Wednesday, October 10, 2018

So What’s Wrong with Socialism?






"We have to say yes to socialism — to the word and everything.  We have to stop apologizing.”
~ Jim Carrey, on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher”

“Medicare for all, ending student debt, ….it seems like if there is maybe a shining spot in this Trump tragedy, it’s that it’s made the Democrats sort of rediscover who they are.”
 ~Bill Maher

The appetite for socialism is on the rise again in America.  “Democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders, once considered a marginalized, fringe player in U.S. politics, is now respected and revered by many inside one of this nation’s two major political parties.  Other “democratic socialists” like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are becoming rising stars in the Democrat Party as well.  When I read the comments following articles on Fox News about Ocasio-Cortez or on the subject of socialism in general, those in favor of socialism (a minority of readers at Fox, to be sure) typically answer the critics by pointing to the nation’s military or local police or fire fighters as positive examples of “socialism,” or they’ll talk about Social Security or Medicare or public schools.   With such a narrowly selective view of what it means to embrace socialism it’s no wonder people – particularly the young – are mystified by the critics.  So it’s time - yet again - to get some clarity on what socialism actually is and what’s wrong with it.

Socialism, per Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, is defined as follows: 
“Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
Let me repeat:  “…governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” 

That goes a tad bit beyond military, police and fire protection, or even Social Security, wouldn’t you say?  I’d like to point out the irony of this nation’s Left, so often critical of our military and police, using these services as their shining examples of socialism.  Now, I know that “democratic socialists” like Bernie Sanders attempt to distinguish socialism from “democratic socialism” by supposedly drawing the line at having government take physical control of the means of production; but when their plan is to tax the pants off of the producers to finance their socialist agenda, they are – for all practical purposes – making government the de facto owner of the means of production, correct?  Still, socialism apologists will read this with wide eyes and ask, “Gee, what’s wrong with that?  What’s wrong with sharing the wealth and making things more equal for everyone? What’s wrong with ‘social safety nets’ like Social Security and Medicare?”

This is where, as a critic, I’m supposed to point to the predictable human tragedy unfolding in Venezuela, where socialism was working just great until it wasn’t and now people are struggling just to survive.  Or I’m supposed to point to America’s national debt, now $22 TRILLION and rapidly climbing, and the prospect of an unimaginable catastrophe of our own when the bill for our “social safety nets” finally comes due (don’t worry, it’ll probably only happen to your children).  Or I’m supposed to give you a crash course in simple economics or human nature in the hopes that people will finally get it.  Or maybe I should talk about the dismal state of our public schools and how the Left has used the socialist nature of our education system to take almost complete control of it.  Sorry to disappoint you but I’m not here to argue the obvious flaws of socialism.  There’s no point in bothering the socialists with the realities of economics or human nature.  They just cover their eyes and refuse to see it.   

What’s wrong with socialism, “democratic” or otherwise, is that it is a complete contradiction to the notion of individual freedom that this nation was founded upon and that is supposed to be protected by our Constitution.  Maybe, just maybe, that’s why the Kavanaugh fight was so bitterly fought by the Democrats. 

Go back and read Merriam-Webster’s definition of “socialism,” or research the rhetoric from people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and take note that the word “voluntary” is conspicuously missing from that definition and from the Left’s passionate speeches.  That’s why “socialism” is a dirty word to those who read between the lines and truly comprehend the implications of it.  Socialism – democratic or otherwise – is forced wealth transfer, also known as “theft.”   When Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez excite their cheering crowds with their schemes for imposing socialism on this nation, people are actually cheering at the prospect of being able to legally steal from their fellow citizens.  Nice, eh?  To make it more palatable and side-step the sound logic against it the Left cunningly inserted the word “democratic” in front of “socialism” because changing the names of things that we rightfully associate with evil is what they always do.  “Democracy” - and the notion of voting – attaches positive feelings to something that amounts to the proverbial “two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner,” as so brilliantly put by the eternally wise Benjamin Franklin.  Unfortunately community organizers like Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are trying to supplant their own version of wisdom for that of Benjamin Franklin’s and all of the Founders who sought to preserve individual liberty.

There are times when it makes sense for us to do things as a unit, the military being the prime example which is why it is expressly provided for in the Constitution.  If and when our nation comes under attack or needs to assert itself militarily, what moron would argue that this can be done on an individual level?  But what excuse, other than wanting someone else to pay your bills, is there for socializing healthcare, retirement or a college education?  All of these things are attainable on an individual level as evidenced by the fact that people have been doing so for centuries.  There is no practical imperative that justifies depriving citizens of their freedom for such things.

The biggest rub of all when it comes to the Left’s attempts to turn us into a might-makes-right socialist nation is that they could have as much voluntary socialism as they want.  Nothing is stopping Bernie Sanders and his followers from pooling their resources for healthcare, retirement and higher education or anything else they want to socialize on their own.  They don’t need to persuade us to exercise that kind of freedom.  They could start tomorrow if they wanted to.  The problem is, they want our money and they want the power to control these things for everyone, as they do with public education; consequently our freedom to say “NO” is very annoying to them. 

Margret Thatcher’s famous quote, “Socialism is fine until you run out of other people’s money,” is often invoked as the simplest explanation for what’s wrong with socialism, but it is perhaps a bit too simple as it doesn’t fully capture her feelings towards socialism as well as this quote from Stephen Pollard for his  book review of Claire Berlinski’s “There Is No Alternative’: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters,” in which he wrote: 

“[Berlinski} is quite right, for example, to stress that Thatcher's crusade against socialism was not merely about economic efficiency and prosperity but that above all, ‘it was that socialism itself—in all its incarnations, wherever and however it was applied—was morally corrupting.’"

“Morally corrupting.”  Yep, I think that says it well. 

As for Jim Carrey and his call for us to “say yes to socialism,” this is precisely what we might expect from someone who makes his living talking out of his ass.
 
Just say NO to socialism.

~CW

To leave a comment please go The Pesky Truth where this essay is reposted.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.

Saturday, October 6, 2018

Why Should Women be More Liberal Than Men?





http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/28/a-closer-look-at-the-gender-gap-in-presidential-voting/

Whenever I hear stats that show women are more liberal than men, I am ashamed for my own gender which, for those who don’t know me, is female.  After nearly a century of fighting for the right to be seen as equals to men, too many of us have traded subjugation in the home and the work place for subjugation of our minds and souls to a political Party whose only objective is to grow their own power.  It is the worst of ironies to see women work so hard for a seat at the table in America’s boardrooms and government only to foolishly vote away their own liberty and autonomy at the ballot box.

The Democrat Party has turned women into children, or at least it’s trying to.  Democrats seduce women with promises of securing special treatment and insulating them from the consequences of their own life choices (by abortion on demand, for instance), but the price is steep.  The government handouts and freedom to be irresponsible are crumbs – to borrow a word from the inane Nancy Pelosi – compared to what is lost.  Yes, you might get more family leave – at the expense of others - or preference over men in occupations that are male-dominated so your company can meet some arbitrary quota forced upon them by your government, or birth control subsidized by your fellow citizens; but you sacrifice the character of your country in the process.  Justice is supposed to be blind, not weighted in favor of one race or gender over another.  Speech is supposed to be free, not denied to those with whom we disagree.  Slavery is something that we are supposed to reject, not suborn through targeted taxation.  And with each passing day it gets worse.  Are women so childishly shortsighted and selfish now that they will throw away the ingenious protections passed on to us all in our Constitution – at great sacrifice by our forefathers – for the scraps promised by the Democrat Party if you just help them secure the power they want?  It’s demoralizing to think that this is the case, but the reality speaks for itself.

I suspect that any liberal women who have the balls to read this post (hey – you wanted to be treated like men!) will scoff and sneer that what they’ve gotten in exchange for selling us out to the Democrat Party has been worth the while because it couldn’t otherwise be attained.  My response to that is:  Really???  You can’t compete with men based upon your own skills and intelligence?  You – strong, independent woman - can’t find a way to afford your own birth control, and you’re unwilling to personally sacrifice for the sake of raising your own family?  Is this what you want us all to believe?  If so, that’s truly pathetic.



I’d like to remind liberal women that George Soros is a male (only in a technical sense, of course).  So is Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Tom Perez, Keith Ellison and the majority of Democrats in congress.  They’ve used you to secure their own power, and Hillary Clinton tried to do so as well.  You are a pawn in the Democrat’s game of chess, when you could instead be the master of your own game if only you would find the self-discipline and character to resist the temptation to get what you can at others’ expense. 

Am I being too hard on liberal women? Is it possible they actually believe the Democrat Party has the pure-of-heart agenda they purport to have?  To believe that is to willfully disregard the evidence.  The party for “the environment” flies hither and thither in their corporate jets to their multiple homes and Martha’s Vineyard vacations, showing their true colors when it comes to environmental concern.  The party for “racial equality” now talks disdainfully about “old, white men,” hobnobs unapologetically with anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan and cheers on groups like Black Lives Matter.  The party for “women’s rights” and #MeToo partied hardy with Harvey Weinstein, tried to elect for POTUS the loyal wife of a man with serious sex-related charges against him from multiple women, and leaked Christine Ford’s letter to the media with zero regard for how it would affect her.  That’s the reality of the Democrat Party.  That’s who they are, and if you can’t see it it’s because you are choosing not to. 

None of this is to say Republicans are perfect.  Far from it, usually.  But the critical ideals that this country was built upon – individual liberty, equal justice for all, the rule of law, free market capitalism, states’ rights, American sovereignty and autonomy – these are what must be sacrificed in order for the Democrat Party to thrive.  Are we to believe that men value these gifts more than we do?   If that’s the case then the “progressive” movement has failed women, because we’ve gone backwards.

~CW


To comment on this post please visit The Pesky Truth where it is reposted.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.

Thursday, September 6, 2018

The Left’s Message to America: We Reject Democracy






Democracy:  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

For as long as I can remember now the Left in this country has continually lowered the bar when it comes to standards of behavior, political discourse and political gamesmanship. From Ted Kennedy’s lying tirade against the superbly qualified Robert Bork…to Democrats’ partisan defense of Bill Clinton’s predatory ways against women…to Al Gore’s hissy-fit legal battle over his legitimate loss in the 2000 presidential election…to the first era of Derangement Syndrome (i.e. the complete absence of reason, fairness and objectivity) targeted at George W. Bush…to the “pen and phone” presidency of Barack Obama under which the Deep State grew and flourished and Democrats became at ease with being lied to by their government (remember their outrage over the Jonathan Gruber/Obamacare revelations?  Yeah, me neither)…to Harry Reid’s invoking of the “nuclear option”…to today’s Trump Derangement Syndrome which dwarfs BDS by perhaps a factor of ten, Democrats just keep lowering that bar.  And each lowering brings a rash of angry editorials, furious blog posts, radio diatribes and pseudo debates between TV talking heads as conservatives rightly denounce the Left’s actions but rarely – unless I’ve missed it – do they take the argument to its obvious conclusion, which is as follows:

The American Left rejects democracy and the concept of shared government by The People – All of the people

That reality is a critical point for everyone to understand because we live under the best system of government in the world designed by some of the brightest, wisest Americans who ever lived.  Actions speak louder than words, and by their actions the Left’s rejection of that system has been clearly  communicated again and again.  Consider all that we’ve witnessed in recent years:

Ongoing and increasingly vicious attacks on the free speech rights of conservatives;

The deliberate politicization of our judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, and disintegration of order and respect in the confirmation process when nominees are deemed to be a conservative;

The rise of groups such as Occupy Wallstreet and Antifa who anoint themselves as the arbiters of other peoples’ rights and who justify their lawless ways with made-up claims of fighting “fascism,” which they – not the dictionary - define;

The rise of the Black Lives Matter movement fueling anti-police sentiment and racial unrest;

The increased acceptance of legalized theft under the guise of “democratic socialism;”

Nefarious Deep State plots and desperate, mob-style vilification to undermine – and perhaps even remove - a legally elected POTUS;

The proudly touted “resistance” movement, embraced by leaders of the Left including Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, in response to a legitimately elected administration enacting a constitutional agenda; 

And last but not least, the lies, lies, lies, lies. 


The American Left has rejected democracy in every conceivable way except by formal declaration. Honesty is not their style.  These are, after all, not the sort of brave and principled people as those who formally declared their intention to separate from Mother England and were willing to fight and die for the rights they believed to be theirs back in 1776.  Instead, the American Left feigns allegiance to the Constitution and to our non-violent system of government crafted therein, all while continually engaging – once surreptitiously, now openly - in attacks meant to undermine that very Constitution and system of governance.  They are, in short, attempting a coup, and they’re only hoping we won’t notice or act until it’s too late.  Why?  Because the Left wants to enjoy the benefits and protections of our constitutional republic without all the pesky obligations that go along with it.  It is those obligations – the requirement to honor the Bill of Rights and abide by the law – the keeps the Right in check while the Left carries on with its evil intent.

And if you’re not angry yet, there’s something amiss with you.

It’s time to bring the reality of who we’re dealing with to the forefront of every debate and discussion that centers on politics, because without this understanding of what’s actually going on little else matters.  Democrats, and particularly those who hail from the far Left and self-describe as socialists or  “democratic socialists” (a term that’s meant to get past Americans’ instinctive aversion to socialism) should be asked point blank whether they stand with the Constitution as written or not and, after they lie, made to defend their actions that are contrary to their declaration.  We are in desperate need of daylight in this nation, because right now it’s so dark too many people can’t see the giant elephant that’s right there in the room.

~CW

Postscript:
Within an hour of my publishing this post we have this latest news item from Fox News:

“New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker injected chaos into Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing Thursday by releasing confidential Kavanaugh emails with the backing of fellow Democrats in possible violation of Senate rules, calling it an act of “civil disobedience” and drawing condemnation from the Republicans on the committee.”
Perfect example of what I’m talking about.  The bar is lowered yet again.  ~ CW

Care to comment?  To leave a comment please follow this link.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.  Thanks.

Tuesday, August 21, 2018

FYI: The Deep-Staters Are NOT Heroes





Liberals are getting out their checkbooks.  Even though they can’t afford to pay for their healthcare, their birth control or their own college debt, they have reached deep into their cookie jars and under their mattresses and thus far scratched together more than $440,000 to help someone in need.  Who is the beneficiary of this great humanitarian sacrifice by the nation’s Left?  The poor?  The elderly?  The sick?  No.  It’s Peter Strozk, the Trump-hating ex-FBI official who disgraced the organization and was fired for reasons that should be obvious to any person with an ounce of intellect.  Peter Strozk, apparently, is the American liberal’s idea of a noble cause.  That should put things in perspective for the rest of us. 



The story that accompanied the GoFundMe page set up for Strozk amazed me for its rose-colored view of the man who is now infamous for his unprofessional conduct as an agent of the FBI.  Below is the delusional appeal, with my own responses in bold:

Peter Strzok, a man who has spent his entire life working to help keep us and our nation safe, has been fired.  He needs your help.

Fact:  Strzok, along with James Comey, was instrumental in shielding Hillary Clinton from the legal consequences of her mishandling of classified information.  Per CNN on 12/4/17: 

“Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as ‘grossly negligent’ to ‘extremely careless,’ the sources said.” 

CNN goes on to explain: 

“The shift from ‘grossly negligent’ to ‘extremely careless,’ which may appear pedestrian at first glance, reflected a decision by the FBI that could have had potentially significant legal implications, as the federal law governing the mishandling of classified material establishes criminal penalties for ‘gross negligence.’"

Is there even one soul out there na├»ve enough to believe that Strzok’s own bias did not influence his surgical editing of Comey’s draft?  How does getting your favorite candidate off the hook for mishandling classified information “help keep us and our nation safe?” I’d honestly like to know.

For the last year, Pete, his work, and his character have been the target of highly politicized attacks, including frequent slanderous statements from President Trump, who actively—and apparently successfully—pressured FBI officials to fire Pete.

LOL.  It was the politicized nature of Peter Strzok’s own behavior in the FBI that put him in the spotlight to begin with and, as is often the case, the only reason the criticism against him appears “politicized” is because only one side cares enough about Americans getting equal treatment by the FBI to make an issue of it.  Democrats not only don’t care if agents like Strzok abuse the power entrusted to them, they reward it handsomely!  So which side is really politicizing this?

Peter Strzok is a proud husband and father, a veteran of the U.S. Army and counterintelligence Special Agent who spent more than two decades in a job he loved at the FBI.

Oh please spare me.  I can’t even imagine how ashamed his family must be after what was revealed in his text messages. 

Pete handled some of the agency’s most important cases, thwarting numerous attacks by foreign and domestic adversaries while being consistently promoted and frequently recognized for his skillful and independent work. In describing his 21 years at the FBI, The New York Times said, “He rose quickly through its ranks, earning a reputation within the bureau as one of its most savvy and reliable counterintelligence agents.zz”

I’ll see your New York Times and raise you one CNN analyst/25-year veteran of the FBI who said:

 “Strzok was the epitome of a ‘blue-flamer,’ FBI parlance for a ruthless promotion-seeker.” 

That description certainly seems more in keeping with the picture painted by Strzok’s own text messages, doesn’t it? 

But last week, in a decision apparently driven by political pressure, a senior FBI official chose to fire Pete — overruling the agency’s normal and independent process by rejecting the decision of the career professionals in the FBI’s disciplinary division. This has left him without income and facing considerable legal bills.

Again, given Stzok’s behavior and the damage he caused to the reputation of the FBI, anyone NOT inclined to fire Strzok would have to be motivated by politics, not the other way around.  It was his own bad behavior and abuse of power that “left him without income and facing considerable legal bills.”

The nation saw Pete’s true character when he voluntarily testified before Congress on July 12th, 2018. Facing an inquisition that even a Fox News anchor said “felt like a public lynching,” he expressed regret for the pain he caused his family and for the harm caused by the weaponization of his words and, as reported by The Daily Beast, “issued a ringing defense of himself and his agency.”

Strzok’s true character showed in his text messages, not in his scripted speech for congress that was probably written by his lawyers.  Furthermore, expressing regret for the “weaponization of his words” is to suggest that others are responsible for what Strzok’s done and to refuse accountability.

Following his repeated Congressional testimony and a lengthy investigation, one thing is clear: Pete’s personal views never once influenced his professional actions. As The Washington Post reported, “Republicans have not been able to produce any evidence that Strzok or anyone else took any official action that was biased, unfair or inappropriate…” The Weekly Standard, a leading conservative magazine, declared that the “overwrought tale of bias” surrounding Pete is “just sound and fury.”

It is not clear to me, whatsoever, that Strzok’s personal views didn’t influence his actions at the FBI.  By the FBI’s own admission Strzok’s favored candidate, Hillary Clinton, mishandled classified information but was cleared by the FBI.  Contrast this with the ongoing investigation of Strzok’s object of hate, Donald Trump, that began and persists despite the absence of evidence.  How does one explain this perplexing reality if not for the influence of bias inside the FBI?

The real story behind this episode was made clear in an analysis by Slate, which said that “Peter Strzok is the hero we need.” The author wrote that Pete is an “honest law enforcement officer standing up to a corrupt president. And that’s why Trump attacked him. Trump doesn’t want Americans to...see what backbone looks like. I’ll tell you what it looks like: Republicans tried to put Strzok on trial, and Strzok put Trump on trial instead.”

How cute is it that this person refers to an opinion in Slate as “an analysis,” or that they think anyone who writes for Slate could possibly be objective when it comes to Donald Trump?  To suggest that Strzok was “standing up to a corrupt president” is absurd given that (1) Trump wasn’t even president when Strzok first abused his position at the FBI to help Hillary Clinton and falsely tie Trump to Russia; and (2) no corruption has been demonstrated whatsoever, except by Strzok & Co.  How are you “heroic” when you misuse the power of your position to thwart the law and the legitimate will of the people?  To think this way is to subscribe to the Left’s golden rule:   It’s all good unless it happens to us.  Some principle to live by, eh?

Unlike those who typically become the focus of partisan investigations in Washington, Pete is not politically connected, he’s not a wealthy lobbyist and he’s not interested in using his notoriety for personal gain. Because of this, he doesn’t have deep pockets that allow him to pay for the significant legal bills he has incurred to defend himself and the FBI against these political attacks, or to easily cover the expenses incurred by his lost income.

Again I would scold the writer that good old “Pete” is only the subject of a “partisan investigation” because he acted as a partisan himself and because Democrats’ refusal to hold Strzok accountable has left the job solely to Republicans.  That’s their partisan problem, not ours.

We are asking you to support a man who has dedicated his life to defending America; to stand up for the freedoms on which this country was built and a government that truly serves the people by protecting all Americans, including dedicated government employees, from constantly being subjected to the whims and influence of politicians.

Apparently it is okay if the rest of us are subjected to the “whims and influence” of unelected FBI agents like Peter Strzok. 

Here’s my question for the writer of this appeal: 

I am an American.  How is my freedom served when someone like Strzok abuses the power entrusted in him to tilt the scales of justice for his favored candidate and to help set up road blocks against the preferred candidate of many of his fellow citizens (you know, the ones who pay his salary)?  That behavior is as unAmerican as it gets, so your attempts to paint Strzok as some kind of patriotic hero are pathetic.  Peter Strzok is a weak, self-centered man who put himself before his country and his family.

The liberal donors who have contributed to Peter Strzok could have put their money into food for hungry children, shelters for the homeless or college funds for children orphaned by the opioid epidemic.  Instead their priority was to reward a man who cast a pall on the FBI and abused the power entrusted to him by the American People.  In doing so they not only revealed to us who they really are, but they have ensured that America will continue to come under attack by the Deep State.  That may feel like a victory now, but remember:  It’s all good until it happens to you.

~CW


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

Tuesday, August 7, 2018

The Sacrifice of Donald J. Trump








Though I’m not his greatest fan, one of the reasons that I don’t doubt the sincerity of Donald Trump’s dedication to this country is the extent to which he has incurred personal sacrifice in order to fulfill his mission to restore America’s strength and prosperity.  Though I doubt that Trump foresaw the degree to which he would be villainized by the Left and he and his family become targets of their incredible viciousness, he surely knew that in addition to risking his life he would potentially be risking a hit to his personal fortune, his business enterprises, the popularity he enjoyed as a celebrity and his health. 

In addition to passing up the salary that he’s entitled to as POTUS, Trump put aside the option to personally oversee his financial empire and risked the brand value of the Trump name for the chance to lead the country.   Contrast that with Barack Obama and Bill Clinton who came to D.C. with almost nothing and are now millionaires many times over (and still on the taxpayers’ dole, not doubt).  Clinton, who said himself that he came to the White House with “…the lowest net worth of any American president in the 20th century,” was estimated to be worth $80 million in 2016, and Obama is quickly following in his footsteps according to sources like Newsweek.  Business Insider says “The Obamas are worth 30 times more than when they entered the White House in 2008.”  I guess those guys were just kidding when they denounced all that filthy money on Wall Street.  Now look at what’s happened with Trump.  In May of this year publications like Fortune magazine (“Donald Trump's Net Worth Keeps Dropping. How the Presidency Is Making Him Poorer”) and Bloomberg (“Trump’s Net Worth Slides to $2.8 Billion, Lowest Since Campaign”), among others, reported on the financial hit Trump is taking as POTUS.  The reality of how Obama and Clinton benefitted relative to what the Trump family has thus far lost makes laughable the claims by the deranged Left that Trump wanted to be POTUS for financial gain. 

But the sacrifice extends far beyond money.  Trump traded a lifestyle in which, as a wealthy, independent businessman, going to work each day was a choice, not a necessity.  Unlike his predecessors Trump didn’t need the presidency to achieve the height of celebrity status.  His celebrity was well established and, by and large, a positive thing.  But as they did with Sarah Palin and George W. Bush before him, the leftists have made it their life’s mission to destroy Trump in the most personal way possible because, after all, he must be punished for exposing them and putting the brakes on their plans to take over and destroy the country.  Trump dishes it back with gusto, that’s true, but that doesn’t change the fact that for the sake of rescuing this country from the clutches of the Left he volunteered for a barrage of scorn, ridicule and hatred the likes of which most people will thankfully never know, and it will follow him throughout his lifetime.  Furthermore, with nearly all of the leftist-owned “mainstream” media taking aim at him as well as the big mouthpieces in Hollywood, he is one man up against an army of hate.  The hardest thing of all, no doubt, is that he’s had to watch his family take the hits as well.  Now, he’s made the mistake of unnecessarily involving family members in his presidency for which he deserves criticism in my opinion; nevertheless nothing can be more painful than to watch your family being viciously targeted and maligned as a way of getting to you.

Some will say, “But CW, the Obamas and the Clintons have been subject to the same treatment from the Right.  What about their sacrifices?”

My answer to that is there is no comparison between the way the Obamas and Clintons are treated relative to Trump.  When was the last time you heard about Obama, the Clintons, or one of their staff or supporters being refused service in a restaurant or being harassed out of public spaces?  Who violently rioted at their inaugurations?  When were their physical appearances the subject of cruel “comedy” at the White House Correspondents Dinner?   The greatest threat Democrats face is to be shouted at with a tough question now and then, because by and large those of us on the Right accept the outcome of democracy while those on the Left do not. 

Again, as a non-politician who previously did business with people of all political stripes, I don’t believe Trump fully appreciated the nature of what he was up against and what savages the Left can be when threatened.  In any case, he’s living it now and for the remainder of his life.  That’s the sacrifice of Donald Trump.

~CW

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

Sunday, July 22, 2018

Universal Basic Income: Theft by any Other Name is Still Theft



“A leftist is person with the mind of a criminal whose ambition is to harness the power of the government in the commission of his crimes.”

~CW, conservative patriot, July 20, 2018




You’ve got to hand it to the Left for their entrepreneurial spirit.  The busy little bees never stop working to think of new ways to transfer wealth (read:  steal) from one person so that it can be placed into the pocket of another, because the ability to do so is what ensures the Left’s ability to amass power, and power is their ultimate drug.  If only there was a way to harness all that energy for good, such as for making license plates or picking up trash on the sides of the highways.

The latest wealth transfer scheme of the busy bees is innocently referred to as “universal basic income.”  No doubt is sounds non-threatening to those who haven’t yet come to terms with who the Left really is. The idea of using the government as a tool for taking money from one set of citizens to give to another is hardly new.  It’s come up over the years in one form or another as the criminal minds on the Left test the sheeple’s appetite for participating in their scheme of theft.  When they can’t get much traction (because sometimes the people with consciences outnumber those without), they quietly retreat until the opportunity seems ripe to try it once again.  Apparently they believe that opportunity is now, so the busy bees are waging a mass campaign to introduce the concept here, there and everywhere so as to warm the sheeple to this idea.  While I typically avoid reading leftist-run news media (probably a big mistake on my part but in my defense confronting the dishonesty and ignorance is just too depressing), I would bet my last dollar that the propaganda campaign has been long underway, with the seeds being sowed for ways by which the sheeple can justify becoming part of the scheme.  I encountered one of the sheeple in a comment section of a Fox News article the other day who, in response to my comment expressing disgust with the scheme, informed me that it will be necessary because people are going to lose their jobs with the growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI).  I reminded him that the nature of the work world is that it’s always changing, and somehow people have managed to adapt….until now, and isn’t it funny how we need wealth transfer to save us from AI just like we need wealth transfer to save us from climate change when the climate has always been changing?  It was too late.  He has his justification and he is intent on using it.

So now many of the Left’s busy bees are coming out publicly in support of the scheme called universal basic income, Mark Zuckerberg being one of the more notable figures to do so when he gave the commencement speech to the latest batch of indoctrinated robots emerging from Harvard.  Most recently the king busy bee, Barack Obama, decided it was time to let the world see a bit more of his true colors when he gave a Nelson Mandela Lecture in Johannesburg (Mandela was affiliated with the communists, btw) in which he said, “…we’re going to have to consider new ways of thinking about these problems, like a universal income, review of our workweek, how we retrain our young people, how we make everybody an entrepreneur at some level.”  Wasn’t that sly, the way he just slipped that in there?  It all sounds lovely, doesn’t it?  There’s no one slicker than Obama.  Here’s a leftist who’s always working to increase the power and stranglehold of the unions talking about making “everybody an entrepreneur.”  The man must laugh himself to sleep every night thinking about the joke that he’s playing on the world, all at our expense, but I digress.

This is not going to be a post about why the concept of universal basic income “won’t work” because to do so is to fall into the trap of legitimizing the very idea, which is precisely what the leftists want us to do.  Think about this:  When was the last time you heard someone argue that murder “doesn’t work” or rape “doesn’t work” or grand larceny “doesn’t work?”  It’s absurd, right?  We wouldn’t entertain such arguments because we don’t accept that there is ever a legitimate case to be made in favor of murder, rape or robbery.  The same should be true for Universal basic income a.k.a. theft.  It won’t work because we won’t allow it, and we won’t allow it because it’s theft.  That’s the only type of “argument” that should be made when rejecting the scheme the Left smilingly calls “universal basic income.”

Those of you who scoff and say it could never happen should remember that Obamacare is still around, beaten up but not dead.  If I were in congress I would introduce a bill that declares the concept of universal basic income, or anything like it (because they’ll just keep changing the name) to be not in keeping with the Constitution or the American promise of liberty, and that anyone who attempts to sell it in public is suborning theft, and this should be declared a crime so that thieves like Zuckerberg, Obama and others can shut up or go to jail.

I’ll close by suggesting what seems obvious to me, which is that we already have universal basic income, except we’ve always called it by it’s old fashioned name:  WORK.  You lose one job, you go get another one, and for this you get paid.  If that means you have to be re-trained, so be it.  People have dealt with advances in industrialization and technology for a century without resorting to mass theft.  Let us hope we can remain that sort of people.

~CW


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


Monday, May 7, 2018

To KG in Oregon, Who Knows So Much That Isn't True


KG in Oregon recently visited my alternate blog site, The Pesky Truth, to leave his or her canned rant about Donald Trump.  Curious, I peeked in on his or her website, where the following questions are posted on the homepage:


In the interests of helping to educate my fellow citizens on the Left whose precious prejudices have blinded them to the truth of what’s happening to our once great nation, I’d like to answer KG’s questions for him or her.  Here goes:


  “When did ‘Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ turn into dead children, overflowing jails and student loans?”


I’m not sure what dead children you’re talking about, but the jails are overflowing because of the Left’s misguided and failed “war on poverty,” which turned the U.S. into a welfare state when we started rewarding unwed motherhood.  66% of black children and 42% of Hispanic children grow up in single-parent households, usually in poverty and without a steady father in the home.  85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home, because without the role-model, income and discipline of a dad these kids get involved in drugs, gangs and crime.  THAT’s what happened.  Thanks for asking.

And you’re wondering about student loans and why so many young adults are deeply in debt nowadays?  Follow the money!   Ask yourself who benefits from the student loan industry.  Teachers and university administrators (mostly Democrats) that’s who.  “At the end of 2008, right before Obama was inaugurated, the total student loan debt was $640 billion. By March 2015, student loan debt was $1.19 trillion.” By 2016 it was $1.3 trillion.  You think that’s a coincidence?  You think Obama and the other leftists don’t know exactly what they’re doing?  They’ve been using student loans as another form of welfare (just watch a few episodes of Judge Judy and see how many so-called “students” are attending college “on-line,” just as a means to get money to live on and spend as they please).  Now comes the kicker to the scheme:  student loan forgiveness.  The money went into the pockets of the professors and administrators running the leftwing universities, and now the taxpayers are being pressed to pay it back for the “poor students.”  It’s a giant theft scheme, orchestrated by your friends on the Left.  And if the young folks end up having to repay their loans (which they should), the Left doesn’t care.  They know they can blame the mean old Republicans for holding people accountable to pay their own debts.  That’s what happened.  Thanks for asking.


 “When did “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses” turn into the Muslim ban, the end of DACA and the wall?”  


First let’s dispel the lie of the “Muslim ban.”  This is a lie the Left resorts to because it sounds much worse than the truth, which is that any bans or enhanced restrictions are aimed at countries that are known for their incidents of terrorism and their inability to adequately background check their citizens.  It just so happens that these countries have large Muslim populations.  That’s a black mark on Muslims, not on us.  If you’re sincerely worried about dead American children maybe you’d like to join us in preventing the immigration of terrorists.

The impetus for all of these things – the focus on Muslims, the end of DACA and the wall – can be traced directly to the bad behavior and bad citizenship of liberal Democrats like yourself.  Immigrants who assimilated were welcomed and embraced in this nation for many decades – and it was a win-win for all – until the Left saw an opportunity to grow its voter base by catering to the illegals at the expense of American taxpayers (because the leftists ALWAYS find a way to make someone else pay for their agenda).  Free school, free healthcare, welfare benefits, and we provide the businesses, customers and infrastructure so they can earn money here and send billions back home to Mexico.  That’s how resentment was created, and since we know the Left will ALWAYS be on the opposite side of what’s good for this nation a wall is the only option left to us.  You leftists are 100% responsible for that.  And DACA?  The so-called “Dreamers” are here because their parents did the wrong thing and brought them here illegally.  Barack Obama doubled the problem by using an unconstitutional act to correct a problem that the Left and the illegals created.  Trump is the only one who stood up for the law, at least I hope that’s what he does.  That’s what happened.  Thanks for asking. 


“When did amber skies, amber waves of grain and purple mountains turn into desolate slums, glyphosate and global warming?


Do you drive a car or use appliances?  These things are created in factories.  Industrialization provides us all (yes, even you leftists) with modern conveniences but slums are a by-product of that and it happens everywhere, not just in the U.S.  But I will refer you back to my answer to your first question.  Poverty, which leads to slums, is greatly exacerbated by unwed motherhood, and unwed motherhood has been on the rise due to the policies and practices of the Left that discourage the traditional family structure.

As for glyphosate, life expectancies in the modern world have increased as a consequence of modern science that finds ways to improve crop production, resulting in significantly less starvation.  Starvation.  Yes, it’s imperfect and sometimes there are trade-offs but only a leftist would think it better for people to starve than to consume food that isn’t perfectly organic.

Barack Obama was so worried about global warming that he and Michelle took Air Force I on date night from D.C. to New York.  All of the Hollywood leftist elites and politicians like Obama are so worried about global warming that they buy multiple homes (which they heat and cool and travel between) where they can relax while worrying about this serious problem.  The lies and manipulations on global warming are well-documented, but even those scientists who believe that man is responsible for “climate change” (because the cold weather was causing a problem with the warming rhetoric) say that spending trillions will make no perceptible difference in the climate.  So why is this a pet issue of the Left?  Because (a) it divides us politically and division always helps the Left; and (b) he who controls energy production controls the world.  That’s what happened.  Thanks for asking. 


“When did Our righteous, hopeful, generous pride turn into ugly, greedy, fearful stupidity?”


If you’re talking about the support for Donald Trump, since when is it “greedy” or “ugly” to want to return to the days when America had an abundance of jobs and the American Dream was within reach of the average citizen who worked for it?  Some of us would say that those who demand to be given what they didn’t earn (never-ending welfare, free healthcare, free school…) are the ones who are truly greedy.

“Fearful stupidity.”  What does this even mean?  The thing I fear most in this world is people like you, because your ignorance and willful blindness knows no bounds.  You give our hard-earned treasury away to freeloaders and trespassers, appease hostile nations who’ve sworn to pursue our destruction, opened our doors to people who hate us, destroy the traditions and values that always made our children strong, productive and independent and turned this nation over to leftwing politicians whose only goal is to secure their own power no matter what it takes.  That’s the answer.  Thanks for asking. 


“Is this the beginning of the new dark ages, with Putin controlling the world?”


Why don’t you ask Barack Obama, who whispered slyly into the ear of Russia’s Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev and asked him to tell “Vlad,” “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”  What was your response to that, pray tell?  Give us the link to the post where you voiced your fears back then, please.  Also, since you’re so concerned about Putin, did you vote for Mitt Romney when Obama ridiculed him for saying that Russia was our greatest geopolitical threat?  How come you are only just now concerned about Russia, you old fool? 


“Will the planet go on without us, and rightly so?”


If you want to see the perfect example of a nation destroying itself, look at what the socialists have done in Venezuela.  This is a country rich in natural resources that was once thriving, but socialists like yourself have turned it into Hell on Earth.  You vote for a socialist like Bernie Sanders, or the ultra-corrupt Hillary Clinton (enabler to Bill the groper and rapist), and you have the nerve to fret and shiver over Donald Trump.  Trump wasn’t my first choice and he’s far from perfect, but he loves this country.  This country, as opposed to the “transformation” away from the Founders’ vision that leftists like Obama, Clinton and Sanders salivate about.  Will the planet go on without us?  Who cares?  I only hope the people of the world can survive the foolishness of leftists like you.

~CW

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