Follow by Email

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Damn the Enablers

Actually Michael, we're not.

Some of you may remember seeing the news headlines when, in 1997, a mother of six was brutally murdered in the presence of her two-year-old quadruplets at her home in Sarasota, Florida.  Sheila Bellush was ambushed by a paid killer sent by her former husband and father of her two oldest daughters.  Bellush and her second husband, father of the quadruplets, had moved the family from Texas to Florida to escape the stalking and threatening behavior of the ex-husband, who they wisely feared.  The two oldest girls had been warned not to give the family’s new address to their father, but in a phone conversation with the younger one (12 at the time), the ex-husband persuaded the young girl to give him the address, and the sharing of this secret information paved the way for a horrendous crime that tragically altered the lives of Sheila Bellush and all those who loved her.  Such is the power of those who, wittingly or unwittingly, enable people with bad intentions. 

Evil people, or those hell bent on taking advantage of others, will always exist.  It is our curse in life that we must continually defend ourselves against them, but the task is made that much harder, if not impossible, by The Enablers.  You know who they are. 

  •  They are leftwing judges like Monica Herranz who allowed an illegal alien, under arraignment for DUI, to slip out the back door to her judge’s chambers to avoid being deported by waiting ICE agents, even though the judge is employed by the citizens of Multnomah County.  And it is the liberals who defend Herranz rather than stand up for citizens who might have been hurt or killed if the escapee had another drunk-driving incident while ICE was tracking him down.
  •  They are leftists like Michael Moore and others who ignorantly ridiculed protestors fighting to prevent the erection of a giant mosque near the site of 9-11, and who characterize common sense concerns about the spread of Islam in the U.S. as “Islamophobia” in an attempt to shame us into cultural suicide akin to what we’re seeing across Europe, where they are suffering the consequences of their own enablers for all the world to observe. 
  •  They are California Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) and other California democrats who pushed aside more important issues to spend their time passing a bill that prevents the state from firing members of the Communist Party.  Communism has only killed an estimated 94 million people, so let’s make sure we undo any boring old laws that would unfairly prevent its tentacles from reaching into California’s government, right?
  •  They are Barack Obama and his minions who strangely made it their top priority to empty out Guantanamo Bay and to empower terror-loving Iran in a deal aptly described by Charles Krauthammer as “… the worst deal since the Munich deal of 1938.”
  •  They are the politicians who cower to the racist hate group, Black Lives Matter, and who refuse to stand up for all lives, no matter the race.
  • They are legislators in the state of Minnesota who joined Washington state’s challenge to Trump’s temporary travel ban just as Minnesota’s state health commissioner “…sounded an alert on more frequent and costly threats to the public health, referencing measles, tuberculosis, and even the Zika virus and syphilis…” largely attributable to an influx of foreign born carriers.
  •  They are the reporters, journalists and no-border activists who insist on trading in the word “illegal” for the new and improved (i.e. politically correct) term “undocumented” in order to reprogram our minds of any pesky, negative associations we might have been taught with respect to the crime of trespassing. 

And there’s so many more that I’m sure to be forgetting.  Please feel free to add your favorite Enabler to the list. 

recent post by Pesky Truth resident blogger, Kathy, is a testament to the depths to which the ever-helpful Enablers have forced us to sink.  “Illegals demand subsidized healthcare, housing from Columbia University,” as reported in, includes a link to a list of galling demands by a group of students who don’t even have the legal right to be here, much less make demands upon their fellow human beings for free this and that.  In a sane world – i.e., a world without The Enablers – this would be laughed off and dismissed followed by the unceremonious dragging away of the undocumented snowflakes (CW’s note:  it is okay to use the term “undocumented” ONLY when it is followed by an appropriately insulting term such as “snowflake”) by ICE.  But thanks to The Enablers and the precedent they’ve helped set for legitimizing every clown who pounds his puny fist on the table, it isn’t funny.  Instead it represents yet another threat to our disappearing freedom to just say, “No.”

Getting back to the tragic story of Sheila Bellush, a 12-year old child can be, and should be, forgiven for lacking the maturity to comprehend the danger that her actions would bring and for the selfishness, typical of children, to put her own desires ahead of the safety of her family.  But what excuse is there for the Monica Herranz’s, the Michael Moore’s and the Barack Obama’s of this world?  Indeed, what excuse is there for the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of Enablers who, year after year, decade after decade, ignore the lessons of history and the pleas of their fellow citizens and become the Enablers to those intent on tearing down or taking over everything we’ve built?

There is no excuse.  Damn the Enablers.


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

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

White Privilege or Black Self-Destructiveness…..?

What do you do when you’ve built a lucrative cottage industry around a product but you’ve saturated the market and your product has not lived up to its hype?  Well, when you’re a liberal and the product you’re selling is indignation over phony racism, you repackage your phony racism as a new and improved product and you call it, “White privilege.”

A handout in a Wisconsin school’s “American Diversity” course defined white privilege as follows:

In critical race theory, white privilege is a set of advantages that are believed to be enjoyed by white people beyond those commonly experienced by non-white people in the same social, political, and economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.). Theorists differentiate it from racism or prejudice because, they say, a person who may benefit from white privilege is not necessarily racist or prejudiced and may be unaware of having any privileges reserved only for whites.

“Critical race theory.”  Boy that sounds very intellectual, doesn’t it?  You’re supposed to be impressed.

As charming as it is that “theorists” are attempting to differentiate “white privilege” from plain old fashioned racism it’s clearly just double-talk.  If the theory is that whites benefit from privilege strictly on the basis of skin color alone (see the definition above), that’s racism – period.  So why are we changing “racism” to “white privilege?”  Maybe it’s because you can stop being racist but you can never stop being white.  Maybe it’s because blacks can be racists, but they can’t have “white privilege.”  Maybe it’s because the “racism” claim has lost its luster thanks to the race hustlers who have gratuitously invoked it as an excuse for each and every black failure, and enough whites have finally caught on so as to weaken its effectiveness for extorting sympathy and public money.  Not ready to give up their golden goose, the hustlers have re-packaged it as “white privilege,” secure in the knowledge that the liberal sheep can be counted on to buy their revamped product.  As long as there’s money in it and as long as liberals abound to act as enablers we can look forward to a new variation of this same old game for as long as we live.  So let’s talk about “white privilege,” shall we?

If there’s one thing I don’t understand about the concept of “white privilege” it’s the success of people of color in fields like sports or entertainment.  I love football, and it’s been my observation that the vast majority of teams at the college level and in the pros consist largely of black players despite the smaller number of blacks in the general population.  But how can this be, I wonder, if whites are the ones with the privilege?  These are high-paying gigs, after all, and can set people up for a lifetime of great earning potential.  Why don’t whites want these jobs if they are entitled, via their privilege, to have them?  Ditto the same question for basketball.  And how did Will Smith and Oprah Winfrey become so rich and influential in a world where only whites are entitled to such privilege?  How did Dwayne Johnson overcome “white privilege” to become the highest paid actor in the world in 2016?

These realities alone dispel the whole “white privilege” theory as far as I’m concerned, because it represents concrete evidence that businesses will embrace the people who can best help them succeed regardless of race or gender.  Therefore, if there are other industries where blacks are underrepresented, there must logically be other explanations besides “white privilege.”  Here are a few facts to consider when reflecting on what some of those reasons might be:

·         Blacks graduate from high school at significantly lower rates than white (75% vs. 88%) or Asian students (90%).1

·         According to the latest government census report, 46.9% of whites had an associate’s degree or more compared to just 32.4% of blacks.2

·         In 2015 66% of black children lived in single-parent households while just 25% of white children lived in single-parent households.3

·         As of 2014 the teen birth rate for blacks was 34.9 per 1,000, or double that of whites (17.3 per 1,000).4

Is “white privilege” to blame for the high incidence of teen pregnancy and fatherless households in the black community?  Is “white privilege” to blame for the lower graduation rate among black high school students?  Consider the top reasons cited by blacks for dropping out:

  1. Becoming a parent
  2. Being suspended or expelled even once
  3. Having several friends drop out
  4. Feeling academically unprepared for school
  5. Experiencing a significant mental health problem
  6. Homelessness, and moving to a new home.

From Black Enterprise, September 2015

You have to stretch pretty hard to assign blame for this to “white privilege.”  Bad choices and poor patterns of behavior are the reasons blacks fall behind academically, and this ultimately manifests itself in lower college graduation rates and, of course, reduced representation in areas of employment that require a higher level of education.  Employers in those fields then have fewer positive experiences to draw upon when evaluating black job candidates and they instinctively go with what’s familiar and what’s brought them the most success in the past.  Is that bias?  Perhaps; but it’s not bias based on malice or “privilege.”   It’s bias based on experience, history and observation.  Most importantly, the ONLY way to cure it is to change experience, history and observation, and this is something only blacks have the power to do.  Let me reiterate:

“White privilege” can only be cured by positive self-change in the black community.

This is why, whenever I read the usual drivel on “white privilege,” I think:  “So what?”  “Privilege,” if that’s the word the race hustlers want to use, is around us all the time and it’s not reserved to race, though if it was we would have to shift our focus to privilege among the Asian race since they kick everyone’s butt when it comes to success as measured by education and earnings.  If we’re going to obsess over “privilege” why aren’t we also talking about the privileges that come from being taller, smarter, better looking, more talented, luckier, more creative, healthier or happier, etc.?  And who is more “privileged,” the white child born to wealthy but abusive parents or the black child born to poor but nurturing parents?  These questions take our thinking where the race hustlers don’t want us to go, because only race – or to be more specific, whiteness – lends itself easily to the prospect of wealth transfer and that, not equality, is the hustler’s ultimate objective. 

I want to close with an appeal to those who’ve bought into the message of “white privilege,” for they know not what they do.  The peddlers of “white privilege” have only two goals in mind: 

1.  To take something from you;
2.  To make you an enabler for taking from others, including your children.

That’s it.  And the question is:  Are you so desperate for a cause that you’ll allow it?  Will you be an enabler to a scam that rewards the industry of victimhood when it threatens the future of not just your own children but also the black children who are being robbed of life’s critical lessons and the chance for self-driven success?  No one in this world, white or black, is born with an automatic pass for anything, as evidenced by those born to one form of privilege or another who nevertheless end up experiencing poverty, hardship or injustice, or those born without any privilege who nevertheless come to experience great wealth or success.  Life is what you choose to make it.  Let that be the message you share in this life.


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

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

This is who The Left REALLY is: Patricia Esparza

Myths are funny things.  They persist in spite of all evidence to the contrary, fueled by imagination and people’s willingness – or better yet, determination - to believe them.  That’s how it is with the myth of the kind-hearted, benevolent leftist a.k.a. the “do-gooders,” and that myth is central to the Left’s ability to maintain power and influence; which means it’s long past time to debunk this myth one leftist at a time. First up:   Convicted killer, Patricia Esparza.

Esparza’s story was profiled on a May, 2016, episode of ‘Dateline on ID.’  She came from a poor family that moved from Mexico to California when she was a small child.  Despite poverty and claims that her father sexually abused her as a child, Esparza excelled in school and won a scholarship to a prestigious private boarding school in New Hampshire.  According to Dateline she probably could have attended her pick of Ivy League schools but chose to go to Pamona College “near her family’s California home.”

While a sophomore at Pamona Esparza was at a dance club one night when she met and exchanged phone numbers with a 24-year old man named Gonzalo Ramirez.  Esparza says he called her the next morning and went to breakfast with her and a friend, then offered to drive her back to her apartment.  Once there he asked to come in for a glass of water and then made sexual advances which she rebuffed, but he ultimately raped her.  She didn’t report this to the police, but the next day went to the campus medical center where she asked for and received the morning after pill.  She later claimed that she told the nurse she’d been raped, but that the nurse was indifferent and never reported the rape to police.  Records from that day make no mention of Esparza’s rape claim. 

Three weeks after the alleged rape Gonzalo Ramirez was found dead after being brazenly kidnapped by two men in a white van who intentionally bumped into Ramirez’s car.  The next day his body was found dumped on the street.  He had been brutally beaten and hacked to death with a meat cleaver.

Under questioning (her phone number was found in Ramirez’s apartment), Esparza told police about the rape and said that two weeks after the rape she told her ex-boyfriend, Gianni Van, what had happened.  That was all she knew, she said.  Investigators discovered that Gianni owned a white van and other evidence pointed to his involvement in the crime.  With Esparza being the only link between the two men her testimony was critical to the mounting case against Van, but to the surprise and dismay of police Esparza suddenly up and married Van in Las Vegas before police could arrest him.  California is a state where a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse, and without the testimony of Esparza prosecutors had a weak case with no proof of motive.  So for the time being, thanks to the actions of Patricia Esparza, the murderers of Gonzalo Ramirez would remain free.

Esparza would later claim that Van “forced” her to marry him, and that she was terrified of him and never lived with him; but smiling photos with her sitting on his lap left me to doubt the true nature of their relationship. 

While the family of Gonzalo Ramirez saw no one held to account for his murder, Patricia Esparza moved on with her life.  According to a sympathetic article in, “[Esparza] graduated from Pomona with a double major in psychology and women’s studies.  She went on to earn a Ph.D. at DePaul University in clinical psychology.  As a researcher, she focused on human resilience, studying how Latino and urban teenagers develop a sense of belonging and cope with loss and conflict.”

So Esparza didn’t seem to have any difficulty getting on with her life, in spite of her “forced” marriage.  She becomes a political activist, rubbing elbows with the likes of radical democrat socialist, Cornell West, as well as Hillary Clinton, naturally.  She meets neurobiologist and “distinguished scholar” Jorge Mancias while working on a political campaign (he 48, she 25) and, after years of “negotiation,” eventually divorces Van to marry Mancias.  They both get jobs in Geneva, Switzerland (she as a consultant for the World Health Organization, he with the Global Fund), and reside in neighboring France.  They have a daughter.  Tearing up, Mancias tells Dateline that he “admired [Esparza’s] desire to help people,” and her “honesty.” 

Back in the U.S.A. police and prosecutors never forgot about Esparza or Gonzalo Ramirez.  When they learn that Esparza has divorced Van, they contact her in France and ask her to assist with the case.  She doesn’t respond.  Through additional witnesses Police ultimately learn that, on the night Ramirez was kidnapped, Esparza had accompanied Van and his friends to the nightclub he frequented and pointed him out to them.  With new light shed on her involvement, police flag her passport, and the next time she returns to the U.S. she is arrested.  She finally agrees to be interviewed and admits to identifying Ramirez for his killers.  She is offered a plea deal of three years for manslaughter in exchange for her testimony against Van and allowed to return to France while Van is awaiting trial; but by the time she returns to the U.S. Esparza, her husband and her lawyers have concocted a plan, as leftists are wont to do.  “She would take her case to the court of public opinion,” according to the Dateline narrator.  Upon arriving she and the husband hold a press conference in front of the courthouse where, with her four-year old daughter beside her, Esparza goes on the attack against the prosecutor.  “It is unfortunate that he is willing to destroy a family, that he is willing to strip me away from my daughter knowing that I’m innocent…” she defiantly says to the cameras, painting the prosecutor as the bad guy and herself as the victim.

“This is not America.  This is not justice.  This is abuse of power.  The persecution of an innocent woman who has never harmed anyone.” cried the husband.  Poor, poor Patricia Esparza.

And then the snowflakes came out of the woodwork for Esparza.  Thousands of people signed a petition on Esparza’s behalf.  They carried their signs.  They wore their t-shirts.  But the prosecutor said it best:  “I knew that she had hundreds if not thousands of supporters who had never read a single police report, never listened to a single taped interview.”   But ignorance of the facts never interferes with the Left’s activism.

Feeling emboldened Esparza rejects the three-year plea deal and opts for a trial instead.  While awaiting trial she complains in an interview with Dateline that she’s been re-traumatized every time she talks about her “ordeal.” 

Did I mention that Gonzalo Ramirez was chained up, beaten and hacked to death with a meat cleaver? 

In her interview she admits to Dateline that she watched as Van and his friends rear-ended Ramirez’s truck and then kidnapped him when he got out of his truck.  She admits that she waited in a nearby bar afterwards, until someone came and took her to the transmission shop where Ramirez was being held.  She sees him chained up and beaten.  Ramirez was “not in good shape,” according to Esparza.  She claims to have been terrorized.  “I never wanted Gonzalo Ramirez to be harmed,” she says.  She calls herself a victim.  Asked if she now wished she had gone to the police, she answered:  “I wish that at some point this whole cycle had been stopped either by an adult or by myself…” 

Esparza was 20 years old when the crime occurred. 

When Esparza rejected her plea deal Diane Tran, wife of one of Ramirez’s killers and witness to the events that took place, took her own plea deal, telling prosecutors that Patricia Esparza wasn’t forced into anything, that she took part in planning the murder, that discussions about retaliation began immediately after she told Van about the alleged rape, and that Esparza was present when they talked about murder.  According to Tran, Esparza knew about the plan to kill Gonzales and encouraged it.

With Tran prepared to testify and prosecutors undeterred by the bullying campaign on her behalf, Esparza lost her nerve and took a plea, except the offer was now for six years instead of three based upon Tran’s testimony.

I hope you’ll excuse me for the length of this story but the details are necessary to expose Patricia Esparza for the cowardly, cold, calculating liar she is and her supporters for the attention-craving, amoral ignoramuses they really are. 

We don’t know if Gonzalo Ramirez actually raped Patricia Esparza because she didn’t report the rape to the police when it allegedly occurred.  Why not?  She didn’t want her family to know, she says.  Well isn’t that brave of our courageous leftist?  If he truly was a rapist, I guess this student of women’s studies and purported sympathizer of women’s struggles was okay with him being out on the street, free to rape other women.  Someone please explain that one to me.  Where are the champions of civil liberties to condemn Esparza and her friends for meting out their own justice?  Where are the leftists who routinely protest the death penalty as “cruel” when a man has been tortured and hacked to death without the chance to defend himself in a court of law?  At every turn this case reveals how phony the Left are, and to what extent their reputations for courage and compassion are myths conjured up in their own diseased minds. 

Whether she was raped or not I personally don’t believe Patricia Esparza ever reported the rape to the nurse or other medical personnel who administered the morning after pill she requested.  After seeing the multitude of lies that she told and coming to understand her character (or absence thereof), it seems far more plausible to me that the nurse’s account is the truth.  Why is this important?  Because Esparza threw this poor nurse under the bus when she claimed that the nurse ignored the rape charge and failed to report it, with no concern for how such a charge might damage the nurse’s reputation or endanger her job.  Contrary to the myth, the little people never matter to the Left.  They are expendable. 

Perhaps one of the most disgusting aspects of this case was the way Esparza used her “little daughter” to buttress her victimhood persona.  Again and again she wonders aloud what will happen to her little daughter, but never does she acknowledge the two little daughters of Gonzalo Ramirez, now grown, whose father was taken from them and is never coming back.  According to one report Esparza’s husband told the local City News Service:  “The first thing my wife said after she was handcuffed was to please take care of our daughter and shield her from the pain of this experience.”  Really?  Then why did she parade the girl at the news conference where she announced she would fight the charges against her, and why did her husband bring the girl to the courthouse when Esparza finally plead guilty to manslaughter?  Maybe “shield” means something different in leftist speak. 

Finally, let’s talk about Esparza’s attempt to shirk accountability for her actions by trying to intimidate prosecutors with public support, while still pretending to be courageous.  Is this how justice is supposed to work, that he or she with the most friends wins?  That’s the mentality of the Left.  The rules of the system never apply to them.  Keep in mind that prosecutors initially offered her a sentence of just three years in exchange for testifying against those who carried out the actual killing.  But Esparza says she didn’t want a conviction to jeopardize her career.  Frankly I don’t understand why she’s worried.  A murder conviction makes you a hero to the liberals who run the world’s universities.  She’ll be promoted to chair of her department as soon as she’s released.

That’s who Patricia Esparza really is, just in case you ever encounter the mythical version.

Next up:  The myth of Hillary Clinton.