Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Democratic Party’ Category

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a gambler. 🙂 Encouraged to retire in the latter half of the Obama administration, Ginsburg wanted an extra year or three on the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) bench; and why should she deny herself that when Hillary Rodham Clinton was practically the next anointed President. So of course, she placed that bet; hang on and let Hillary name her replacement. It was a perfect cake eating and having scenario. 🙂

But a funny thing happened on the way to retirement. Hillary aint President. Now what? Hope for impeachment (a leftist pipe dream)? Last time I looked the POTUS succession line was about five or six GOP deep. Maybe try to hang on for another four years? That might work; but what if that next election doesn’t pan out either… eight is entirely different; eight is a long, long time.

Me? I find the predicament quite humorous. 🙂 When your enemies are gnashing teeth and rending garments it makes for good theater. And I’ve always been a big fan of karma (when she’s not biting me on the ass).

I bring this up only because I recently read a proposal from conservative news CEO Chris Ruddy (Newsmax.com). Ruddy has suggested Trump extend an olive branch to the left; a deal if you may. He thinks that President Donald Trump should offer that deal to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Retire now… and he will nominate… Judge Merrick Garland (President Barack Obama’s last nominee) to replace her.

I can’t say I’m in favor of the plan, but I can’t same I’m against it either. I’ve keep inching from one side to the over, more often than not against it.

Pro:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (the least qualified member of the SCOTUS) will no longer be on the SCOTUS.

Con:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be replaced by a slightly less not qualified judge.

Side Note: Anyone who believes in a living Constitution is not qualified to be a judge (or to hold any appointed or elected office).

Pro:
You’re replacing an ultra-leftist jurist with a moderate.

Con:
A moderate is just someone who pauses in the center… before turning left.

Pro:
It’s always the moral thing to do to seek common ground, to seek compromise, to extend the olive branch to your opposition.

Con:
The left has and never will reciprocate. The olive branch will get you NOTHING in return (besides Ginsburg gone). And if you think you’re going to get something; you sure as ^%$# better get your end first, have it in writing, or have a means to ensure the terms are met.

When it comes down to it, it’s a gamble. Issues at hand mean literally life or death for tens of thousands… religious liberty or further persecution… free speech… gun rights… issues core to the fabric of a healthy (or sick) republic. You’re giving up the possibility of a major shift (in the right direction) in the SCOTUS for a little insurance that we will only trot to hell vs sprint. I just can’t make that deal… If we’re taking the country to hell, let’s do it at a dead (leftist) run… OR… turn around. I’m really not interested in anything in the middle (the trotting option).

Sure, there’s that nagging feeling of should we make a deal. Are we repeating the mistake of a proud old woman? And consider that our odds aren’t near as good as hers were…

Read Full Post »

meme-nostalgic-pity-trainWatching the left’s reaction to the 2016 has been a mixed bag. Most of all we are seeing a full frontal display of the core essence that make up the leftist mindset; immaturity, violence, hatred, narcissism, denial, self-absorption, and entitlement.

It is telling that Washington is spending millions in preparation of the rabble that will soon be swarming the city to protest Trumps inauguration. They have no choice given the violence and millions of dollars of damage done thus far by “protesters”. But note this… While I’m sure this is a banner year, Washington has to spend this kind of money and does this kind of prep EVERY time a Republican takes the oval office (since Nixon). Every time a Democrat is sworn in… the cost and prep is minimal in comparison. Again, it’s telling…

The main thing we are seeing is the left lashing out like wounded animals or exhibiting the first two stages of grief/loss (denial and anger). They latch on to anything and everything to blame and explain what they cannot fathom. Villains and scapegoats abound; Jim Comey, Russian Hackers, Fake News, the Electoral College, and the oldie, goodie, tried and true… racism of the winners and the unwashed who put them there.

They know there must be an explanation of the loss of Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. Like O.J. searching for the real killers… they will look everywhere… everywhere except at a Party/ideology out of touch OR a flawed candidate with a flawed message.

I am actually somewhat grateful for the childish display; because for the rest of America it is confirming. Maybe not so much that Donald Trump is the right man at the right time to bring us back from the brink… but that the left isn’t, never was and never will be.

So I’m going to write a few posts on what I’m observing concerning the various aspects of this leftist lashing out, grasping, and blaming.

So let’s get started…


The Electoral College

Let’s start with the Electoral College since it is pretty prominent on the list and relevant since they actually vote tomorrow (Monday 12/19/16).

The Electoral College was one of the first villains latched onto by the flailing left.

electoral-college-map

Again exposing the hypocrisy of the left, if the results had been as they expected (and predicted), Hillary winning the Electoral College and losing the popular vote, the left would be extolling the virtues and protections provided by the institution provided by the founding fathers. The left has no fondness for the popular vote, the electoral college or even democracy. They only care about power which they believe they are entitled to.

As punishment for not falling into leftist lockstep, some on the left say the Electoral College must be eliminated and the Presidency decided by popular vote. The electoral college after all is… wait for it… racist. (And you wonder why people roll their eyes when this crap is spouted again and again and again.)

But wait! The left isn’t really sure whether they should attack or embrace the Electoral College (at least for now). On one hand, they instinctively attack it because those numbers didn’t go their way… so it must be abolished. At the same time, they are saying “Wait! the Electoral College IS a safety valve put in place to stop this very thing (Trumps election), so that sane minds could override the ignorant electorate.” Thus the organized efforts to get enough electors to switch and deny Trump the needed count.

Case in point, Martin Sheen (and various other actors from “The West Wing”) produced a video seeking to get electors to change their votes, stating (as a group)…

“Republican members of the Electoral College, this message is for you. As you know, our Founding Fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the American people from the dangers of a demagogue and to ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is to an eminent degree and down with the requisite qualifications. I’m not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton — just don’t vote for Trump… As you know, the Constitution gives electors the right to vote for any eligible person. Any eligible person — no matter which party they belong to. By voting your conscience, you and other brave Republican electors can give the House of Representatives the option to select a qualified candidate for the presidency… What is evident is that Donald Trump lacks more than the qualifications to be president. He lacks the necessary stability and clearly the respect for the Constitution of our great nation….

See… right there, that’s insulting. The balls it takes for a bunch of leftist actors to turn to the Constitution (which they pretty well detest) as the means of thwarting an election is phenomenal. But using the charge that the man who won is unfit because he lacks “respect for the Constitution of our great nation” is beyond the pale. To make this assertion after supporting Barack Hussein Obama for eight %^$#ing years! Hypocrites one and all!

Obama - Standing on Constitution

Sheen (and his ilk) pledge that anyone who votes their way will go “down in the books as an American hero,” will “have my respect.”

Which gets back to a basic biblical truth electors should consider. If the world loves you, you are of the world. The last thing I would want would be the admiration and respect of these shallow, worldly, @ssholes. They’re not interested in you, justice, democracy, or the Constitution; they just want power for their side.

So my stance is… let the left scream, stomp, curse, knash their teeth, rend their garments, and show their collective @sses… well, I mean more than usual… Once this little scheme fails (tomorrow 12/18/16), they’ll be ready to toss aside the evil, racist, Electoral College that just a breath ago was designed to “safeguard the American people”.

Side Note: In fact, the Electoral College was put in place as a compromise to get the small states (what would have been fly-over country back then) to approve the Constitution. Without it, those states would have been ignored in the grand scheme of national elections and politics. AND those (very valid) concerns should still worry fly-over country today. Luckily the Electoral College is literally Constitutional, making it nie-impossible to be rid of it. Good.

Read Full Post »

Thanks to Dave H for bringing my attention to Scott Adams’ posting concerning his endorsement of Trump. (see Why I Switched My Endorsement from Clinton to Trump) It was interesting reading. I’m a big fan of his work, “Dilbert”, being a technology professional and someone who has worked in large, soulless, bureaucratic corporations (Enron, Electronic Data Systems, Merrill Lynch). Judging from the evidence of his work, Mr. Adams has a knack for insight, cynicism, and humor. (Kind of like me, huh… :))

The introduction is telling concerning the mindset of California and the left. Though, admittedly, I view California as do many Texans… “the land of fruits and nuts” and thus by association leftist. If you’re conservative (or even hold one or two conservative ideas) you keep them to yourself in that environment. The ramifications to your person and business and life are scary. I would go so far as to say there is a fitting word for this type of vitriolic reaction to opposition… “fascist”. And to give credit where it’s due, Mr. Adams is brave to risk those consequences. Yes, an opposite reaction can be expressed by conservatives towards liberals; but I honestly think it’s not as pronounced or hateful.

Peoples Republic of California

But I digress…

Let’s look at Adams’ arguments for switching his endorsement to Trump…

1. What We Don’t Know
Mr. Adams’ first point seems to be that we collectively don’t know enough about big world issues to make decisions or form justifiable opinions… and that we should concentrate on the things we do know something about.

“I don’t know enough to make a decision. Neither do you, but you probably think you do” — Scott Adams

I’m a little skeptical concerning this line of thought. I don’t know a lot about nuclear tipped missiles; but I DO know I want policies that keep Islamic nut-jobs away of them. This may sound like something that goes without saying, but in this day-and-age it’s obviously not.

You don’t have to have an in depth knowledge of an issues to form an informed, common sense opinion. It’s not rocket science to see where socialism, globalism, and progressivism lead. It just takes a little common sense and historical perspective. So we can use the adequate God-given tools we have without having to learn and digest ALL the intricate details an expert on a subject does.

With all this in mind… Mr. Adams basis his decision (to jump from Hillary to Trump) on things he knows which he lists as the estate taxes, Hillary’s health, Trumps being a leader, and Trump being a persuader.

2a. Confiscation of Property
This (the Estate Tax) seems to have been the turning point issue for Mr. Adams. He’s rich (and deservedly so) and the government (overall) takes half what he makes. The feds under Hillary will take another 50% of what remains when he dies for a total of 75% It confiscatory and it is as Adams puts it “robbery by government”. To quote a previous President, I feel his pain (figuratively and intellectually… not literally… I’m just a poor boy).

But… OK… His coming around and concern remind me of the movie Die Hard. (Hang in here with me.) John McClane calls 911 and explains terrorists have taken over the Nakatomi building. They think it’s a prank call, then send a donut eating cop to check it out. It’s obvious he’s being fooled and is about to drive off. So… McClane drops a dead terrorist body on the hood of the car from several stories up and all hell breaks loose. To which McClain exclaims… “Welcome to the party pal!”

Movie - Die Hard - Welcome to the Party Pal

My point? Hillary Clinton, nay… the entire Democratic party has had at it’s core this type of robbery and income distribution for decades… DECADES!!! The rates may go up and down (thanks to Republicans) but the core idea of robbery has ALWAYS been there. So why now? Why figure this out now and allow it to sway you and not ten, twenty, or thirty years ago? And why apply it to Hillary and not the entire left, the entire Democratic Party?

Political - Welcome to the Party2b. Misleading Information on Her Web Site
In the same section Adams complains that Hillary’s web site seeks to mislead people on exactly what she intends to do; and that the confiscatory policy applies to a much broader range of incomes. Missing details, misleading inferences; you get the picture.

“So don’t fall for the claim that Clinton has plenty of policy details on her website. She does, but it is organized to mislead, not to inform. That’s far worse than having no details.” — Scott Adams

OK… I’m back to the movie Die Hard. (Hang in here with me.) John McClane calls 911… No wait… Morpheus is offering Neo two pills, one blue (in his left hand) and one red (in his right hand)… 🙂

Same thing. This crap has been a core practice of Hillary Clinton, nay… the entire Democratic party (and the entire left, including the minions in the main stream media) for decades… DECADES!!! So… Why now?

3. Party or Wake
Adams says Trump supporters are happy, and Clinton supporters are not. While Adams says this is not his biggest reason… I don’t know why it’s a reason at all.

Dang… I’m being more critical than I thought I would be… Sorry Mr. Adams.

4. Clinton’s Health
Adams is concerned with Hillary’s health. It’s a valid concern and I agree that Hillary is in bad shape (mentally and physically). But the key problem isn’t the megalomaniac in power but the party in power with which she shares an overall leftist philosophy. If she croaks, Cain will pull a Lyndon B. Johnson and continue to screw things up for generations to come.

Adams is also concerned with Bill Clinton’s health too and worries that a dying husband would distract President Hillary. LMAO… Adams need not worry; she wouldn’t give sick Bill a second thought. 🙂 The only focus would be on creating the appearance of a concerned wife to milk sympathy from the public. (Never let a crisis go to wasted after all.) Behind the scenes, I really believe she would dance on his grave.

5. Pacing and Leading
Adams says Trump is really just using a persuasion technique when he takes extreme positions. He’ll govern differently. Adams uses Trumps softening on issues, such as deportation, as evidence of this. Even Trump has announced everything to be a starting position in negotiations (deals if you will) that he is ready and prepared to engage in.

I’ve heard this argument before, and admit it’s possible. But if it is, Trump is just too good at pretending in order to inflate the initial negotiating position… I can’t tell; so maybe it’s me as Adams believes to be the case.

My gut feel still says he’s an immature, shallow, person… and that those characteristics would be key to his leadership.

6. Persuasion
Adams says the real job of the President is in selling and persuading. I can see that. It’s definitely an important part of the job and a key part of leadership.

“They need to listen to experts and then help sell the best expert solutions to the public.” — Scott Adams

I agree surrounding yourself with good people and listening to their advice is key to being a good President. I think that is a lot of what Reagan (the Great Communicator) did. But this is by definition a humility play. Does Trump really have that in him? He says he’ll do it…

On a side note… this is one of the main reasons Obama has been such a horrible President. Obama is arrogant and thinks he knows better than all the experts around him (a common leftist fault).

“I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it. It’s hard to give up control when that’s all I’ve known.” — Barack Obama

It’s a terrible thing to be an incompetent idiot. It’s even worse to be one, not know it, and be arrogant about the knowledge and ability you don’t have but think you do. I definitely think Hillary falls into the same mold; maybe not to the extent of Obama, but it’s there.

Conclusion:
I’m not sold. I just can’t get over the gut feel I have concerning the core values that make up Trump. No these values are not as bad as the black-hearted, evil core values of Hillary Clinton… but neither deserve my vote. And I’m through voting for the lesser of two evils. In defense of Trump, I’d feel the same way if Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, or John Kasich were the nominee.

I appreciate Mr. Adams sharing his thoughts; especially in an environment where that will elicit dung throwing (maybe literally) by his “friends” and “neighbors” in California. Hopefully he has reached a point where he can insulate himself and not give-a-#$@%.

I wish him luck. Life’s not as easy when you swallow the red pill… or when you’re welcomed to the party just as you’re starting to enjoy your donuts. I’ve been there… I’ve been there for years…

Read Full Post »

An article I recently read on a leftist website (I think it was Slate) referenced Trump as neo-fascist and Hillary as neo-liberal (they added globalist). I would have to disagree with both labels.

People - Hillary and Trump

It’s not as if I’m against labels. I throw them around all the time (just watch); but I generally like my adjectives to mean something… to be accurate with some modicum of logic to back them up.

Fascism - No Free ThinkingTo begin with; Trump is not a fascist. It’s actually absurd that the left would have the insolence to make such a charge given the literally fascist tactics of their minions (see below). I guess their “logic” is that national racism is fascist (actually a valid historical argument); but their assertion that Trump is a racist for wanting to secure the border is (to be blunt) idiotic. Even Trumps assertion that we should curtail Muslim immigration and entry into the country is valid given the demographic of terrorist shooting up offices and trying to blow $#@$% up. And to deny that demographic is again… (to be blunt) idiotic.

Now, Trump IS a nationalist. (See “Make America Great Again” at the expense of other nations who have taken advantage of our stupid leaders.) And granted, the two great examples of fascism in the 20th century were heavily nationalist; but the two mindsets are separate and distinct. And the fascist used nationalism as a means to an end (dictatorships). This may explain the confusion, though I think those who label Trump (or the right, or conservatives, or the GOP) as fascist haven’t really given it much thought. Fascist (to them) is anything they are not.

StatismA more apt comparison to great (as in worldly impact) fascist regimes would be that they were statist (advocating a doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy). Socialist dictator Benito Mussolini extolled “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” Sound familiar? Sound like the direction of a certain political movement within the United States?

Obama - Extreme Founders

Trump isn’t even that close to being a fascist when you consider many leftist organizations.

You want to see fascism in the United States…

Look at the likes of Black Lives Matter and the racial “social justice” movement with college professors calling for “muscle” (brown shirts) to come and take care of a pesky student reporter.

Look at the LGBT movement, that seeks not solutions or compromise but to force-feed an agenda that if not embraced invokes intimidation and ostracism, and financial ruin.

People - Lerner, Lois - IRS Brown Shirt - Fascist MustacheLook at the IRS that systematically targets their ideological foes (conservatives) and then manages to obfuscate any inquiry into the matter (with help from their ideological partners in crime). The ringleader (Lois Lerner) retires with a full pension while her bosses continue the charade that there is nothing to see here… move along…

Look at the environmental movement which fabricates “scientific” results, forms peer tribunals and seeks to destroy (the careers) of anyone who does not bend a knee. Look at those who invoke “settled science” in attempts to quash debate or news organization with official policies to censor contending views or evidence. Look at government officials (mostly district and state attorneys) who seek to use their official positions to punish and prosecute dissenters.

Look at the thugs and anarchist “protesting” Trump and conservative venues not so much interested in making a statement but to shut down free speech and intimidate. They figuratively wear the black turtlenecks (Italian) and brown shirts (German) of the liberal gestapo.

And finally… look at our President (a Constitutional scholar) with such disdain for the rule of law that he passes on decrees like a despot from a banana republic using federal funding as the cudgel of enforcement.

Capitalism - Unbridled - Monopoly Man with GunsThe fact that all of these fascist leaning movements are to the left should come as no surprise (to anyone who studies history). Fascism is historically a leftist inclination. The fact that Mussolini and the German National Socialist were extreme leftist and socialist is no coincidence. History (and decades of propaganda) have taught the world that fascism and communism are two opposite extremes (one left and one right). They’re not. They’re both kissing cousins of the left. Unbridled capitalism (also bad) would be the opposite extreme of communism (and fascism) on the right.

And finally… in “defense” of Hillary; she is not a neo-liberal in that “neo” infers “new”. Barack Obama could better be labeled neo-liberal, but even his policies produce roughly the same $#@%. Hillary’s brand of progressivism is anything but new; in fact it is very old-school. Hillary’s liberalism is the perfect example of where the leftist mindset leads; statism, cronyism, incompetence, and corruption.

Concept - Liberal - Progressive - Still a Turd

As a nation we’re screwed either way. American fascist have been setting the agenda (and producing absurd results) for so long they have created a backlash in the form of irrational nationalism. Of course the “loyal opposition” in the form of the GOP being *&%^-less during all that time didn’t help matters.

Read Full Post »

[TexasLynn: My buddy posted the following as a comment… I decided to promote it to its own blog posting…Thanks, Rick…]

OK, I need some more political discussion, so I’m going to kickstart this conversation again.

>> [TexasLynn} The perfect example of this type of leftist duplicity is the 2nd Amendment. Practically all Democrats (holding office) in their heart of hearts would abolish the 2nd amendment and confiscate every gun in the nation. Political expediency has prevented them from being honest about those views. Instead they will whittle away at this basic right, bide their time, and wait for the nation to degrade.

Not sure how much further we can degrade… we already have the same gun murder rate as Nicaragua (the poorest country in Central America), and the #1 gun suicide rate on Earth.

This is a tough one to address, in part because we don’t even agree on what the Second Amendment means. You see it saying “I have the right to any weapon an infantry soldier in the Army has, whether I’m in the National Guard or not, and the founding fathers further intended that I use those weapons to overthrow the government if I see it getting out of hand,” and I see it saying “You need to be ready to serve the government in a government-run militia to defend us against the British (when written) or other invaders (today).”

Guns and Constitution

Gun Control

The idea of “confiscat[ing] every gun in the nation” is a far-left fantasy/far-right boogie-man that not even Bernie Sanders supports:

“Folks who do not like guns [are] fine. But we have millions of people who are gun owners in this country — 99.9 percent of those people obey the law. I want to see real, serious debate and action on guns, but it is not going to take place if we simply have extreme positions on both sides. I think I can bring us to the middle.”

What kind of action? Requiring all gun sales/trades to go through a background check, and banning clips bigger than 10 rounds, would do some good, and show that our government isn’t owned by lobbyists and paralyzed in the face of a national crisis. Would it solve the problem? Nope, our issues are bigger than just access to equipment. But… it would help.

Read Full Post »

This week Dennis Hastert was indicted by the FBI.

People - Hastert, Dennis

Hastert was the longest serving Republican Speaker of the House ever (1998-2006). He took over from Newt Gingrich when the “chosen” successor Bob Livingston (LA) couldn’t because of extra-marital affairs. After he left office in 2007 he eventually cashed in as a lobbyist and was considered a “Washington power player”.

Indictment Process:
Hastert over the years has been withdrawing money from the bank; at first 50K at a time, and then in chunks of 10K. (In case you’re not aware, 10K is the magic number where banks have to fill out federal paperwork.) So Hastert has been doing this for years now and the FBI became aware of it. And with Hastert being a “Washington power player” they were concerned the money could be going to nefarious causes and people. And good for them (the FBI); they should be watching for this kind of corruption. (Side Note: If only the FBI showed the same concern for Democratic Washington power players with billion dollar foundations used as slush funds… but that’s another story…)

Eventually the FBI approached Hastert and asked him “Why all the withdrawals?” I would suspect they already knew the answer to that before they asked, but it’s just speculation on my part. Hastert gave the perfect right-wing answer. He didn’t trust the banking system anymore and was hedging his bets by getting his money in cash. That was unfortunately not the right (as in truthful) answer.

Thus the indictment. He lied to the FBI.

Black-Mail - LetterWhy Did He Lie:
So why did he lie. Well we’re not sure but we’ve been given bits and pieces of the story. It was black-male and involved a student he knew back during his high-school teaching/coaching days. We believe the student was male. We know Hastert was paying this man off (currently 1.7 of a 3.4 million dollar agreement). And… it involved “SEX”.

So Let Us Move On:
Thus the indictment should be dropped and we should all must “move on”.

Sure the former speaker committed a crime similar to perjury; in essence lying when by law he was required to tell the truth. That crime is well and good when applied to some people (like Scooter Libby); but not so much for others. But if we take the left on its word, the key to escaping any responsibility for such lies is the word “Sex”. It’s OK, and who wouldn’t lie about sex?

Of course you can never take the left at its word. It was never about the sex. It was about protecting power… to the point of truth, morality and the law not mattering. And now look how far that core principle has taken them (and us along for the ride).

It Should Be About All of That:
It is (should be) about the sex … and the power … and the honesty. All those things matter when it comes to the people we allow to steer this Republic… or even a business or even our communities and families. No man is without sin, but how we deal with our mistakes is as (I would say more) important as the mistakes themselves.

But It Isn’t, So Shall We Reap:
Still… there should be standards of conduct. If those standards were tossed aside for whatever reason decades ago; we should reclaim them today . It is the loss of those morals and mores that is THE foremost reason this nation is one in such decline.

And if sex and power and honesty isn’t enough? There is always the LAW. But all of those things have been pushed aside and it all started a long time ago. We are simply reaping what we have sewn.

Read Full Post »

Kitchen - Egg Timer - About to Go OffAs we reflect on the (hopefully) final ticking seconds off Wendy Davis’ fifteen minutes of fame; she exposes us to a common but persistent trait of the liberal mindset. Asked if she regrets anything concerning he failed campaign for Texas Governor, Wendy said “There is one thing that I would do differently in that campaign and it relates to the position that I took on open carry… I made a quick decision on that with a very short conversation with my team and it wasn’t really in keeping with what I think is the correct position on that issue… Though I certainly support people’s right to own and to bear arms in appropriate situations, I fear with open carry, having watched that issue unfold during the campaign, that it will be used to intimidate and cause fear. And this was the only time I felt like I’d strayed a bit from that.” Leftist politicians must often lie to hide who they really are in order to be viably electable. But then once the election is over (win or lose) they fret that their progressive credentials may be damaged in the eyes of their comrades. They panic and reveal the lie using the excuses of evolving, or being misunderstood. The really good practitioners of the leftist arts tell us they never changed at all, but rather it was us (the unwashed) who were too stupid to understand what they were really saying. People - Davis, Wendy - Texas Governor Candidate 2013 - 003

In Wendy’s case it was a decision she and (more importantly) her team got wrong. Wendy Davis really didn’t support open carry before or after the “short conversation with [her]team”. She knew it. Her team knew it. In that meeting they didn’t decide after careful consideration that they supported the issue, but rather that they would lie about their support of the issue for political expediency. Now since that lie didn’t pay any dividends and the election is over Wendy feels she can safely take a swipe at the second amendment and it’s supporters (who had the gall to not be fooled by her lie). Her coming clean is also meant to reassure her leftist comrades that she was and is still in their camp. Also notice Wendy’s statement that she supports the second amendment “in appropriate situations”. While this may be true in her mind, she intentionally makes a point to omit the details of “appropriate situations”. It’s another lie wrapped in semantics, and Wendy like much of the left is an artists when it comes to this practice. I assure you that the “appropriate situations” are not the freedoms we enjoy today. Yet she conveniently never found the opportunity to verbalize those situations in the campaign (a lie of omission). Given a chance (the Governorship) Wendy would have moved Texas forward with her un-verbalized appropriate leftist restrictions.

But, alas, this is Texas. Unfortunately not all politicians of Wendy’s sort are limited by Texas’ common sense. Thus… you can keep you doctor, until it’s obvious you can’t; you support the sanctity of marriage, until the polls swing your way; you support the pipeline, as long as you never have to actually vote on it; you want the greatest military in the world, as you gut it behind the scenes…

Sign - Left Turn OnlyThe point is, leftist often support issues key to our Constitution, freedom, and social fabric… until they evolve, or reevaluate, or whatever liberals do. It’s a way of sitting in the middle of the road (with you right-hand blinker on) until circumstances or opportunity compel you to turn left. In truth a progressive never supports these issues from the beginning. They were always going to turn left, but choose to subversively undermine hated issues and polices while misleading the public on their true stance. BUT when the undermining is complete (or in Wendy’s case ineffective), they are free (even compelled) to reveal their true colors. On behalf of those who really do support the Second Amendment (and freedom, and the social fabric, and the rest of the Constitution) I would like to thank Wendy Davis to affirming our suspicions. It’s good to know the leftist bull-sh!t meter is still working just fine. Now, Wendy Davis; please… go away… 14:56… 57… 58… 59… 🙂

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »