Stephanie Wilkinson, the Hateful Hen

And now for today's lesson in propaganda and brainwashing....

The mean, intolerant, conscience-challenged and philosophically-confused co-owner of the sad little restaurant that earned its notoriety for refusing to serve White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders and her family has penned an especially nasty op-ed that the editors of the Washington Post, true to their leftist ideologies, found worthy of printing.  I would provide a link to the op-ed but apparently I have to subscribe to the WP, and I would sooner give my money to a drug addict than support leftist propaganda, so I’ll stick to what was reported in Fox News.

Per Fox:

“….Stephanie Wilkinson…wrote that ‘no one in the industry condones the physical assault of a patron’ before going on to argue that businesses are also expected to adhere to a ‘code of ethics.’

 ‘The once-ubiquitous idea that companies exist purely and solely to provide profit to shareholders is withering away like corn husks in the summer sun,’ she wrote, calling the new standard, ‘All are welcome. Terms and conditions apply.’

 Wilkinson also pointed to several other examples of Trump officials or Republicans meeting resistance while dining out, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, former DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and White House adviser Stephen Miller.  Wilkinson [who hereinafter shall be referred to as the Hateful Hen] said restaurant workers cannot be expected to ‘clock out of their consciences when they clock in to work.’

 ‘The high-profile clashes rarely involve one citizen fussing at another over the entrees. It’s more often a frustrated person (some of whom are restaurant employees) lashing out at the representatives of an administration that has made its name trashing norms and breaking backs. Not surprising, if you think about it: You can’t call people your enemies by day and expect hospitality from them in the evening,’ she wrote.

 ‘So when the day comes that the world feels returned to its normal axis, I expect we’ll see fewer highly charged encounters making headlines. In the meantime, the new rules apply. If you’re directly complicit in spreading hate or perpetuating suffering, maybe you should consider dining at home.’”

Not having read the original op-ed myself I am going to go out on a limb and predict that the Hateful Hen didn’t bother to provide any substance to the charge that conservatives “spread hate and perpetuate suffering;” and of course neither the leftists who manage the WP nor the sheep who bleat along in ignorant agreement will question the absence of evidence in support of these damning charges that supposedly justify the vicious discrimination of conservatives.  This is the new standard we are expected to live with, and to which I say in response:  F- that.

As I have previously noted, this latest leap in which the Left uses their irrational fantasies to justify their thuggery is simply this:  a manifestation of their contempt for their fellow citizens and a rejection of a system of government that gives anyone but them the right to decide how things will be.  “Hate” is a conveniently subjective term that the Left has latched onto for this very reason.  They can define it any way they want….any way that justifies their egregious and tyrannical behavior.  The bottom line is this:  they want power and control and they want it now.  They don’t recognize any opposition as legitimate – the Constitution be damned – and if they have to destroy the very essence of America’s soul to get what they want then by God that is what they will do.  The mentality is genuinely dangerous.

The great irony is that if anyone is justified in being angry and intolerant it is conservatives like my friends and I who are forced to watch in outrage while leftist Democrats stand at their podiums and arrogantly presume the right to use the power of our own government to steal from us in order to provide “free” handouts for everything and anything in exchange for votes, pitting one American against another, with no fear of the kind of retribution the Hateful Hen encourages against conservatives.  We are expected to be respectful while they pander to freeloaders and trespassers, using our money and risking our security. 

If anyone should be chased out of restaurants and the public arena, Ms. Hateful Hen, it’s you and your kind. 

I, for one, am hoping that day comes soon.

~CW

The Left’s Message to America: We Reject Democracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~CW

Postscript:

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

“New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker injected chaos into Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing Thursday by releasing confidential Kavanaugh emails with the backing of fellow Democrats in possible violation of Senate rules, calling it an act of “civil disobedience” and drawing condemnation from the Republicans on the committee.”

Perfect example of what I’m talking about.  The bar is lowered yet again.  ~ CW

This post can also be seen at the blog site The Pesky Truth (link).

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 slate.com, “[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 change.org 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.

~CW