Follow by Email

Thursday, October 27, 2016

The One Reason to Choose Trump over Hillary

What is the essence of America?  There is the land, of course, the essential territory wherein people can exist and exercise their God given right to pursue happiness in this life; but every country, good or bad, has land.  What makes America unique is its founding as a nation rooted in the quest for freedom and the opportunity for prosperity; its inhabitants’ fight for resistance against tyranny; and, of course, the Constitution that arose from this struggle which makes government subservient to the people and signifies mutual agreement to recognize and respect each other’s basic rights.  Lastly, the essence of America is our sovereignty – our proclaimed right to self-determination and refusal to be subject to the will or demands of any other persons or nations.

All of this is old news to the conservatives who frequent this blog but this post is going to be about the love of country and I feel that, in recognition of the sad state of true patriotism that exists today, it’s necessary to explain what America is before I can talk about what it means to love it.  Leftists like Hillary Clinton don’t share my view on the essence of America.  They may pay lip service to certain patriotic themes, but if you listen carefully to their speeches, if you read between the lines and if you heed their actions, you’ll see that they are not talking about America as we know it (read the WSJ’s “Hillary’s New Constitution”).  Their serial abuses of The Constitution, veneration for big government and cavalier attitude with respect to our sovereignty (read:  “Hillary Clinton embraces George Soros’ ‘radical’ vision of open-border world” – Washington Times) reveal their disregard for the essence of America.  To the Left, America is merely a tool that enables them to herd and mine its inhabitants for their own wealth and power.  Everything they say and do is intended to keep the herd compliant and moving in the direction that it wants them to go.  They may love what it can do for them, but they have no love for America as it was intended to be.

For all of his faults I believe, and always have believed, that Donald Trump sincerely loves America.  It’s unfortunate that, like too many Americans, he’s never given serious thought to the relationship between America’s founding and what this country provides us that makes it worthy of his love and effort to preserve it.  These are things that he takes for granted, that’s obvious to me from his speeches and from many of his policy proposals.  I’ve found that to be problematic because someone cannot truly fix what’s broken in this country if they don’t understand its essence at the deepest level any more than a mechanic can make a car run as it should if he doesn’t understand how the engine works.  Still, Trump understands enough to know that America is slipping away, and while he may not have the understanding or expertise to repair its engine himself, he understands that it needs to be protected from those (like Hillary Clinton & Co.) who would run it into the ground.  If you don’t believe that Hillary intends to run the country into the ground, just take an honest look at the presidency of Barack Obama.  Yes, by outward appearances we’re humming along with life as usual, mostly:  You go to your job (if you have one), pick up the kids from school, help with the homework, eat some dinner, watch your TV shows, go to sleep and start again the next day.  But if you ever dare take the time to really look at what’s under the hood of our car you’ll see the reality:  skyrocketing debt, half a nation on welfare, a weakened position in the world, and scariest of all – a growing sense of entitlement and disrespect for the rule of law.  The Left has abused and neglected the car and there’s a fatal crack forming in the engine block.

You can talk all you want about experience, temperament, health or making history, but none of those things means anything if you have a POTUS who doesn’t first and above all, love this nation.


I welcome your thoughts.  To leave a comment please see this post at The Pesky Truth.

Tuesday, October 25, 2016


Given the laundry list of ills that liberalism has spawned in this world the popular trend of double or hyphenated last names may seem quite trivial by comparison but I bring it up because not only is it a particular pet peeve of mine but it provides valuable insights into how the liberal mind works.  Here’s a small sample of what I’m talking about:

Alison Lundergan Grimes

Debbie WassermanSchultz

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Teresa Heinz Kerry

Sheila Jackson Lee

What exactly is the purpose of subjecting us all to these overly cumbersome names, pray tell?  Oh, I’m aware of the stated reasons that we’re given for our inconvenience: Professional women want to be sure they’re still recognized after they’re married; or:  they don’t want to lose their bond to their family name.

Sorry I don’t buy it.  A young Margaret Roberts ran for political office twice before marrying and changing her last name to Thatcher.  The name change does not seem to have harmed her career any.  Elizabeth Hanford worked for several presidential administrations and was Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission when she married Bob Dole and became Elizabeth Dole.  Her prior accomplishments were not forgotten and people managed to figure out who she was while she continued to have a highly esteemed career.  Does anyone care that Michelle Obama’s maiden name is Robinson?  Was taking her husband’s name an affront to her family crest?  No, it changes nothing.

I concede that I made up my mind prior to ever being married that I would keep my maiden name if (a) my husband’s name was something disturbing or comical, like Hitler or Weiner (my apologies to the Hitlers and Weiners out there); or (b) if his last name rhymed with my first name (I could never be Debbie Webby, just as an example), but that’s just a practical matter.  I have to be able to say my own name without cringing or laughing, don’t I?  In that case, though, I would keep just one name.  I also understand there may be women who re-marry and choose to keep the surname of their children along with their new name, but that’s not the case in most of my examples above.  So again I ask, what is the point?

I believe the point is to steer people into making assumptions about you based upon your name rather than letting your actions and accomplishments speak for themselves.  It’s a manipulation, albeit a small one, and it goes to the heart of the way liberals tend to think, placing appearances above substance.  “Look at me.  I buck tradition, therefore I am more free-thinking and independent than you.”  That’s what the point is, and that’s why I think it’s worth writing a post about.  I resent the fact that these women might be assumed to possess qualities that are superior to those of us who choose to give up our maiden names and adopt our husbands’ names when one has absolutely no bearing on the other.  Carly Fiorina was moving up the corporate ladder when she married and took the surname of her second husband.  Does anyone seriously question her independence or her belief in her own right to thrive as a woman in this world?

On top of all that I’m just plain tired of saying and typing ‘Wasserman Schultz,’ et al.  It’s tedious; which brings me to the second half of this complaint.  More and more we’re bombarded with the growing trend for hyphenated names, as any football fan has no doubt observed.  Here’s a sampling:

Da’mon Cromartie-Smith

Maurice Jones-Drew

Mike Sims-Walker

Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie

I can only assume that this latest trend in name patch-working is the consequence of the destruction of the traditional family unit engineered by the Left over the past many decades.  It’s a wonder to me that the makers of sports uniforms haven’t gone on strike in protest over the needless complexity of having to cram two names onto a jersey now instead of just one.  What’s next?  Shall we wrap the names all the way around the jersey?  What about twenty years from now when the daughter of Jones-Drew marries the son of Rodgers-Cromartie? Will their children be signing Rodgers-Cromartie-Jones-Drew to their second grade homework assignments?  To what lengths, literally speaking, will we go to accommodate this silliness? 

Looking into the future I can foresee the day when a young Ms. Sims-Walker-Wasserman-Schultz suddenly announces that she has a brilliant idea for simplifying things and proposes that we all choose just one family name.

Gee, why didn’t we think of that? 


To share your thoughts please view this post at The Pesky Truth.  Thanks!

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

For a Glimpse at Your Future under President Hillary and the Left, Just Look at the Nightmare in Venezuela

Emphasis in bold is mine.  ~CW

“It’s nothing less than the collapse of a large, wealthy, seemingly modern, seemingly democratic nation just a few hours’ flight from the United States.”                    ~Moisés Naím and Francisco Toro, The Atlantic                                                     

The article continues:

“In the last two years Venezuela has experienced the kind of implosion that hardly ever occurs in a middle-income country like it outside of war. Mortality rates are skyrocketing; one public service after another is collapsing; triple-digit inflation has left more than 70 percent of the population in poverty; an unmanageable crime wave keeps people locked indoors at night; shoppers have to stand in line for hours to buy food; babies die in large numbers for lack of simple, inexpensive medicines and equipment in hospitals, as do the elderly and those suffering from chronic illnesses.”

Reporters for the leftwing journal The Guardian paint a similar picture:

“Venezuela is suffering the worst economic crisis in its history. Ordinary people in the oil-rich country are regularly going without food. Three-quarter empty supermarkets are being ransacked by angry, hungry mobs. The government has declared a state of emergency, food is now being transported under armed guard, and basic necessities are being rationed. People have to queue for hours and sometimes overnight on their assigned days to receive staples like rice and cooking oil.”

 “By IMF figures, it has the world’s worst negative growth rate (-8%), and the worst inflation rate (482%). The unemployment rate is 17% but is expected to climb to near 30% in the coming few years.”

 “The shadow of hunger, the desperation of the crowds and the spread of unrest and criminality threaten the government of Nicolás Maduro, three years after he was bequeathed power by the dying revolutionary strongman, Hugo Chávez.”

Venezuela’s socialist government has also brought devastation to its healthcare system, as reported by The Guardian:

“For years, among the proudest boasts of the Bolivarian Socialist administration was that it eradicated hunger, reduced poverty and improved healthcare for the poor.”

“But the trend is now appears to be moving in the opposite direction at an alarming speed. [That’s the funny thing about socialism]  Reliable data is hard to find. The government has acknowledged that maternal mortality – a key healthcare indicator – has doubled in the past year. The opposition says the deterioration is five fold – and that death of newborns increased 100 fold.”

“We are seeing a collapse in the public health system.” said Maritza Landaeta, a senior member of the Health Observatory. “Venezuela is witnessing a miracle, a miracle of destruction.”

“Earlier this year, the president of the Venezuelan Association of Clinics and Hospitals in the state of Carabobo, was detained by police and questioned for three hours after he went on TV to complain about medical shortages.”

“Doctors have also accused the government of downplaying the threat of the Zika virus.”

“Diphtheria is making a comeback….”

““Nine thousands doctors have left the country and the exodus is continuing,” says one of those who stayed, Yamila Battaguni.”

 “His hope is for political change. ‘We have two options: leave or be part of the change,’ he said. ‘I hope this bad stimulus can make us want something better.’”

So what happened that caused the citizens of Venezuela to be cast into hell on Earth?

Per The Atlantic: 

“The real culprit is chavismo, the ruling philosophy named for Chavez and carried forward by Maduro, and its truly breathtaking propensity for mismanagement (the government plowed state money arbitrarily into foolish investments); institutional destruction (as Chavez and then Maduro became more authoritarian and crippled the country’s democratic institutions); nonsense policy-making (like price and currency controls); and plain thievery (as corruption has proliferated among unaccountable officials and their friends and families).”

In other words, the socialist policies of Hugo Chavez and his successors brought this ruination upon Venezuela, and though it’s not mentioned (it never is) the greed and complacency of the Venezuelan people are also responsible.

Here’s how The Guardian explains it:

“The government’s tendency to subsidise many products below the cost of production is a major reason why the economy is in such a mess. It is a habit formed by oil, which warps price perceptions like a pyschotropic drug.”

Oil is the culprit?  I think not, but let’s read on:

“Historically, abundant supplies have made Venezuelans regard cheap petrol as a birthright, so for political reasons – and despite hyperinflation, collapsing government revenues, global markets and climate change – the current price for a litre of high-grade gasoline is just 6 bolivars (less than a penny or a cent) – more than 100 times cheaper than the same volume of mineral water. This meant the fuel bill for the entire 1,400km journey was less than a pound or dollar.”

 “When Hugo Chávez came to power in 1999, he took this way of thinking a step further and used petrol dollars to subsidise essential products such as rice, sugar, toilet paper, sanitary towels and medicine.  His successor, Nicolás Maduro, has tried to continue and even extend this policy, despite a 60% fall in crude prices since 2014. Even in the midst of crisis, the government still hands out free or massively discounted homes, cars, DVD players and microwave ovens.”

 “It was an altruistic, populist move that allowed the poor to finally share in the nation’s oil wealth. But it also stifled incentives for producers and created a system of dependency and black-marketing that was already causing economic problems before Chávez died in 2013 and the global crude market collapsed the following year.”

Altruistic?  There’s nothing altruistic about a power-hungry socialist buying the loyalty of the public by squandering the country’s resources, but there you go, folks.  Venezuela is on the verge of suicide by socialism, a consequence of greed and stupidity.  Over time the country may survive if the adults can wrestle control back from the children who’ve been in charge, but what of the people who are suffering today?  I’m guessing the possibility of a turnaround in the way distant future is not much consolation to the mother who is watching her children go hungry today, or who is watching her child die for lack of medicines that are readily available in other countries.  How tragic is it that they did this to themselves?  Hugo Chavez, leftwing socialist revolutionary and father of these destructive policies, was democratically elected by Venezuelans and then re-elected multiple times, and I’ll go out on a limb and guess that Venezuelans were attracted to his promises of free stuff.  Sound familiar?  Those who propelled him to power are responsible for the terrible suffering that is happening right now, though they will never be made to answer to their children or their fellow citizens for their part in this man-made disaster.  This is what happens to a society that allows itself to be enticed by promises of something for nothing.  Hope those free DVD players were worth it.

Are you listening, Hillary and Bernie supporters?


I invite your thoughts.  Please leave a comment on this and other posts at The Pesky Truth.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

The Conscience of a Progressive

This page intentionally left blank.


I'd love to know your thoughts.  Please leave a comment at The Pesky Truth.  Thanks!

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Do You Love Your Children Enough to Reject Hillary?

I could talk about the serial lies of Hillary Clinton and what this says about her respect for the citizens of this nation, but I won’t because I know that you don’t care.

I could talk to you about private servers set up for the intent and purpose of denying Americans their right to see what our employee, the Secretary of State, says and does on our behalf, but I won’t because I know that you don’t care.

I could talk to you about BleachBit, and the illegal destruction of information subpoenaed by your representatives in congress, but again I won’t because I know you don’t care.

I could talk about Hillary Clinton’s claims to be a champion of women even when she contributes to their victimization in order to protect her husband and advance her own political ambitions, and how her hypocrisy proves her empathy to be just another lie, but I won’t because really, you don’t care.

I could talk about Benghazi and the Americans who died as a result of Hillary Clinton’s disregard for their safety, or her disregard for the rights and safety of an ordinary video producer who she sacrificed for the sake of diverting attention from herself, but once again, I know you don’t care.

I could talk about Russia, Libya, Syria, Iran and other regions of the world where our foreign policies have failed and made us weaker as a nation, but let’s face it, you still don’t care. 

I could talk about Wall Street and Hillary’s cozy relationship with those who make their millions and billions by playing the rest of us.  Maybe you care, maybe you don’t.

I could talk about The Clinton Foundation and how we all know that it is a façade for an organization that’s real purpose is to pedal influence, but in all likelihood, you don’t care about that.

I could talk about environmental hypocrisy, and ask what it means when a politician campaigns on fears of environmental catastrophe all while they live a life of gluttonous energy consumption, but maybe you don’t want to ponder that.

Or I could talk about the many former employees and associates who have written accounts of shocking verbal abuse by our former first lady and how this is a telltale sign of the way Mrs. Clinton views the less powerful people around her, but apparently you don’t care.

Can I presume, at least, that you care about your children and grandchildren and about their futures?  That you care whether they are able to not merely survive like ants but to thrive economically in this world and to achieve the increasingly elusive American Dream?  That you care whether they can enjoy basic freedoms to speak their minds, practice their religions and protect themselves and their families in their own homes?  That you care about their abilities to make choices about medical care and education and that all of the things we once took for granted are not driven further and further from their reach by deceitful, power-hungry government bureaucrats?  That you want them not to be turned into slaves to their fellow citizens by big-government policies that continually rob Peter in order to support Paul?   That you care enough for your children to not want them saddled with massive debts that could crash their economy and condemn them to years or even life-long struggles to survive?   That you care whether or not their country is illegally overrun by intruders who trespass here without our permission, strain our resources and influence our politicians to put the intruders’ interests ahead of theirs?  Do you care if they will have the security of police protection if and when they need it, and that our police departments will not be made useless and impotent by politicians who coddle to groups that resent law and order?  That you care whether their own nation is weak or strong and able to exert influence in this world, rather than have the influence of others forced upon them by corrupted world bodies and opportunistic adversaries? 

If so then you need to care about the fact that Hillary Clinton, the bleached and coiffed, robotically smiling former first lady and grandmother, is a committed leftist, and all that this implies. 

In the days before America was brainwashed, people understood all too well what a leftist was.   Leftists are committed to undoing the Constitution, not with the permission and approval of the people by the open and forthright process incorporated therein but quietly, incrementally and surreptitiously so that when people realize what has happened, it’s too late.  Leftists understand this is a numbers game.  All they need to do is amass a bigger voting block than anyone else.  How do you sell voters on their own self-destruction?  You don’t.  You divide The People into groups – white, black, male, female, Latino, gay, straight, rich, poor, students, union members.… - then you win over those groups one by one with promises of special treatment and handouts at the expense of others so that in the pursuit of these trinkets they stop thinking about what they’re giving up, particularly for their children.  I say particularly for their children because the cliché that there’s no such thing as a free lunch is absolutely true, and the bill will eventually come due one way or another.  Will it be this generation or the next?  That’s the gamble you set your children up for when you hand your government over to the leftists.

I know you want free college.  I know you want free daycare, free healthcare and high wages imposed by the government rather than earned via skills and experience.  I know you want to feel as though you’re being charitable or making a difference for the environment or making history by electing the first woman president.  It’s all about you, and what I’m asking is this:   Are you willing to sacrifice what you want in order to insure a better future for your children?  Will you earn and pay your own way, make your own charitable impact, sacrifice your own convenience for the environment and forego your claim to fame so that your children and theirs can enjoy the freedom and economic opportunity that you had?  That’s the test of character Americans are facing today, and the final exam is on election day.  


For the sake of your children, please re-read Animal Farm.

I welcome your opinion.  Please visit this post at The Pesky Truth to leave a comment.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Democrat Racketeers

“A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, will not be affected, or would not otherwise exist. Conducting a racket is racketeering.[1] Particularly, the potential problem may be caused by the same party that offers to solve it, although that fact may be concealed, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this party.”

Sound familiar?

Back in the 60’s and 70’s, liberals in the U.S. decided marriage was an unnecessary and outdated tradition (now that same-sex couples want to get married marriage has, of course, become a noble cause worthy of a civil war, but I digress).  Whereas it was once a sin to bear children out of wedlock, the Left made it a sin to pass judgment on those who behave self-indulgently and without any apparent regard for the consequences of their actions.  The result is that we’ve seen an enormous social shift, including an alarming increase in the rate of illegitimacy and children being raised by single mothers who struggle financially to support themselves and their children.  This self-inflicted dynamic then leads to hand-wringing by those same liberals, who demand to know what we’re going to do about poverty and the challenge of single parents to afford daycare, after-school supervision, healthcare and adequate nutrition, smugly oblivious to their own culpability.  So Democrats get together with purposeful looks on their faces and cluck like hens to come up with the same solution they have for every crisis they instigate:  higher taxes and more government control.  Welfare, food stamps, Headstart, Medicaid, all-day kindergarten and subsidized daycare – these are the rackets that have been birthed from leftwing meddling in social tradition. 

Create the problem, then force taxpayers to subsidize the solution.

Speaking of education, let’s talk about the astronomical rise in costs that have created, as the Left likes to say, a “lack of access” to college.  Would someone please remind me who’s had control of higher education in this country for the past 50 years or more?  Oh yes, I remember – the Left.  They’ve been busy little bees, creating bloated administrations and paying themselves very handsomely for the back-breaking task of brainwashing our young.   That champion of the poor consumer, Elizabeth Warren, pulled down about $350K per year at Harvard, and we all know what a nice living Hillary Clinton made taking lucrative speaking fees from our institutions of higher learning.  Nice work if you can get it but unfortunately those fat salaries and speaking fees make college very expensive.  To keep the gravy train going and the peasants from revolting the Left has to figure out a way to shift that burden onto someone else.  Thus we have a million ways that someone can qualify for a tax-payer subsidized education as long as they are not too honest or too hard-working (those folks have to pay for themselves).  Our government and banks hand out student loans like candy, comforted in the knowledge that should anything go wrong it will be taxpayers – not those making the loan decisions – who take the loss.  And now the racketeers, - Elizabeth, Bernie and Hillary – want to save the day.  Is that rich irony or what?  They are predictably demanding free college for everyone, to be overseen, naturally, by more government.

Create the problem then extort the cost from taxpayers.  That’s the name of this racket.

How about the housing “crisis?”  Whose idea was it to legislate the lowering of credit standards to encourage home-buying by people who couldn’t afford it?  Who dreamed up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  Liberal politicians like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were behind these schemes but The Left likes to blame the whole thing on George Bush on the logic that he happened to be sitting in the Oval Office when the music stopped (that’s about as complex as their analytical skills get).  To be fair, Bush presided over policies that kept interest rates artificially low, and that certainly contributed to the economic bubble; but the game was already set up for failure.  How much did this racket cost taxpayers?  Somewhere between a trillion dollars (stimulus) and a hell of a lot more than that.

Create the problem - be the solution.

Now let’s talk about the artificially manufactured “crisis” in healthcare.  Healthcare is like any other service commodity.  When left to its own devices, it’s kept in check by natural market forces like supply, demand and price sensitivity.  But alas it is not the nature of a racketeer to leave a market to its own devices; thus government liberals brought us Medicare, Medicaid and the federal HMO Act, all of which led to greater and greater separation between consumer and provider, which in turn led to increased demand, rampant fraud and higher prices.  Our great champions in government brought us more regulation so that we now collectively subsidize things like contraception, dieticians, rehab, in vitro fertilization and other things that were once the responsibility of the customer, and like anything that’s subsidized, the demand has gone up accordingly, as have the costs.  It’s liberals who stand with the trial lawyers and block tort reform, adding billions to our healthcare costs for lawsuit payouts and – more importantly – lawsuit prevention.  It’s liberals who block interstate sales of health insurance, stifling competition.  Each of these, and probably a million more, contribute to the unnecessary increases in the cost of healthcare, a cost that’s borne by only a fraction of Americans while the rest get a free or subsidized ride.  What’s the racketeer’s solution:  Obamacare.  And when Obamacare fails?  Then we’ll be talking “single-payer” or full government takeover of our healthcare delivery, and this may be the biggest racket of them all.  Touché to Obama & Company.

Al Capone was an amateur compared to these guys.  The only big difference is that people recognized Capone for the despicable crook he was.  This election cycle will you stand up to the Capones at last or will you continue to let the thugs call the shots?


Share your thoughts on this post and others at The Pesky Truth.  Thanks!