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.



 ~CW


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. 


~CW


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 naïve 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. 


~CW


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

~CW

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……!



~CW


Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Barack Obama, Intellectual Coward



When the 2016 State of the Union was coming up the guest panelists on one of the news shows enjoyed making predictions on the number of straw-men arguments Obama would resort to, as they chuckled and shook their heads over his infamous penchant for proudly slaying the artificial boogeymen of his own making.  It’s quite a sad state of affairs when the President of the United States can be counted on to puff himself up and respond to his critics with lies and false arguments in a national address, but that just so happens to be the reality, and it isn’t funny. 

Straw-man arguments and lies are the refuge of those who fear that their arguments can’t stand up on their own, just as brass knuckles and switchblades are the refuge of fighters who doubt their ability to hold their own in a fair fight.  As a blogger I’ve dealt with this tactic countless times in my futile attempts to sincerely debate with liberals and libertarians.  They predictably accuse me of wanting the poor to starve or of being a cold-hearted war monger in order to avoid arguing with the actual substance of what I’ve said.  It often reminds me of a comical scene from the movie, “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” in which the townspeople dress a woman up as a witch, fake nose and all, in order to……wait for it…..… prove that she’s a witch!  


We laugh at the absurdity of it and yet it’s not too far removed from realty, which is precisely what makes it so funny (didn’t the enemies of George W. Bush concoct fake documents to prove their criticism that he didn’t fulfill his service requirements?).  Why would the townspeople go to such great lengths to make the woman into a witch rather than simply accept that she’s not a witch?***  Answer:   Either they have more sinister motives relating to this woman or they don’t want the mental discomfort of invalidating that which they’ve come to believe, because our prejudices are very precious to us.  Either way it brings into question both their character and their conscience.  Chew on that for a while.

Back to Barack Obama.  His leftist supporters would have us believe that he is a man of great intellect, and his patronizing, cocky demeanor suggests that he believes it as well; but his routine and intentional reliance upon lies and straw-men ultimately reveals the truth:  he’s an intellectual coward who lacks confidence in his ability to prevail on the strength of his own positions.  His fears make it necessary to injure his opponents before the fight by mischaracterizing their arguments and by misrepresenting the facts. As with my liberal and libertarian adversaries, I cannot fathom there being any satisfaction in winning this way, but more importantly Obama’s supporters need to ask themselves why.  Why dress your opponent as a witch rather than simply admit they’re not a witch?  What darker motive is in play, and should I be worried?  Answer:  Yes.  And you should be scared.


~CW


***Note to Monty Python fans:   I realize that in the movie the townspeople, through some very convoluted reasoning, conclude that if the woman is a witch she will weigh the same as a duck, and lo and behold it turns out that she does.  Please be advised that this does not change my point!  :)




This and other posts can also been seen at Hardnox & Friends.  Please visit!


Thursday, January 14, 2016

Losing the Power of ME


The spark that inspired this post occurred several years ago when I attended a city council meeting in my town on the subject of widening the road that abuts my neighborhood.  I happened to be in favor of the widening but most of those present appeared to be against it (because tripling the population without expanding the roads somehow preserves “quality of life”).  A woman whom I recognized from my neighborhood got up to speak and began by saying, “I think I speak for everyone here when I say we are not in favor of this plan.”  This made me pretty angry.  Who was this stranger who presumed to speak for me?  How dare she? 

Since that time I’ve had to battle others who’ve attempted to usurp my power by virtue of some real or imagined association.  I was on the board of my HOA when the adjacent farm land became the subject of debate regarding its development.  A home builder was asking the City to re-zone the land from low density to high density so that he could squeeze more homes onto the site.  Needless to say many residents in my neighborhood were opposed to this.  At my urging, however, the Board took no position on it, and this did not sit well with some of the homeowners.  Essentially what they wanted was for the Association to fight the plan.  I had to explain that the HOA exists for the expressed purpose of maintaining the common areas of the neighborhood and enforcing the covenants – period.  It is not our duty to fight this battle but more importantly it is not our right to presume to speak for all of the homeowners with respect to what happens with the land next door.  What about the residents who were okay with the plan (and there were some of those)?  Sadly, the principle that each person owns the right and freedom to choose to be the sole spokesperson on his own behalf is a foreign concept to some. 

These experiences opened my eyes to the reality of the fragile nature of individual power and liberty.  We are in a constant struggle to preserve our own power, often in ways that we don’t even realize; which leads me to Lesson #1:

Any time you attach yourself to a group for one purpose you become vulnerable to those who would syphon away your power by hijacking the mission of your group, party or association, and this will come at the expense of your personal liberty.    
 
A prime example of this is the labor unions.  Supposedly created to bargain with employers on behalf of employees, unions are notorious for using (or should I say abusing) the power and money trusted to them to advance the political agendas and power of its leadership without regard to the personal political inclinations of its members.  What you gain in work benefits comes at the great cost of empowering those who wish to control the bigger picture. 

And then there are groups like the AARP.  The AARP began as an association of retired teachers needing health insurance but has since grown exponentially in membership and in political influence by expanding its services to offer a broad range of discounts and other benefits.  It admits to (or should I say brags of) being an advocacy group but frequently advocates on the side of issues and agendas that starkly conflict with the principles and ideals of many of its members, who may not realize what’s going on.  Those who agree with the AARPs activist agenda are enjoying greater power at the expense of those who don’t, and this same dynamic is going on in thousands of organizations throughout the country. 

Corporate executives are getting in on the game now too.  Not long ago Overstock.com issued a statement about “the company” standing in support of same-sex marriage, as if its employees are no longer entitled to their own views on the subject and must adopt the group view dictated by Overstock’s executives.  What brought this on?  Was there some issue about Overstock selling a rug or couch to a same-sex couple?  What gives Overstock’s management the right to presume to speak for all of its employees on an issue like same-sex marriage?  Whatever happened to each individual speaking only for themselves?  Ditto for Starbucks on the subject of race and every other company that has the audacity to presume to speak for all of its employees on matters of personal opinion unrelated to their work.  It’s a peculiar and perverse new style of corruption, in my humble opinion.

All of us are susceptible to the temptation to take power that doesn’t rightfully belong to us, there’s no doubt about that; but can anyone debate that those on the Left have elevated this loathsome practice to an art form?  Consider this quote from the Communist Party USA website:

One of the most crucial ways of increasing the strength and unity of the working class as a whole is organizing the unorganized. Working-class unity depends on uniting all the diverse sectors of the multiracial, multinational working class in the U.S. … Speeding up the organization of unorganized workers is one of the most important challenges to labor and all progressive forces.”

“…and all progressive forces.”

“Unite.” 

“Organize.”

Turn your power over to us and sell us your soul for a few more easy dollars.  And the only question people ask is, “Where do I sign?” before the years go by and then they begin complaining about the sad state of the world.  So here’s Lesson #2:

Like flies to a dead body, every group or association that creates the opportunity to usurp the power of individuals and place it into the hands of a few will inevitably see progressives creep their way into leadership positions.

What’s most frustrating is that we don’t always have a choice about the associations we become party to.  Everyone has to belong to the club of citizenship somewhere, so it’s no surprise that the Left persistently preys on this special opportunity to rob us of our individual power and liberty and take it for themselves.  Just listen to Barack Obama in Tuesday night’s State of the Union Address (or as I prefer to call it, The Annual Scolding of all Non-Democrats) as he detailed a long laundry list of what he and his leftist cohorts have unilaterally decided our membership now obliges us to do or to give:

  • “We” must provide “free” college
  • “We” must retrain people who lose jobs (in addition to providing unemployment benefits) and provide “wage insurance”
  • “We” must reward the businesses that Obama & Company approve of
  • “We” must cure cancer
  • “We” must prop up Obama’s donors in the “clean energy” industry
  • “We” must invest in the future (they’ll define this for us)
  • “We” must manage “our” coal and oil resources (which means they will manage it for us)
  • “We” must put aside our instincts and ignore the reality of radical Islam


None of these things, and so much more that’s been demanded from us over the decades, were part of the bargain when the Constitution was ratified, of course.  And yet we live under the illusion (or pretense) that the Constitution acts as the by-laws for our little club.  So Lesson #3 goes like this:

The power of WE usually comes at a cost, and that cost is the power of ME. 

You can never escape the club of citizenship, so if you cherish your individual liberty and power you’d better stand up and defend the Constitution … and never stop.


~CW



Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Judge Judy and the Truth about “Public Assistance”

One of the reasons the progressive puppet masters love big, centralized government so much is because it makes it easy to hide the systematic corruption that they’ve engineered.  Massive amounts of wealth can be neatly extracted from hard-working, tax-paying citizens and transferred to people who are lazy and corrupt without agitating taxpayers too much, since they never really see where their money is going.  That’s because taxpayers generally live in a separate world from the low-lifes who steal from them, staying cheerfully insulated from the ugly reality that threatens their futures.  The anonymity of it all enables leftist elites like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi to talk in altruistic terms about “spreading the wealth,” and “…extending the vital lifelines for struggling families…” so that liberals can happily pat themselves on their backs and conservatives dare not protest too much.  But the reality of what’s happened with those hard-earned tax dollars under the guise of liberal charity should give even the most brain-dead liberal a sick feeling of repugnance.  That’s where Judge Judy comes in.

On Judge Judy, viewers can see a daily parade of pigs at the government trough, thanks to the Left and with special thanks to the Obama Administration.  You’ll see “students,” young and old, squandering their student loan money on cars, gifts, vacations…you name it.  Anything but school.  So what?  They’re betting they’ll never have to pay it back and they’re probably right.  Who needs an education any way when the taxpayers can be forced to support you whether they want to or not? 

You’ll also see a shockingly high number of show participants receiving disability checks, even though it’s clearly obvious that they’re healthy enough to work in some capacity.   Under Obama’s watchful eye of the public treasury, nearly anything qualifies as a “disability.”  Just recently I watched an episode where a 19-year old man was receiving “disability” payments because he had lost two family members (years apart) and was deemed to be traumatized.  That’s on top of the Social Security benefits he receives, mind you.  Mild autism?  You’re disabled.  Dyslexic?  Prone to hangnails? I don’t know but you may as well try. 

On Judge Judy you’ll see grandmothers who get paid by the state (i.e. you) to take care of their deadbeat children’s children.  You’ll see tattooed baby-mommas suing their tattooed baby-daddies for stealing their big screen TVs while learning that your tax dollars are supporting them and their children.  You’ll see lots of people who make a living taking care of grandma or Aunt Edna, because they’ve discovered that the state (i.e. you) will pay them to do it.  Oh, and let’s not forget the income tax “refunds” for people who paid no income taxes.  I see lots of those. 

These are the real people to whom your wealth is being transferred.  They can’t get a job, but they’ve managed to learn how to milk the system.  No one is checking to see if they really are disabled, or if they’ve recovered from their “accident.”  No one is checking to see if they’re really in school, working on that degree.  Judge Judy does her best to expose them for who they are and embarrass them but most don’t get it or don’t care.  Relying on the kindness of strangers, especially when you don’t need it, is not the humbling experience it used to be, especially when the stranger (i.e. the federal government) has been stripped of any human qualities.

I know all too well that there really are those who are truly in need.  My brother is one of them.  Mentally ill and absolutely incapable of supporting himself he’s had to rely on Social Security most of his entire adult life.  His experience and his need only make the Left’s intentional raping of the treasury that much more tragic and appalling, for ultimately he and others truly in need are the ones who will suffer when the pigs eat the trough dry, and American’s compassion has hardened into cynicism. 

Bryce Covert, a leftist writer for The Nation, wrote not long ago: 

“The Hillary Clinton running for president today as a champion for families struggling to get ahead necessarily has to be one concerned about poverty. It’s well past time for her to acknowledge how we have failed the poor.” 

Covert has absolutely no clue about how right he was.  The Left has failed the poor and everyone else.

If it was within my power, Judge Judy would be required viewing, at least for high school and college students and perhaps liberal journalists too, because they need to see the ugly truth of who their wealth is being “shared” with and what constitutes “struggling families” in the eyes of the Left. 


~CW