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.

Friday, April 21, 2017

Today’s Lesson from the Huffington Post and Politico

Apparently it comes as shocking news to the Left to be told that they don’t have the right to “protest” (defined by the Left as loudly interrupting someone else’s right to free speech) at private rallies organized for the purpose of allowing a speaker to express his opinions for those who wish to hear it.  Interfering with the rights of others to express or hear certain views is something the bullies on the Left believe is just one of their many, many entitlements.  The headline, originated at Politico and then covered on today’s front page at Huffpo, was as follows:

“Trump lawyer: ‘No right’ to protest at rallies”

If you know anything about leftwing journalism you might have guessed that this headline is just a bit off the mark.  The true essence of what Trump’s lawyers are arguing, if we’re to sum it up in one line, is that there’s no constitutionally protected right to disrupt a privately sponsored event.  But the truth never serves to advance the Left’s agenda and the sheep, after all, must be kept with the herd, so……   

Here’s the story.  Trump is being sued by a group of protesters who disrupted his private rally in Louisville, Kentucky during his presidential campaign.  They claim they were roughed up when they were forcibly removed from the venue by Trump supporters following Trump’s call to ““get 'em out of here!”  Thus their boo-boos are Trump’s fault, according to the suit, even though Trump immediately followed his instruction by saying, “Don’t hurt ‘em.”  Trump’s lawyers have responded by asserting that Trump has the First Amendment right to speak at his own rally and has no obligation to allow dissenters to have a voice in the assembly.  Furthermore, they contend, Trump was within his rights to call for the removal of the protestors and his simple instruction was not an inducement to violence, particularly since he expressly requested that they not be hurt. (and need I point out that if the disrupters had left voluntarily there would have been no need for violence?).

Makes sense to me!  The leftists want the sheep to see this as evidence that Trump and his supporters suppress free speech (fascists!), but a rational person looking at the facts would see that in reality it’s the other way around.  No one is preventing people from peacefully protesting in a public place or even in a private forum where they have permission to be.  The Trump campaign presumably paid for the use of the venue to hold their rally, which means they’re entitled to call the shots.  Nothing prevents the protestors from securing their own venue if they sincerely want to engage in freedom of expression; but of course sincerity is not a quality valued by the Left.  What they really want is to prevent Donald Trump from being heard and to force their own expressions upon Trump’s audience.  That’s how “free speech” works in the leftist world, because the true free exchange of information is the Left’s worst enemy.  And they call us the fascists.  Take a quick look at the comments at the conclusion of Huffpo’s article if you doubt my characterization of the mentality we’re dealing with. 

By the way, here is exactly what it says in Trump’s motion:

“Of course, protestors have their own First Amendment right to express dissenting views,
but they have no right to do so as part of the campaign rally of the political candidates they oppose.
Indeed, forcing the “private organizers” of a political rally to accept everyone “who wish[es] to
join in with some expressive demonstration of their own” would “violate[] the fundamental rule
of protection under the First Amendment, that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content
of his own message.”

Oh the horror and indignation!  Next thing you know they’ll be telling the leftists they can’t burn cars or destroy other people’s property.  It’s fascism!  It’s blasphemy!  Can it be that the rest of the country still doesn’t understand that only leftists have rights, and the rules don’t apply to them?  Oh the frustration!

I don’t suppose there’s any point to mentioning the hecklers who were ejected from Hillary Clinton’s speech, or from Bill Clinton’s speech in 2008, or from Barack Obama’s speech in 2015 (all leftwingers, by the way), or asking Huffpo commenters if Obama and the Clintons are “fascists” for having the disrupters removed?  Nah, there’s no point.

The Left’s guerilla war is being waged in our courts, where they hope to be aided and abetted by officials who, ironically, are paid by the very people they are encouraged to betray.  Irony is never in short supply these days.  Quite honestly I couldn’t care less if the “protestors” were injured while being evicted from the rally they were trying to disrupt.  When you’re hurt or your rights are violated while you’re attempting to violate the rights of someone else, you’re not entitled to sympathy or recompense in my book.  Justice has already been served. 

That’s what I learned at the Huffington Post (and Politico) today, where it’s always an enlightening place to visit. 


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

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Trump and the Tax Return Demand

So Democrats want to see Donald Trump’s tax returns?  Here’s my question for Democrats:

How does it feel to want?

Because I suspect you’re about to find out.

I would like to make a formal motion that henceforth Republicans learn to flat out reject the demands of the insincere and untrustworthy (i.e. Democrats).  There is never anything to gain from trying to appease these people and there is always something to lose, which is precisely the reason for their demands.  I only wish that instead of resorting to his usual strategy – i.e. lying and obfuscating – Trump would live up to his non-PC reputation and simply declare that his tax returns are private and will remain so.  Next question?

For any liberals out there who want to feign moral indignation over Trump’s refusal to share his tax returns, my response to you is:   LOL.

LOL because you didn’t care about the thousands of emails deleted by Hillary Clinton when she was ostensibly working for us as Secretary of State.

LOL because you shrugged and said “Whatever!” when we learned that Bill Clinton had a clandestine audience with Loretta Lynch while his wife was the subject of a high profile investigation by the Justice Department.

LOL because you chuckled when the genius Barack Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney for his concerns over Russia, then kept your big mouths shut when it turned out Romney was right (as did Obama, not surprisingly).

LOL because you said nothing when Obama was caught surreptitiously whispering to Dmitry Medvedev to tell Vladimir Putin he would have “more flexibility” after his election, and now you want us to believe that you are sincerely concerned about Russian influence.

LOL because you forced a radical, leftwing, lawless president on us and the rise of Donald Trump is the consequence of that.

 You want his tax returns?  Tough luck.  How does it feel to want?


To leave a comment please visit this post at The Pesky Truth.  I cannot respond to comments on Blogger.

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Don’t Call Them “Undocumented”

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

― George Orwell, 1984

I’ve lost count of the times, throughout my life, when I’ve turned on the news or opened a newspaper and discovered that a common word or name has been surreptitiously replaced with a new word or name seemingly overnight.  It always reminds me of the infamous scene in Orwell’s Animal Farm where the pigs clandestinely altered the Seven Commandments in the middle of the night.  The new word or name unvaryingly advances some facet of the leftwing agenda, and while it’s no surprise that those who relate ideologically with communism would use tools of propaganda to alter the status quo to better suit their goals, I am always left shaking my head when others go along with the scheme and start parroting the new terms as well.  Take a listen to this Fox News report in which reporter Steve Harrigan refers to illegals as “undocumented migrants:” 


So now “undocumented migrants” is how we refer to illegal aliens in the news? 

Would someone please tell me what’s wrong with the term “illegal alien,” other than that it suggests certain truths that are inconvenient to the Left’s agenda?  “It’s a pejorative,” the Left informs us.  Hmmm.  That’s like saying we shouldn’t use the word “rapist” to describe a rapist because it’s a pejorative.  News flash to leftists:  It is the underlying behavior, not the word, that makes it a pejorative, so rather than we all start using different words for this behavior my solution for those who take offense at the term “illegal alien” is to stop engaging in such behavior.   Wouldn’t that be a much simpler way of resolving this whole “pejorative” problem? 

Understand this, folks:  people don’t just wake up one day and start renaming common terms for no reason.  Everything we do has a purpose, and there is a very pointed political calculation behind every single language alteration schemed on us by the Left.  Calling those who are here illegally the more innocuous sounding “undocumented” is for the calculated purpose of softening us to people’s crimes and diminishing our instincts to protect ourselves.  It’s propaganda, and it serves somebody but that somebody isn’t us.  Leftists are never looking out for you.  It is always about acquiring more power for themselves.

Before I settled on the George Orwell quote to introduce this essay I considered a couple of other options, including the following:

"For me, words are a form of action, capable of influencing change"

This is a quote from the book, “Combat in the Erogenous Zone,” which was written by Ingrid Bengis.  Bengis is a writer best known for the aforementioned book, but what struck me in her bio, and what makes her quote worth mentioning, is that it just so happens to have been borrowed by none other than our former dear leader, Barack Obama, who quoted Bengis in one of his 2008 campaign speeches. I could not have asked for better evidence that the Left’s elites are keenly aware of the power of language and how to use it as a weapon in their war against America as we know it.  Thanks to the Left’s takeover of the education system in this nation, we know how to read but we don’t know how to read between the lines.   That’s what makes propaganda so effective.  We need to continually fight for our language and resist the Left’s efforts to obscure truth. 

They’re illegal, not undocumented.


Want to share your thoughts?  To leave a comment on this post please visit The Pesky Truth.  For some reason I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.