesky Truth.  Thanks!

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

The Trump Dilemma

There’s nothing quite so uncomfortable as seeming to be on the same side as your enemy, but thanks to Trump & Company’s hostile takeover of the Republican Party, that’s where I find myself.  True conservatives and true leftists both dislike Trump, but for very different reasons.  Those few qualities that conservatives do appreciate about Trump, such as his refusal to be cowed by political correctness, are the very same qualities that the Left most despises him for; thus every day I am torn between condemning Trump and defending him.  That’s just one of the unfortunate consequences of foisting a non-conservative “leader” onto what purports to be a conservative organization, but let’s not sell that consequence short.  There are serious dynamics at stake in the outcome of this election beyond temporary control of the nation.  If Trump loses to Hillary, what will his rejection be attributed to?  Will it be seen as a failure of Republicans to nominate a candidate that conservatives could support or will it be seen as the American public’s rejection of Trump’s brand of so-called “intolerance” and defiance against political correctness?  The latter is surely how the liberal media would portray it, because the Left understands, as the Right never has, that perception – when skillfully manipulated – far outweighs reality.  If a Trump loss is sold as the Democrats triumph over “bigotry” and anti-globalism the issues that are seen as Trump’s signature issues – illegal immigration, refugee settlement, putting America first, etc., - will become an albatross around the neck of the next Republican.  Therefore it behooves those of us who don’t support Trump, or who do so with great trepidation, to be clear and vocal about both our disagreements and our agreements with him.

My reasons for rejecting Trump in the primary and refusing to commit to voting for him in the general election have been out there for some time but I’ll list them again for the benefit of any new readers.  Donald Trump is not a conservative, either by word or by the history of his deeds.  A tough stance against illegal immigration, as welcomed as it is, does not a conservative make.  The sound of someone being politically incorrect can be intoxicating, but if you sober up long enough to actually listen to Trump’s words and read between the lines you’ll see that he’s a proponent of big-government with no understanding of the basic, conservative principles upon which this nation is founded.  That is the person who will, by default, be the “conservative” alternative versus Hillary Clinton in this race.  His failures and infamous foibles, therefore, will taint conservatism long after he’s gone.  That, in as small a nutshell as I can make, is why am considering sitting out the presidential ballot this time around.

But despite my dislike of Trump as the Republican nominee, I will not conspire with the Left, through silence or otherwise, to politically crucify those who dare to challenge the Left’s insistence on censoring the truth.  I know there is great irony in the often truth-challenged Donald Trump being the champion of political incorrectness a.k.a. speaking the truth, but there it is.  The mental disease of liberalism excepted, illegal immigration is this nation’s greatest unacknowledged threat.  Trump, to his credit, has done what too many Republicans failed to do, and woken a country that was largely asleep with its collective head up its…..….well, you know.  And he deserves credit for not cowing to political correctness when it comes to Muslim immigration and terrorism.  Though I don’t necessarily agree with his specific proposals for addressing these problems, I will strongly defend his right and his rightness for raising them without apology.

This election, more than any I can remember, has become a referendum on free speech. But it’s also a referendum on conservatism.  Somehow we have to find a way to preserve both. 


Please visit me at The Pesky Truth blogsite, where this and other conservative posts can be viewed.  Thanks!

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Democracy, the GOP and Unity

The official origin of the Republican Party dates back to 1856 when about ten thousand Americans joined forces to form a party dedicated to stopping the spread of and tolerance for slavery in the United States.  One of its founders, Horace Greeley, described the movement as, “…those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery."  The group named itself after Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party and adopted a platform ostensibly dedicated to restoring the principles embraced by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.  You can read about the history in more detail here:

Oh how I envy the people who get to be part of the birth of a political party!  That may be the one and only time that it actually stands for something.  Fast forward 162 years later and it seems the Party now stands for nothing.  “Republican” is what you are if you’re not a Democrat, and vice versa.  That’s about all.  Listen closely to the incredibly revealing words of presidential candidate John Kasich at a recent campaign event:  

The Republican party is my vehicle and not my master,” said Kasich. 

The Republican Party is his “vehicle?”  I take that to mean Kasich sees the Party as a tool to be used to get HIM where HE wants to be – and nothing more.  Maybe I’m na├»ve but isn’t it supposed to be the other way around?  Isn’t the candidate supposed to be the vehicle that takes the Party where IT wants to be?  And Kasich’s not alone.  It’s clear that Donald Trump sees the Republican Party in exactly the same way.  For all his complaining he chose to run as a Republican rather than as an Independent only because he wanted to use what the Party has built – the name brand, the infrastructure, the donors and the voter base – as his vehicle to the White House.  And by allowing this the Republican Party has taken another giant step towards the state of having no real mission.  It’s just a vehicle to be used by anyone whether they intend to uphold the Party platform or not.

And now we have cries for “democracy” coming from none other than the indignant usurper, Donald Trump, who doesn’t like that there is resistance to his commandeering of the vehicle.  I might sympathize with him and his supporters if it weren’t for the simple fact that democracy isn’t necessarily consistent with a Party that ostensibly has a purpose and a platform.  The founders of the Republican Party in 1856 wouldn’t have stood for a pro-slavery candidate, or a candidate who proposed “broadening the base” to include pro-slavery members, just for the sake of “democracy,”  as that would have defeated the reason for the Party to exist in the first place.  There is a time and place for democracy and within the GOP that time and place should be after the candidates have committed to upholding the platform, not before. 

Celebrity pundits, political bloggers and other Trump supporters are calling on Republicans to get behind Trump for the sake of unity, but as a supporter of the one conservative in this race I am offended by the type of unity they apparently value.  To such people I would say this:  You are asking us to unite behind a man.  We are asking you to unite behind a set of principles. 


Please visit the blog site Pesky Truth to see and discuss this post and others.  Thanks! 


Monday, February 15, 2016

Obama and His Minions Scheme to Replace Scalia

With the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia being just hours old the busy little bees in the Obama administration are excitedly working behind the scenes on their strategy to make the most of what they surely consider a wonderful gift.  As with every single thing Obama does, there will be a Machiavellian calculation of exactly how far left they can push us without arousing concern or pushback from their core constituency (a.k.a. The Sheep), and how to get the RINOs in congress (a.k.a. The Useful Idiots) to help them.  It will be decided that Obama & Company MUST get to select Scalia’s replacement at all costs, because anyone they nominate will be to the Left of a Republican president’s nominee and therefore will be a long-term win for their side.  Obama will suddenly discover that he has a moral imperative to fulfill his duty under the Constitution (Shhh!  Never mind that he has spent his entire presidency in court fighting the Constitution).  Now the messaging.  Hmmmm.  Think think think think.  Here it is:  They’ll talk about compromise!  “Look how reasonable we are being!” they will cry.  Why, Obama could have pushed for a progressive (a.k.a. leftwing activist who despises the Constitution) but out of concern for the nation and the crisis that we’re in (that’s right, it’s a crisis!), he will be the bigger man and put his own preferences aside to nominate a moderate or centrist for the sake of the country.  The world will marvel at how reasonable and humble he is.  If only those dirty rightwingers (a.k.a. constitutional conservatives) would stop being so stubborn (and racist).  As a matter of fact, it will occur to Obama & Company, as they act out the entire scheme in their devious little heads (buzzzzz), that the nominee MUST be black.  This will not only delight our Racist in Chief and reaffirm the loyalty of the black community to the Democrat Party, but it will also allow Obama & Company to make accusations of racism should Republicans locate their spines and attempt to fight the nomination.  Perfect!

As for enlisting the help of The Useful Idiots, that shouldn’t be too hard.  They view compromise as the next best thing to sainthood and nothing is scarier to them than being called racists.  The Usual Suspects (a.k.a traitors) like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski and others can probably be tempted to step in and save the day for the sake of all-important compromise in return for some media fawning and a nice lunch at the Whitehouse.

Wait for it……!


Please read this and other posts at the site 'Nox & Friends.  Thanks!