In El Paso, Democrats Show Us How Low They Can Go

“Saying that President Trump has ‘fanned the flames of white supremacy in this nation,’ Democratic presidential primary front-runner Joe Biden on Wednesday will directly link the president to the mass shooting in El Paso, Texas.”  ~Fox News, August 7, 2019

Long ago I concluded that the lowest form of criminal is the person who tries to pin his crime on another innocent person.  A lot of people are capable of doing the wrong thing, but it takes a special kind of corruption – a person devoid of conscience – to watch innocent people suffer for your own crimes.  That’s what’s on my mind with respect to the mass killings that took place in El Paso last week, and the Left’s mad rush to try and direct blame onto Donald Trump. 

Democrats say it was Trump’s anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric that stirred the El Paso shooter’s anger towards illegal immigrants (actually if democrats were telling this story they would have deceitfully left out the word “illegal,” but for the sake of brevity we’ll have to ignore their duplicity for a moment).  What they’ve argued, in a nutshell, is that anger inspired the shooter’s actions, therefore whoever inspired that anger is to blame for his crimes.  I wonder if the finger-pointers would stand by their self-serving logic after I’ve adeptly explained why it is they, not Trump, who are responsible for the rage that the shooter was feeling.

Frustration:
a deep chronic sense or state of insecurity and dissatisfaction arising from unresolved problems or unfulfilled needs
     ~Merriam-Webster Dictionary

First, let’s understand something about the relationship between anger and frustration.  Frustration, “a deep chronic sense or state of insecurity and dissatisfaction arising from unresolved problems or unfulfilled needs,” leads to anger.  Consider the example of the child who is treated differently from a favored sibling, i.e., held to a higher standard of behavior, punished for behaviors that the favored child is allowed to get away with, deprived of nice things that are offered to the favored child.  Imagine that child’s frustration due to his impotence over his situation.  What kind of feelings do you suppose this engenders in the mistreated child towards the favored sibling?  One would imagine that he must harbor great resentment, especially if the favored child wallows in the favoritism and is indifferent to his sibling’s pain.  Who is ultimately responsible for the child’s frustration and anger?  “The parents” is the logical answer.  They are the ones who have created this sick situation over which the child has no control, and that responsibility doesn’t shift if an outside observer points out to the mistreated child that he has every reason to be angry.

Now let’s look at who is responsible for the sick situation of illegal immigration in this nation that has frustrated most Americans.

The ILLEGAL immigration problem in this country has been continuously worsening since after WWII, when labor shortages (real or perceived) led millions of Mexican workers to come to the U.S., some illegally and some on temporary work permits.  When the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was passed and led to a wave of legal immigration as well as a huge shift in the origins of immigrants, the U.S. put a halt to the temporary worker permits for Mexican laborers, but migrants in search of work continued to come illegally.  We all know that the growing problem of illegal immigration ultimately led to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 under which Ronald Reagan, in a deal with the devil (Ted Kennedy) infamously granted amnesty for nearly three million illegal immigrants.  Thus began the age of the Left’s recognition of the value of immigration as a political weapon and as a source of division among Americans that proved helpful to Team Democrat.  The power to frustrate conservatives is an intoxicating drug to the Left; consequently, in the pursuant years they have added fuel to our frustration by heaping one reward after another onto those who trespass here.  We are forced by law to educate the children of those who trespass here illegally, and the doors of our hospitals must be opened to illegals, regardless of how it increases the cost – or the wait – for those of us who pay the bills; if illegals commit crimes or their children become gang members who threaten the safety of Americans, that’s too bad.  

Press one for English…..

Then came the Left’s typical sly strategy of linguistic slight-of-hand.  The illegals have become the “undocumented.”  This is supposed to make us forget that we are talking about criminals - people who disrespect our sovereignty, ignore our laws and take advantage of us.  And because the Left is enjoying our frustration so much, they will show us who’s boss by declaring our cities to be places of “sanctuary” for illegals, reject any attempt to secure our borders, give driver’s licenses to illegals, allow illegals to vote in our elections, denounce the men and women who enforce our borders, and suggest that illegals, too, will get “free” healthcare under their socialist schemes.  Though we have been told for more than a decade that the illegal population here is “11 million,” a joint study last year by researchers at Yale and MIT estimated the actual figure to likely be in excess of 22 million, or almost twice what the MSM has been deceitfully reporting for more than a decade; yet we cannot ascertain what the truth is because leftist groups like the ACLU, using our own courts against us, won’t allow it.

Yet it is Donald Trump, we are told, who is to blame for the anger that ravaged El Paso, because Trump dared to object out loud to what has happened in this country.  If the source of the shooter’s anger is to blame for his heinous act, then I’ll let you be the judge of who has created the conditions for that anger.

~CW

What is “Justice?”

The long awaited Mueller hearings this week revealed Democrats’ strategy for setting up a case to impeach Donald Trump based upon the crime of “obstruction of justice.”  Clearly they put their little heads together and plotted and planned their attack, citing damning details from the Mueller Report in carefully choreographed coordination and projecting their poster boards for the TV cameras so as to make the most powerful imprint upon impressionable Americans who tuned in for the show.  Not surprisingly the obstruction-obsessed Democrats didn’t bother to concern themselves with the second half of the equation:  Justice.  

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines “justice” in multiple ways:

“…the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments…the administration of law…the quality of being just, impartial, or fair…the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action…conformity to this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS…the quality of conforming to law…conformity to truth, fact, or reason : CORRECTNESS.”

Anyone who rooted for Harrison Ford’s character in the great movie, The Fugitive, understands a little something about the true meaning of justice.  Harris’ character was wrongly accused and convicted of murdering his wife.  When he fortuitously gets a chance to escape, he takes it, and then he sets about trying to evade the clutches of “justice” while he embarks on a mission to find the real killer.  And since this is the movies, Harrison does indeed discover and expose the real killer, and to the great satisfaction of the audience his exoneration and freedom are assumed.  But again, this is the movies, where people appreciate and understand justice because there is nothing at stake for them. 

Back to real life and the sad realities of human nature.  While Democrats were rabidly focused on obstruction, none of them seemed the least bit concerned or curious as to whether justice had been properly pursued.  While Republicans commendably pelted Robert Mueller with great questions about the nefarious origins of the investigation and the undeniably biased team that he assembled in pursuit of “justice,” Democrats were true to form in their absence of curiosity about those pesky details.  Nor did they share Republicans’ justified outrage at Mueller’s invention of the “not exonerated” standard that flies in the face of the American system of justice under which people are presumed innocent unless proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent as Mueller cunningly implied.  Only one side seemed interested in establishing whether or not the “justice” side of the equation had been satisfied, and it wasn’t the Democrats; yet without justice there can be no obstruction of justice.  I challenge anyone to argue otherwise. 

Democrats around the blogosphere are angrily demanding to know why Trump supporters aren’t outraged by the efforts of Trump et al to impede or stop the Mueller investigation.  I would suggest that they watch one of those great old movies where an innocent person is being railroaded by corrupt people in the system:  the lazy sheriff, the lying witnesses, the prosecutor who just wants another notch on his belt and the judge who’s on the take.  When you find yourself pulling for the innocent person doing whatever he can to fight the “justice” system, maybe then you’ll understand. 

~CW

Trump Would be a Fool to EVER Release His Tax Returns

Democrats: “We demand that Donald Trump to put his foot in this trap!” 

“The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy’s not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.” 

~Sun Tzu 

Democrats are at war with the Republican Party, which means they’re at war with the American people because the GOP, weak and lame as it is, is the only thing standing between the Constitution and Democrats who would like to put the Constitution into the shredding machine.  The sooner all Americans understand this, the better.

It would be a refreshing change if Democrats were ever sincerely looking out for the interests of the American people, but Donald Trump’s enemies are obsessed with his tax returns for one reason only, and that is to find some information that can be used as a weapon with which to cudgel him politically.  Given the scheming nature of Democrats today and their willingness to manipulate the facts for their own benefit, there’s absolutely ZERO chance that this won’t happen.  None.  Nada.  Picture Elmer Fudd, shotgun at the ready, trying to cajole Bugs Bunny to step out of his rabbit hole for the sake of "transparency." To his great credit Trump appears to understand this game for what it is, but alas we have a handful of Republicans (hello, Mitt Romney!) who can only dream of possessing the common sense of the invincible Bugs Bunny.

Democrats – the party of socialist totalitarianism and thievery – cannot defeat Republicans and the American spirit in the arena of genuine political debate, so they are desperate to change the subject and to give their voters some excuse – any excuse – to put them in power in spite of their destructive ways.  (“See!  Trump didn’t give enough to charity!  That’s why I have to vote for a big-government socialist!”).  Whatever helps you sleep at night, my dear Democrats.

The scheme is already in play and the game is fixed so that there’s no way Trump can possibly win.  If he refuses to produce his tax returns then he must be hiding something.  If he produces the returns Democrats are ready to pounce.  Democrats and their leftist cohorts in the “mainstream” media are hoping to paint Trump into a corner, so it’s time to do what only Donald Trump can do and say, “Screw the leftists I’m not forking over my tax returns.  Now, let’s talk about the evils of socialism….”

~CW

This post can also be viewed at the website:  The Pesky Truth.

The McConnell Plan to Fight Democrats' "Resistance"

McConnell:  Time to Stop the Democrats' Obstruction

From Politico Magazine, April 1, 2019

It took six months of partisan delays — and several railroad accidents — before Democrats let the Senate confirm a federal railroad administrator, even though none of them actually voted against the nominee in the end.  It’s been 354 days and counting in Senate purgatory for the president’s nominee to head the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Two-hundred eighty-seven days and counting for the under secretary of state for management. Noncontroversial lower court nominees have languished for weeks and weeks — for no discernible reason — before they, too, were confirmed unanimously. These are just a few examples of the historic obstruction Senate Democrats have visited upon President Trump’s nominees for two years and counting.

Since January 2017, for the first time in memory, a minority has exploited procedure to systematically obstruct a president from staffing up his administration. This new, across-the-board obstruction is unfair to the president and, more importantly, to the American people. Left unchecked, it is guaranteed to create an unsustainable precedent that would see every future presidency of either party obstructed in the same mindless way.  The Senate needs to restore normalcy. And this week, we will vote to do just that.

Every presidential election since John Adams beat Thomas Jefferson in 1796 has undoubtedly left some senators disappointed. But never before has the unhappy side then built a systematic effort to keep the new president's administration unstaffed.  We aren’t talking about limited opposition to a few high-profile nominees or unusual circumstances. It’s mindless, undiscriminating obstruction for the sake of obstruction. Even uncontroversial lower-level nominees whom literally no senators oppose are not spared.

Across the first two years of each of the six presidents preceding President Trump, the Senate only had to hold 24 total cloture votes on nominations. That’s the once-rare procedural step that unlocks an up-or-down confirmation vote even though a minority has sought to block it.  And in President Trump’s first two years? We had to hold a stunning 128 cloture votes to advance nominations. Our Democratic colleagues made the Senate jump over five times as many hurdles as in the equivalent periods in the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations combined.

Because of this obstruction, the Senate’s progress in filling important executive branch positions has been insufficient. Crucial jobs are still being held empty out of political spite. More nominees whom I suspect would be confirmed without opposition are still being delayed indefinitely because our colleagues cannot finish grieving their loss in 2016.  The all-encompassing, systematic nature of this obstruction is not part of the Senate’s important tradition of minority rights. It is a new departure from that tradition. And this break with tradition is hurting the Senate, hamstringing our duly elected president, and denying citizens the government they elected.  Moreover, if we let this partisan paralysis continue, it will define a new norm for the future. It’s hard to imagine any future presidency of either party would be spared.

We can’t accept this. We need to stop this bizarre, new practice. We need to rebuild a nominations process that resembles the way things worked for more than two centuries.  Fortunately, the recent past provides a path forward.  In January 2013, as President Obama began his second term, I and many other Senate Republicans joined with Democrats to enact bipartisan reform of our nominations rules.  Republicans certainly weren’t thrilled with the election result. But instead of throwing a systematic tantrum, we acknowledged that the president should be able to build a government at a reasonable pace.  The measure, pushed by then-Democratic Leader Harry Reid and the current Democratic Leader Senator Chuck Schumer, sped up consideration of lower-tier nominations without changing the procedure for nominations to the Supreme Court, the circuit courts, or Cabinet-level executive positions. It helped us get lower-tier nominees out of Senate purgatory and into their roles without touching the most consequential vacancies.  It was a big step toward restoring Senate tradition. Even with a Democratic president, many Republicans still thought it was the right thing to do. The resolution got 78 votes.

These modest changes helped. But they only applied for the Congress in which they were enacted. And the need is much more urgent today.  That’s why, this week, the Senate will vote on a proposal to recreate similar, modest steps and make them permanent going forward.  Our proposal would only reduce the time a minority can keep delaying lower-tier nominations after a majority has invoked cloture. This would keep the Senate floor moving, saving time that is currently tied up in inoffensive nominations that senators don’t even really debate. And, at last, it would let President Trump fill important vacancies at a more reasonable pace.

Democrats overwhelmingly supported changes like these in 2013 when they helped President Obama. And privately, many of our Democratic colleagues tell us they’d be happy to support this new proposal, too — as long as we postpone its effective date until January 2021, when they hope there will be a Democrat occupying the White House.  Give me a break. A rules change is either a good idea or it isn’t. The answer cannot depend on whether you like the current occupant of the White House. Simple fairness dictates that there cannot be protections in place for Democratic administrations past and future that magically skip over Republican presidents. And this is especially true under the current extraordinary circumstances Senate Democrats have created.

The status quo is unfair, unhealthy, and unsustainable. This president and all future presidents deserve a more functional process for building their administrations.  Later this week, every senator will have the chance to vote for these common-sense changes. I sincerely hope that, as in 2013, the Senate can make these reforms through bipartisan regular order. Because the current situation cannot stand — and it won’t.

“Heads I win, tails you lose.”

That’s the Democrat motto…..the Left’s version of cooperative government, LOL.  The game must always be rigged in their favor.  Always.  You cannot get more UNAMERICAN than that, but alas the Left is hell-bent on amassing power regardless of the cost. 

Undoubtedly Mitch McConnell is trying to get the truth out there before the Democrats, with the help of the leftwing media, begin their campaign of lies about how the Republicans are attacking democracy.  Regardless of how you feel about McConnell, he’s right on this.  

Good luck, Senator McConnell. 

~CW

This post can also be viewed at the blog site The Pesky Truth.  

Why Rand Paul Got It Wrong

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

            ~Oath of office for members of congress

An op-ed by Rand Paul was posted on Fox News today:

In September of 2014,  I had these words to say: "The president acts like he's a king. He ignores the Constitution.  He arrogantly says, 'If Congress will not act, then I must.'  Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.”

I would literally lose my political soul if I decided to treat President Trump different than President Obama. (Although, I’ll note, not one Democrat criticized Obama for his executive orders.)  I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security.  However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.

Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.  I was against foreign aid and foreign intervention without a true national security threat — under Republicans and Democrats.  I’ve stood up and voted against budgets that pile up endless debt and borrow too much — under Republicans and Democrats.  I will stand up for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the system of checks and balances we have — under Republicans and Democrats.  Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.

There are really two questions involved in the decision about emergency funding. First, does statutory law allow for the president’s emergency orders, and, second, does the Constitution permit these emergency orders?  As far as the statute goes, the answer is maybe — although no president has previously used emergency powers to spend money denied by Congress, and it was clearly not intended to do that.  But there is a much larger question: the question of whether or not this power and therefore this action are constitutional. With regard to the Constitution, the Supreme Court made it very clear in Youngstown Steel in 1952, in a case that is being closely reexamined in the discussion of executive power.  In Youngstown, the Court ruled that there are three kinds of executive order: orders that carry out an expressly voiced congressional position, orders where Congress’ will is unclear, and, finally, orders clearly opposed to the will of Congress.

To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation.  In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security.  It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.  Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers.  Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.  Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress.  This turns that principle on its head.

I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready.  That was wrong.  Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama.  They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight.

Some are attempting to say that there isn’t a good analogy between President Obama’s orders or the Youngstown case. I disagree. Not only are the issues similar, but I think Youngstown Steel implications are even more profound in the case of emergency appropriations. We spent the last two months debating how much money should be spent on a wall, and Congress came to a clear conclusion: $1.3 billion. Without question, the president’s order for more wall money contradicts the will of Congress and will, in all likelihood, be struck down by the Supreme Court.  In fact, I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this.

Regardless, I must vote how my principles dictate. My oath is to the Constitution, not to any man or political party. I stand with the president often, and I do so with a loud voice. Today, I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits. I understand his frustration. Dealing with Congress can be pretty difficult sometimes. But Congress appropriates money, and his only constitutional recourse, if he does not like the amount they appropriate, is to veto the bill.  I look forward to working for a constitutional way to deal with our border security issue.

~Senator Rand Paul

Rand Paul makes some very valid points, but the flaw in his argument is this:  we are dealing with a rogue majority in congress that has made no secret of the fact that their actions are solely motivated by “resistance” to Donald Trump.  The definitive proof of this is that the very same members of congress who refuse to give this president the requested money for the border wall were fine and dandy with giving Barack Obama money for erecting walls at the border when Obama was POTUS.  The facts belie Democrats’ phony claims about walls being “immoral” or that “walls don’t work;” their blatant, spite-based use of our tax dollars as political weaponry is absolutely not how our government was intended to work, and it’s precisely why we have a crises at our border that’s led to a frustrated president’s declaration of emergency.

I’ve often written with outrage about Obama’s unconstitutional “pen and phone” actions that were a not-so-cleverly-veiled means of bypassing the legitimate will of congress, just as Senator Paul suggests; however, there’s no question that the Republican majority’s objections to DACA were consistent with their long-standing platform against illegal immigration.  At no time could anyone have ever made the case that Republicans had done an about-face on prior positions and misused their legislative powers for the simple purpose of spiting a president they disliked or for cynical political gain.

For the sake of “resistance” to Donald Trump, Democrats are selling our country out to people of other nations who disrespect our sovereignty and our inalienable rights to decide who enters our country and who does not.  What form will “resistance” take next?  Will they refuse to let Trump defend us militarily if we come under attack by hostile nations so as to deprive him of a “win,” the fate of the American people be damned?  Will they reject well-qualified, Trump-appointed patriots to posts within our government and compromise our protection and prosperity all in the name of childish “resistance?”  In fact, they already have.

Let me suggest, Senator Paul, that the fight over border wall money is just a symptom of the real emergency:  Democrats who are all-in on “resistance” at the expense of this nation and their fellow citizens.  Democrats have forsaken their oaths of office, and become enemies of the Constitution and all Americans who still embrace it.  This is just one more instance in which their side demands that we abide by the rule of law while giving themselves a pass to ignore it.  If it requires a declaration of emergency to fight back against such an enemy, then so be it.  This nation is truly in crisis.

~CW

This post can also be viewed that the conservative website, The Pesky Truth.

Karl Rove: Obama’s redistricting idea would benefit Democrats – not democracy

By Karl Rove | Fox News

Since leaving office, former President Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, have made congressional redistricting reform a top priority.  Saying that “protecting” democracy requires “rethinking the way we draw our congressional districts,” President Obama has lashed out at Republicans for supposedly gerrymandering themselves into control of the House of Representatives.

Gerrymandering involves manipulating the boundaries of districts represented by members of the U.S. House, state legislators and local officials to favor one political party over the other in elections.  By this practice, the Democratic former president asserts, the GOP “moves our debate from the rational, reasonable middle, where most Americans are, to the extremes. And that makes commonsense policies that most Americans support less likely.”

Then in a burst of typical self-righteous sanctimony, Obama argues that Republican dominance in redistricting is “not good for our children and regardless of our party affiliations, it’s not good for our democracy.” The former president asserts each party should get representation roughly equal to its share of the congressional popular vote.  To achieve this, Obama and Holder argue, Americans should elect more Democrats (how remarkably convenient) to state legislatures and create appointed states commissions to handle redistricting.

California and Iowa already have commissions like this in place. Voters in Colorado, Michigan, Missouri and Utah approved creating such commissions in the Nov. 6 midterm elections.  There are more problems with this than just the typical, stale attack on Republicans as “not good for our children” and “not good for our democracy.”  The results of the November midterms show that the former president and his attorney general are inaccurately describing the role of Republicans in redistricting.

As the Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman reported this week, Democratic U.S. House candidates received 53 percent of the total midterm popular vote. So if you follow President Obama’s thinking, this should entitle Democrats to 231 House seats, while giving Republicans 204.  As of Tuesday night, Fox News pegs the new House as having 233 Democrats to 199 Republicans, with three seats undecided – all currently held by Republicans. So right now Democrats are holding slightly more seats than their share of the popular vote and will continue doing so even if Republicans win the three seats yet to be decided.

The results of the November midterms show that the former president and his attorney general are inaccurately describing the role of Republicans in redistricting.  That doesn’t mean that gerrymandering isn’t a factor. But if the measure of gerrymandering is one party getting a much bigger share of seats than its share of the popular vote, then it’s Democrats in California and Iowa who are getting more seats than they deserve.  And – irony of ironies – both states have supposedly nonpartisan commissions that draw their congressional district boundaries.

In California, Democrats received 65 percent of the popular vote in congressional races while Republicans received 34 percent. Yet Democrats won 45 of the state’s 53 U.S. House seats and lead in the remaining race not yet declared – for an 87 percent share of the state’s congressional seats.  In contrast, Republicans won only seven seats for a share of 13 percent of California’s U.S. House delegation.  But rather than splitting the delegation between 46 Democrats and seven Republicans (assuming Democrats win the one seat still undecided), President Obama’s popular vote standard would point to split of 35 Democrats and 18 Republicans in the state’s congressional delegation – more than twice the number of Republicans who were elected.

California is not alone. In Iowa, Democrats received 50 percent of the popular vote and Republicans 47 percent, yet Democrats won three – or 75 percent – of the state’s four House seats while Republicans won one seat – or 25 percent of the House delegation.  President Obama’s popular vote standard would suggest that Democrats should get two seats and Republicans should get the other two. A commission also does Iowa’s redistricting.

Here’s a good-faith test for Obama and Holder: Will they now strongly denounce the gerrymandering of California’s congressional seats and urge reforms that lead to Republicans gaining a proper share of the state’s congressional delegations?  If not, Americans can assume that the former president and his attorney general aren’t really trying to improve our democracy – they’re trying to advance the interests of the Democratic Party.

Should we be surprised?

**************************************************************************

No Karl, we definitely should not be surprised.  If the names “Holder” or “Obama” are attached to something you can rest assured that there is evil afoot, because true democracy is the last thing they want. 

Once again our republic is surreptitiously under attack by the wicked Left.  The promise of a “non-partisan commission” to draw redistricting lines probably sounded like a swell idea to unsuspecting Californians and Iowans and to the voters of the other four states that have now tragically doomed themselves to democrat domination, because the average voter sadly still does not understand who leftists really are.  They still believe what the leftists say, rather than learning who they are by what they do.  Too many Americans do not understand that the Obamas and the Holders of the world are criminals at heart.  Their mission is to steal your power in whatever ways they can, whether it be the piece by piece dismemberment of the Constitution (your Constitution!), the brainwashing of America’s youth through their control of our educational institutions, or the creation of “non-partisan commissions” (kind of like the “non-partisan” Mueller investigation) to decide voting districts which – just by coincidence mind you – dilute the voting power of Republicans who are a threat to the Left’s criminal ambitions. 

The leftists count on Americans to be too busy raising their families and trying to make a living to notice that we’re under attack.  It’s guerilla warfare at its best, and the Left is quietly winning.  When Americans wake up and see what’s going on, it will be too late.  Please open your eyes NOW.

~CW

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

Will Democrats Cut Off Their Noses to Spite Donald Trump?

Have you ever seen a more self-destructive force than today’s Democrat Party?  We’re talking about people who look at the horrific mess and suffering that’s going on in the socialist experiment known as Venezuela and say, “Let’s do some of that!”  Or do CNN, Huffington Post, Mother Jones and The Guardian even cover Venezuela and the predictable destruction brought on by people who were sold on the notion of getting something for nothing?  My guess is that story gets very little play where it would do the most good.

What also gets little play, no doubt, are the economic and foreign policy successes of the Trump Administration.  Instead liberals and leftists are no doubt bombarded with a continuous stream of absurd scaremongering about “fascism” and “racism” as they are led down the path towards a bleak future for themselves and their children.  I might have given up caring by now, given how long this tiring struggle between liberty and tyranny has been going on, except that we are all tethered to the liberals and leftists by virtue of our shared citizenship, and when they foolishly jump into the ocean with the expectation that the strong swimmers will keep them afloat they threaten to drown us all.

The elections today are a proxy fight between Left and Right – between people who believe what they are told vs. people who believe what they can see with their own eyes.  “Fascism, racism, white supremacy, the threat to your healthcare…..”  None of that is real, despite what some would wish you to believe.  None of it passes the smell test.  But your jobs are real.  The want ads are real.  Your 401K’s are real.  And the threat of socialism and all its destruction is very real.

They say this election is a referendum on Trump – a judgment, if you will.  That’s only partly true, because judgment implies reason.  Judgment implies rationality and objectivity.  All of these things have been driven out of the Democrat Party and they’ve been supplanted by mindless rage, and thus we have not a referendum but a tantrum of monstrous proportions.

Will you be a child on election day?  Will you march to the polls and defiantly hack off your own nose to spite Donald Trump?  Will you “resist” the restoration of prosperity and strength for all Americans – yourself and your children included – for such empty and foolish satisfaction?  I have a better idea.  Why don’t you switch sides so we can all be winners?

Please restore the sanity.  Vote RED today.

~CW

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

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.

Understanding the Left’s Love Affair with Islam

They say politics makes strange bedfellows, and boy are they ever right.  Nothing could be stranger – on the surface - than the Left’s sudden and nearly fanatical embrace of those who hail from the Muslim faith.  After spending the better part of the past century belittling organized religion and bombarding our courts with challenges to anything that smacks of religion in a governmental setting, the Left has suddenly discovered a newfound loathing for religious intolerance.    These are the same people who condescendingly sneer about “flying spaghetti monsters” and “bible thumpers,” but Islam and the Koran?  That’s all good with the Left for some reason.  And if you think it’s odd that the purported champions of women’s issues and gay rights are now ferociously defending a religious group that mistreats women and gays, well you would be right.  It is indeed odd. 

They say if something doesn’t make sense then it isn’t true.  Well it doesn’t make sense that the Left has made itself the best friend of the Muslim community on the basis of their love for religious freedom.  If they stood for religious freedom as a principle they’d be taking up the mantel of Christians as well, and yet the opposite is true.  Christians are routinely under attack by the Left.  So now the question is, why would the Left go out of its way to pamper and appease Muslims?

To thoroughly explain the Left requires a bit of time and a good psychiatric dictionary but to keep it pithy I’ll sum it up this way:  Liberalism is a mental disorder that manifests itself as an absence of maturity.  A liberal is an adult child with a child’s constant need to gratify his ego, so much of what liberals do is for the purpose of showing the rest of us how superior they are.  Liberals also crave power and control.  Every odd thing they do can be explained by understanding these simple truths. 

After 9-11 most Americans naturally began to look at Islam and Muslims with a bit more circumspection because that was the reasonable thing to do given the horror that transpired.  Liberals allowed us to grieve for about five minutes before they could no longer resist the prime opportunity they saw to feed their massive egos and to divide us in ways that could be politically useful to them.  After all, Muslims vote, don’t they?  They set out on a devious mission to portray our natural, self-protective instincts as “hate” and “religious bigotry” so that they could smugly show us how much more open-minded and resistant to stereotyping they are (not that the Left never stereotypes, but when they do they have good reasons, you see).  The truth is that there was commendably little backlash against peaceful Muslims following the bloody carnage of 9-11, but rather than applaud our maturity and restraint liberals began incessantly campaigning for “tolerance” as if Muslims were the ones under attack.  Muslims - the latest conquests to be pulled into the Democrat Party’s harem - are now the honorary guests of Democrats at highly visible events such as the State of the Union address, where they are paraded out like orphans at a charity telethon.  The intent is to create a false narrative of pervasive bigotry on the Right and foment a sense of victimhood among Muslims.  Does that game sound familiar?  It should.  Victimhood, after all, is the Left’s specialty, because when you don’t have principles to unify your party, you need victims.  And it’s working, of course. 

Read:  The real swing vote in presidential election? It could be Muslim American voters.

Guess which way the Muslim vote is trending?  In the year 2000 80% of the Muslim vote went for George Bush.  By 2008 85% of Muslims reportedly voted for Obama.  Now, Democrats, Wikipedia and liberal journalists will tell you that the mass movement of Muslims to the Democrat Party was a consequence of the rhetoric and military policy of George Bush and the “neo-cons.”  But those of us paying careful attention would question whether it was the campaign against Islamic terrorism that turned the tide or whether it was the Left’s orchestrated scheme to cultivate victim status among Muslims that turned the tide.  And though the hard stats are difficult to pin down, one can find article after article talking about the high levels of welfare and other public assistance within the Muslim community, particularly the thousands of refugees brought in by Barack Obama.  Someone remind me which is the party of welfare, and which is the party that threatens (emptily, alas) to turn off the spigot?  

Hmmmm.

Like every other special interest group wooed by the Left, Muslims know a useful idiot when they see one.  Once satisfied to assimilate and reasonably blend with American culture, Muslims now boldly establish Islamic enclaves here, secure in the knowledge that any resistance we show will be attacked by the useful idiots with loud shouts of “Islamophobia” or “religious bigotry.”  They know, as conservatives do, that the Left will foolishly sacrifice anything – even its own culture – for fleeting moments of power and the heady feeling that they’re better than everyone else. 

That’s it in a nutshell, folks.  Muslims and the Left make natural allies.  There are now two Muslims in the U.S. House of Representatives:  Keith Ellison, Democrat from Minnesota, and André Carson, Democrat from Indiana.  Both are radical leftists.  Surpise, surprise.  In February of 2012 USA Today reported that the number of U.S. mosques was up 74% since 2000.  In November of 2014, C-SPAN carried video of the Islamic Opening Prayer to Allah in the House of Representatives.  In the meantime we’ve watched as our friends in countries all over Europe grapple with the consequences of letting their Left prove how open-minded they are over there. 

It’s got nothing to do with religious liberty or religious persecution.  It’s got everything to do with expanding the Democrat Party tent.  The question is:  At what cost to the rest of us? 

~CW

Care to comment?  Visit this post at The Pesky Truth.  Thanks!

Theft in the Name of “Student Loan Forgiveness”

This nation’s universities are money-making machines for the leftist elites.  From their bloated administrations run by liberals to the predominantly “progressive” faculty and staff, to the liberals who dominate the lecture circuit (a la Hillary and Bill) to those who write the pricey books that are intentionally obsolete after a semester, there is a vast network of people – mostly Democrats – who benefit greatly from the machine.  Consequently they have their cohorts within our government – again Democrats – working tirelessly to find ways to feed the machine more and more of our money.

A century ago the odds were against getting a college education unless you came from a family of strong financial means or you had a sponsor.  At some point people had the idea of borrowing money to attend college, but I’m guessing that this was back at a time when banks were still allowed to expect to be repaid and, consequently, were choosy about who they lent their depositors’ money too.  Naturally this would have left out poorer people who lacked a reliable source of repayment, and naturally this would have offended our liberal friends who, naturally, would look to the government (i.e. the taxpayers) to right this terrible wrong rather than reach into their own pockets and risk any of their own money.  So the federal government was brought into the business of guaranteeing student loans which thus enabled banks to be more generous with their lending policies and – eureka – the golden goose was born!  And all the liberals were happy…..for a while.

Liberals and greed have something in common:  neither one can ever be satisfied.  With a solid income source to tap into, the liberals sought to expand their empire and, of course, increase their salaries and benefits.  They advanced the idea that everyone should have a college education, and their government buddies enacted policies that kept the student loan money flowing.  When the economic crisis of 2008 hit, however, the cost of credit increased and private lenders who weren’t seeing a profit in student loans were getting out of the business.  Ruh-roh!  Government to the rescue!  The feds stepped in with a temporary plan to keep the loans coming by promising to buy the loans.  But the liberals were nervous about the future of their golden goose.  Enter Barack Obama and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.  Democrats figured the passing of HCERA would be a great time to also solve the problem of the threat to the university welfare syndicate, as taxpayers were distracted by the even larger attack on their wealth known as ‘Obamacare.’  With the passing of HCERA the federal government essentially, and quiety, took over the student loan program that previously had worked in conjunction with private banks.

But then came yet another problem.  It seems there is a limit on a person’s appetite for debt when they understand that one day it will all have to be paid back.   So the leftists put their thinking caps on their pointy heads and they drummed their fingers on the tables at the coffee houses and think-tanks where they like to meet.  Hmmm….what to do, what to do….. Until one little liberal pounded his puny fist on the table and cried, “It’s just not right that these poor people, so many of whom can’t find jobs in their chosen fields, should have to pay back these loans!”  I wonder if it occurred to the liberals that it’s even less fair for taxpayers – already struggling with the burden of carrying every other leftwing socialist program on their shoulders – to be saddled with debts they didn’t incur or benefit from, but I digress.  And so was born the grand and noble agenda of student loan forgiveness.  Purely for unselfish reasons, you understand.  Now the socialists would not have to worry until they ran out of other people’s money (which will probably come much sooner than they think).  Tomorrow is another day, as Scarlett O’Hara famously said.

The students feel entitled to their subsidized education, because that’s what they’ve been taught in the leftist-run universities which benefit from their sense of entitlement.  No conflict of interest there, eh?   If little Mindy wants to spend $400,000 to go to law school and become a public defender so that she can make a difference and be happy with herself, who are we to selfishly expect her to repay her debts?  Or what about little Stephan, who racks up $100,000 in loans he can never repay to be a social worker who makes $35,000 a year?  Nancy Pelosi would tell us that people should be what they want to be without having to worry about the cost (or the cost of providing themselves with healthcare).  I guess if they just want to sit and watch the grass grow we should pay them to do that as well.  Why not? 

This is just the tip of the iceberg on this conversation, folks.  Anyone who wants to get into more of the nitty gritty should watch a little weekday documentary called ‘Judge Judy.’  There you’ll see infinite examples of what happens with the money loaned out given away under the student loan program.  “Student loan” is now a euphemism for “free money,” or at least the recipients think so.  These “students” lend the money to their deadbeat friends to buy cars, get caught up on their baby-mama support or be bailed out of jail.  Billions of dollars – perhaps trillions – is being transferred in this way.  I don’t like to say that it’s been “wasted” because this conjures up a picture of money being dumped down a hole or burned in a fireplace.  Alas that would be preferable.  The money has been transferred, with the vast bulk of it going to enrich the leftwing cabal running our universities and to fuel the nation’s growing addiction to other people’s money.

I pray that Donald Trump and his allies in the federal government will make righting this wrong one of their top priorities.  If that happens, you may see a battle like you’ve never seen.  What say you?

~CW

Want to share your two cents?  Visit this post at The Pesky Truth.  Thanks!