Leslie Marshall Says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Should be Praised, not Criticized

In an Op-ed in Fox News yesterday, nationally syndicated liberal radio show host and Fox News contributor Leslie Marshall tries to tell us that we should praise, not criticize, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC).  Here are her remarks.  The responses in blue italics are mine.  ~CW

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, also now known as “AOC,” is the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. Normally, a person who is first at something is admired, revered, respected; but in the case of Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, it’s been quite the opposite.

By Ms. Marshall’s logic we should admire the youngest serial killer and the youngest known rapist.  They were, after all, “first at something.”  In reality, Ocasio-Cortez did what all socialists do and she bought votes with other people’s money, so I am not impressed, nor do I “admire, revere or respect” her or the tiny fraction of New Yorkers who put her in congress.

She’s been attacked not just from the right and members of the GOP, but even from some in her own party. She’s charismatic (Adolf Hitler was “charismatic.”), favors very progressive policies (i.e. she’s a radical), and refers to herself as a Democratic Socialist (that’s the Left’s non-threatening term for “we’re going to rob you blind”).  Yet despite her accomplishments (Um, what exactly has she accomplished other than getting elected?), here’s what is being said about her. And keep in mind, she’s only been in office one week.

She’s dumb.

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said that Ocasio-Cortez is a “29-year-old who doesn’t seem to know much about anything.” And that seems to be the opinion of many.

Maybe you should listen to those “many,” Leslie.  AOC is making radical – oops, I mean progressive – proposals which she purportedly has no idea how to finance.  I say “purportedly” because I think she knows very well how her plan will be funded, at least until the socialists run out of other people’s money.  The money will be stolen, via the government’s power to tax, from wealthy Americans (and the definition of who’s “wealthy” will change as the money gets tight).  It’s not exactly a secret.  We all know that taking away other people’s wealth and property by force is how socialism works.  AOC and other socialists just have to be careful about saying it out loud, lest it finally sink in with people that we’re talking about simple theft, albeit on a massive scale.

Is AOC a political scholar? No. In an interview on PBS’s “Firing Line with Margaret Hoover,” she admitted her own weakness on Middle East politics: “I am not the expert [laughing] at geopolitics on this issue.”

This is like saying, “General Custer wasn’t a perfect leader.  He even admitted to not shining his boots properly!”

Ms. Marshall not only understates the problem, she deliberately misses the bigger point.  AOC was elected, and is idolized by many on the Left, for her promises of socialistic bliss.  Apparently Ms. Marshall, who’s supposed to be politically informed, missed the infamous CNN interview in which AOC couldn’t – or wouldn’t – answer the “$40 trillion question” about how she plans to deliver this socialist utopia.  And of course no one ever asks the “charismatic” AOC the most important question of all:  What gives you the right to redistribute the wealth of the American people? 

I don’t know about the rest of you but I never signed up for this.

In my opinion, AOC is anything but dumb. She attended Boston University – not an easy school to get into. While working as a bartender, she decided to run for Congress and unseated the 10-term Democratic incumbent, Joe Crowley, who was not holding a vulnerable Congressional seat at that time. She won 57 percent of the vote. She saw what her district wanted and was lacking, and offered an alternative. And she won.

From a barmaid to a congresswoman? That’s no dummy.

She didn’t really earn her win, she just got lucky.

Ocasio-Cortez’s victory has been chalked up to a lot of factors, like “gentrification” and “changing demographics” in her district. In fact, she won because she gained the confidence of the majority of the voters with an old-fashioned tactic called hard work. This is a woman who pounded the pavement of New York’s 14th congressional district so much that she had holes in her shoes, literally. She admits that one reason she won was she worked harder than her opponent, and that’s true.

There is an extraordinary difference between book smarts and wisdom.  Just because someone can read and write and please the liberals who run Boston University doesn’t by any means guarantee that they are wise.  More importantly it doesn’t guarantee that they believe in the principles of the Constitution on which this nation is founded, and yet this is the one thing that all of our elected representatives should understand.  There are plenty of leftists who are clever.  There are none who are principled and who respect the individual’s right to what he or she has earned.

One of my favorite songs is by Don Henley, “How bad do you want it?” The refrain says, “How bad do you want it? Not bad enough.” Crowley didn’t want it bad enough, didn’t fight hard enough, didn’t work hard enough. AOC did. And this I know from personal experience. I was the youngest person to be syndicated on national radio back in 1992, and many thought I must have done something less than legitimate to get there. Trust me, I got there on nothing but hard work and merit.

So she worked hard.  Donald Trump works very hard too, by all accounts.  I don’t hear anyone on the Left singing his praises.

She’s an imposter.

AOC likes to call herself “Alex from the Bronx,” but her critics argue she’s an imposter because she grew up in Westchester County. Some say that makes her privileged. The fact is, she grew up in Yorktown, a very middle-class neighborhood, and currently lives in the Bronx.

Jim Hoft, a Gateway pundit, even entitled one of his pieces: “Exclusive: Yorktown Elitist and Bronx Hoaxer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Went by ‘Sandy’ Well into College at Boston U….”

Seriously? She’s not Alex from the Bronx because she was Sandy in college? I wonder if Flounder from “Animal House” used that nickname once he left college? And for the record, I was “Fletch” in college. Am I an imposter too?

The average person doesn’t refer to themselves as, “Mary from the bay area” or “John from the panhandle.”  AOC is making a statement when she calls herself “Alex from the Bronx,” so it’s fair for people to judge the fairness of the image that she’s intending to portray.   That certainly was the attitude adopted by the Left when ‘Joe the Plumber’ confronted Barack Obama.

Her clothes.

Despite the #MeToo movement, women still are constantly judged for our appearance, and AOC is no exception. The Washington Examiner posted to Twitter a photo it snuck of her in the halls of Congress. The caption read, “Hill staffer sent me this pic of Ocasio-Cortez they took just now. I’ll tell you something: that jacket and coat don’t look like a girl who struggles.”

If it weren’t for the way in which the Left viciously attacks Melania Trump for the way she dresses I’d say Ms. Marshall has a point, but meh, who cares.

Her facts.  (Her “facts?”  Don’t you mean her non-facts, or her absence of facts?)

AOC pointed out in a recent tweet that PolitiFact has fact-checked her the same number of times as White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders.

Sarah Sanders doesn’t get a vote in the Congress.  Sarah Sanders isn’t the newest star of the Democrat Party.   But not to worry, AOC.  Barack Obama misrepresented the facts all the time, and look how far he got.  

Her vote.

When she rose to vote for Nancy Pelosi for House speaker, some Republican members booed – treatment her Democratic colleagues did not receive. “Over 200 members voted for Nancy Pelosi today, yet the GOP only booed one: me,” Ocasio-Cortez later tweeted.

Oh please.  Being booed by the GOP is probably a badge of honor for a leftist like AOC.  In fact, she should feel honored.  They probably booed because they thought she might be the one Democrat who was sincere in her rejection of Pelosi.  

She danced!

There was almost more fuss, in my opinion, over a video that surfaced of AOC dancing in college than over the treatment of children being separated from their families at the border.

In the first place, Ms. Marshall’s assertion is false.  There was mass hysteria over family separations at the border.  The headlines went on for days.  Democrats and their cohorts in the leftwing media made certain of that.  The dancing fuss was just a blip.  But since she brought it up, let’s talk about those children.  Remind me, please, of how they came to be crossing the U.S. border illegally?  Leftist logic says that if you commit a crime (or your parents drag you along as they commit one), and there are consequences to that, the people who must impose the consequences are the bad guys, not the people who committed the crime.  This kind of childish reasoning is why leftists should never, ever be elected to positions of importance inside our government.

The bottom line is, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is someone who can be a role model for young girls everywhere. She had a goal, worked hard and achieved it. We should be applauding her accomplishments, not tearing her down and constantly criticizing her.

Hitler had a goal.  Hitler had achievements.  I’m not saying AOC is Hitler.  I’m saying that the morality of the goal matters, and there is nothing noble or moral about forced socialism, which is what AOC is promoting.  If I had a daughter the last person I would want her to emulate would be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  She is a fool and a threat to her fellow citizens whose rights she doesn’t respect and whose futures she wantonly jeopardizes.  She has the hubris to believe that she’s smarter and wiser than the Founders of this nation, so much so that she is unmoved by the realities of the man-made disaster playing out right now in Venezuela.  Leslie Marshall, in a fashion so tragically typical of the Left, ignores the substance and celebrates the fluff.  Her op-ed gives us insight into what’s wrong with the liberal mind.

~CW

You can leave a comment on this post at The Pesky Truth, where it is re-posted.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.

Where Was Mitt Romney When Barack Obama Was Lowering the Bar on American Character??

Yesterday Utah senator-elect Mitt Romney published what’s been described as a “scathing” anti-Trump op-ed in The Washington Post.  In the piece Romney opines that “…[Trump’s] conduct over the past two years, particularly his actions last month, is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office.”

Romney went on to say:

“A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect. As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit. With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.”

Regular readers here know that I am not the greatest fan of Donald Trump.  I believe it would be a far better thing if, in addition to the many things he’s done right, Trump could do his “winning” with class and grace which, for the record, I DO NOT define as allowing the attacks of the Left to go unanswered.  That said, I am greatly angered by Mitt Romney’s opinion piece for a number of reasons, first and foremost being the oh-so typical cluelessness of the self-righteous ‘moral conservative.’  If Mr. Romney is so concerned about the moral tone and character set by the president, where in the hell was he when Barack Obama was teaching Americans that it’s perfectly okay to saddle their neighbors with what is supposed to be their responsibility to take care of the needs of themselves and their families?  Where was Romney’s moral outrage when Obama and Democrats LIED in order to shove Obamacare down the throats of Americans?  Where was Romney’s moral outrage when Obama advocated stealing from taxpayers to “forgive” student loan debt?  Where was Romney’s moral outrage when Obama stole from taxpayers to put half the country on food stamps, or when taxpayers were stolen from to give bigger and bigger “refunds” to people who never paid one dime in taxes?  On the scale of what’s bad for the character of the country, making us a nation of thieves ought to far outweigh petty name-calling, and yet I don’t recall ever hearing Romney scolding Barack Obama or calling his character into question in an op-ed.

And let’s talk about the president’s imperative to “unite” us, since that was on Mitt’s scornful list of complaints against Trump.  Despite what the leftwing-dominated “mainstream” media would have the world believe, Barack Obama was the most divisive president in modern American history.  Without looking up the stats yet again, Americans who believed that race relations in this country were good plummeted by just about half during the reign of Barack Obama.  He and Democrats intentionally pitted blacks against whites, females against males, poor against rich – all as part of their political strategy.  That should have been obvious to anyone paying attention.  So where was Mr. Romney’s op-ed denouncing the failure of Obama to bring us together?  And maybe Mr. Romney, in his infinite wisdom, can advise Donald Trump as to precisely how he’s supposed to unite the country when he’s up against blind “resistance,” the sole purpose of which is to keep us as disunited as possible.  Please enlighten us, oh moral one!

It takes very little courage to criticize a president who is almost uniformly detested by the “mainstream” media, so color me unimpressed by Romney’s “bold” editorial.  I consider it the equivalent to kicking a person who’s already been ganged up on and isolated.  Oh, and how brave of you to speak up after you were safely elected, Mr. Romney.  That took real guts – not.     

~CW

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

The Left’s Sick, Scorched-Earth Mindset

“It was a sickness of the mind, and where sickness thrives, bad things will follow.”       

            ~ From the movie The Hobbit 

Every so often I’ll read a news story about a parent who, estranged or divorced from the other parent, wittingly or unwittingly takes out their unhappiness, their anger or their frustration on their innocent children.  It is not uncommon for feuding ex-s to withhold visitation or to unfairly poison a child’s mind against the other parent without regard to how this hurts their child.  In extreme cases parents have been known to torture, injure or kill their own children in their blind quest for vengeance or power over their ex, or sometimes they kill the ex and make orphans of their children.  I am always dumbstruck when I hear about acts of such incomprehensible selfishness.  Who could possibly argue that something hasn’t gone wrong in the minds of these so-called parents?

It is this mentality that I am so often reminded of as I watch the increasingly selfish actions of the American Left (AL), who for decades now have demonstrated that there is nothing sacred belonging to this country that they will not allow to be sacrificed in their pursuit of the power and attention that they are hopelessly addicted to.  Our Constitution, our unity, our sovereignty, our security, or economy, our financial stability, our justice system, our patriotism, our trust in American institutions, our future…. even our unborn.  Nothing is off the table in the cold civil war being waged by AL, and I mean nothing.  

The fight over illegal immigration and border security is merely one example of AL’s scorched-earth mindset.  Like the divorced parent who spoils the child – ultimately harming the child and the rest of society – to win the child’s affection away from the other parent, Democrats see the issue of illegal immigration not as an affront to our laws and sovereignty and a problem that must be solved but as an opportunity to be exploited.  By coddling and rewarding the illegals, Democrats can portray themselves as philanthropic and generous (at no real cost to them, naturally) in contrast to the “mean, stingy” Republicans to win favor with American Hispanics, immigrants and in the pliable minds of America’s youth who are easily manipulated when complicated issues are reduced to “nice” vs. “mean.”  What does this cost Americans?  In addition to the hundreds of billions we’re forced to spend on education, healthcare, welfare, lost tax revenue, and costs  (both financial and human) related to crime, Americans are losing faith in our government and our laws.  The resentment this naturally creates towards those who are here illegally is then cynically used by AL to condemn their fellow citizens as “racists.”  This traitorous attitude with respect to illegal immigration has long been AL’s unspoken policy, but with the election of Donald Trump they’ve crossed the line into scorched-earth territory whereby no stance is too outrageous.  You want your laws upheld?  AL will show you whose boss.  They’ll use your own mayors and judges and other elected officials – paid for with your tax dollars – to protect and give sanctuary to the illegals at your expense.  Take that.  You want your sovereignty respected?  AL will show you.  They’ll propose making it legal for the illegals to vote, and they’ll drown out your voice.  That’s scorched-earth politics.

This is what the cold civil war looks like.  It looks like the surrender of U.S. autonomy in the name of “climate change” and sanctimonious declarations that “the debate is over!” whenever we dare to disagree.  It looks like applauding a movement started by a spoiled football player to disparage the American flag and all that it stands for.  It looks like the shameful Kavanaugh farce and the attempts to delegitimize conservative appointees to the Supreme Court.  It looks like blind “resistance” to a legally elected president.  It looks like threats of impeachment without basis under the Constitution.  It looks like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer lying to the cameras that they came to the White House “in good faith” to discuss funding the border wall when clearly their mission all along was to plant the seeds of a Trump government shutdown for their own political gain.  Scorched earth.  

AL blames Donald Trump.  They claim that they’ve been pushed to the edge by Trump’s lack of civility, his unacceptable behavior, his fascism, his collusion with Russia…maybe even his bad haircut.  But the hypocrisy inevitably proves the lie, right?  These are the very same people who have applauded incivility from their own kind for decades, the same people who circled the wagons around Bill Clinton and ridiculed his accusers, the same people who want the government to be all-powerful, and the same people who yawned at news reports of Barack Obama whispering sweet nothings into the ear of the Russian president and who dismissed reports of good old Hillary approving the sale of U.S. uranium to Russia in exchange for cash to her foundation.  

The fact of the matter is that AL treated George W. Bush almost as badly as they do Trump (“Bush lied, people died” – remember that neat little ditty?).  They relentlessly ridiculed Bush, viciously suggested that he orchestrated 9-11 and the murder of thousands of Americans, sabotaged the White House before he took office, maliciously doctored documents to make it look like he lied about his military service, and more.  AL deemed Bush “unfit” long before bestowing that mantle on Trump, but Trump has been an especially vexing adversary because of his refusal to play by AL’s one-sided rules of “civility (i.e. censorship of the Right),” not to mention his surprise victory over their expected ticket to power, Hillary Clinton.  

The bottom line is this:  What we’re seeing is merely the American Left as it really is, not some temporary tantrum triggered by Donald Trump.  Trump has only helped to fully expose what was there all along.  AL is determined to control this country, even if that means they must destroy it first, that much should be clear to everyone by now.  This is their “sickness of the mind,” as so brilliantly analogized for us by J. R. Tolkien and the “precious” ring that was the object of scorched-earth battles in his books.  It’s just a tragedy that people won’t know what they had until it’s gone.

~CW

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

Bernie Sanders is Just Another “Green” Hypocrite

 

From Fox News today:

“Bernie Sanders spent nearly $300G on private air travel in October: reports”

 Per Fox (partially excerpted):

Bernie Sanders is so concerned about climate change that he spent nearly $300,000 on private air travel in October so he could speak to audiences in nine battleground states prior to November’s midterm elections. 

 “This expense was for transportation for the senator’s nine-day, nine-state tour to support Democratic candidates up and down the ballot ahead of Election Day,” said Arianna Jones, senior communications adviser for Friends of Bernie Sanders. 

 “This cost covered the entirety of the tour from Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, South Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, California, and back to Vermont,” Jones continued. “The senator participated in 25 events.” 

 Jones said the charter jets were necessary so Sanders could campaign for candidates and get back to Vermont to join the state Democratic Party’s campaign efforts.  The Sanders campaign purchased nearly $5,000 in carbon offsets to balance out the emissions produced from the travel. A carbon offset is a reduction in emissions to compensate for emissions elsewhere. 

 Sanders has been vocal about the need to curb the effects of climate change, calling it the “single greatest threat facing our planet.”  The same day his campaign paid Apollo Jets, Sanders called climate change a “planetary crisis” in a tweet. 

 “Climate change is a planetary crisis. Our task is clear. We must take on the fossil fuel industry that’s largely responsible for global emissions and accelerate our transition toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy sources,” Sanders wrote. 

 “He wanted to go where he thinks he can be helpful in energizing the base and bringing in young people and independent voters and working-class voters who supported him,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ 2016 campaign manager and longtime political adviser. 

 The campaign also paid $13,500 to Virginia-based travel agency Metropolitan Travel at the end of September.  In July 2017, the Sanders campaign paid $37,567 to Apollo Jets, the Washington Free Beacon reported.  During the 2016 presidential election, Sanders spent $5.2 million on private jet services in a six-month period from the end of 2015 to mid-2016.

You can read the full article here.

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

There’s no need for me to expound on the flagrant hypocrisy of Bernie Sanders, is there?  By now we all understand what a bunch of elitist phonies these leftists are.  I will, however, call your attention to this quote by Sanders’ 2016 campaign manager:

“He wanted to go where he thinks he can be helpful in energizing the base and bringing in young people and independent voters and working-class voters who supported him.”

Oh, well that explains everything.  He wanted it.  It’s not like the rest of us plebs ever want anything.  We don’t want to get around faster or more comfortably, or drive safer cars, or quickly accomplish the things that are important to us, or enjoy the wonder of traveling this world thanks to our hard-earned technological advances.  Apparently these perks are to be reserved only for the leftists who want.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”   

― George Orwell, Animal Farm

‘Nuff said.

~CW

To comment on this post please follow this link to the site, The Pesky Truth, where it is re-posted.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.

Marie Harf: “Democrats like Beto because he’s a very good politician.”

Isn’t this special?  Democrats are busy molding and shaping a heretofore unknown and relatively unaccomplished, pretty much random person to be their next presidential puppet hopeful.

Last night, in a segment on Fox News’ “The Story With Martha MacCallum,” this was how radio host and former Obama Administration spokesperson Marie Harf cheerfully explained Democrats’ enthusiasm and giddy presidential aspirations for losing senate candidate, Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke:

“Democrats like Beto because he’s a very good politician.”

Well la-de-da!

By all means Marie, let’s make Beto president of the free world!  Because the first quality that America and its 330 million citizens really needs in a great leader is his or her talent as “a good politician.”  After all, Hugo Chavez was a very good politician, and we see how well things worked out for Venezuela.

In less cynical times Harf might have stunned Americans for her unapologetic absence of any pretense that good ol’ Beto is admired for anything other than his talents as a lying politician, and she would be the featured subject of Saturday Night Live; but after successfully electing the empty chair, Barack Obama, to two terms, it seems the Left no longer feels the need to pretend to advocate leadership qualities in a…um…leader, and this is perfectly acceptable.  If the Left gets its wish 2020 will come down to a mere contest of personalities, and any thought of what’s actually good for the country and America’s future will be trivialized to the best extent they can.  This is the Left’s great gift to us, such devoted patriots are they.

It’s a sign of the sad political times we live in that someone like Marie Harf gets handsomely paid to express her childlike opinions and that we, as the audience, are supposed to appreciate the Left’s canned opposition to truth and common sense; but we’ve really fallen deep into the abyss when a commentator can proclaim, on national TV, that a presidential hopeful is attractive because “he’s a very good politician,” and this raises the eyebrows and the conscience of virtually no one.

Meanwhile, Melania put up some Christmas decorations that Democrats took the time to sneer about….

So glad to see they’ve got their priories in line.

~CW

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

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.

A Tale of Two Governments

Back in the days when I blogged at Townhall.com I regularly argued with anti-government types who alternately identified themselves as libertarians, anarchists, minarchists and anarcho-libertarians.  They weren’t quite sure what they stood for or precisely what they wanted, but they denounced me as a “grateful slave” to government because I was a conservative Republican.  Despite all of their angry fist-shaking, their attempts at debating me failed because they could not get around this one inarguable fact:  there will be government.

Thomas Paine said, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”  The anarchists will quibble, pointlessly, about whether government is “necessary,” but this is like arguing over whether mountains are necessary or rocks are necessary.   Why argue whether something is “necessary” when it is going to exist regardless?  Government is a reality.  It is going to exist whether we like it or not, and whether anyone deems it “necessary” or not.  The reason I know this is because it occurs in every society, across geography and across time, from tribal chieftains to Pharaohs to kings and queens to prime ministers to presidents and congresses….. government has existed in one form or another.  This is the nature of the human race.  It’s why ships have captains, corporations have boards and CEOs, schools have principles and towns have mayors.  Society yearns for order and order requires leadership.  And the dirty little secret of the anarchists is that they don’t want to ban order, they want to define it.

The point of this tale is to explain the thinking of America’s great Founders.  The anarchists would argue that the Founders weren’t great at all, that they were just self-serving men who wanted to install a government of their own liking, and in doing so they empowered the power-hungry and set us up for the ongoing struggle against big government that has persisted ever since.  But I believe the Founders, knowing and living history as they did, were responding to the reality that there will be overarching government, and if they did not shape it, someone else inevitably would.  So they seized the moment and shaped a Constitution that, if adhered to, promised to protect liberty by limiting the reach and power of the federal government.  In doing so it’s true that they also created the means by which the power-hungry could worm their way in and take control, as we’ve seen others do again and again throughout history.  The fact is, though, the power-hungry are always lurking and would come no matter what.  Just as human nature prescribes that societies will instinctively sort themselves into leaders and followers, it also prescribes that a fraction of the population will be driven by an insatiable quest for power.  The Founders made no claims of having the magic to defeat them.  They could only set up a firewall and hope that we would have the wisdom, the fortitude and the perseverance to preserve it.  I think they would be disappointed, but not surprised, to see how the firewall is crumbling today, and how the power-hungry have seeped into the cracks like water through a compromised dam.

The two governments that I refer to in this tale, therefore, are the government of the Founders (i.e. The People) versus government of the power-hungry, both of which are waging a fierce battle for control of the means to carry out their mission, i.e. our federal government.  The Founder’s government sees itself as defined and limited by the four corners of the Constitution.  It’s job is to provide for the nation’s defense, our common welfare and to be America’s trustee when dealing the rest of the world.  The government of the power-hungry sees itself as limited only by what it can’t get away with.  It sees the federal government as a tool for forcing the American people to bend to the will of the power-hungry and to transfer wealth from one group of Americans to another so as to serve the ultimate interests of the power-hungry.  The government of the power-hungry performs the role required by the Constitution only to the extent that it serves the ultimate interests of the power-hungry.

So whether government is “good” or not all depends on which government you’re talking about:  the Founder’s government (good) or the government of the power-hungry (evil), though the great rub is that the same host makes it possible for either one to exist.  I’ve been accused by some of being “anti-government” and by others of being “a government slave.”  LOL.  They’re both right, and they’re both wrong.  That’s the nature of the times we live in.

~CW

P.S.

Keep an eye on the fight brewing in Florida.  Looks like it could come down to a battle of the Florida constitution versus the power-hungry who are testing the citizens’ will to enforce that constitution.  It may be the perfect micro-study of the battle described above.

To leave a comment please visit The Pesky Truth, where this column is re-posted.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.