The 1%

The Sith Lords of The Left (except when they are Democrats or Socialists like George Soros then they are ok). 🙂

Debunking the Myth of the “1%.” Who’s Really “The Rich?”

Rich bastards! It’s time to spread the wealth around! If you’re part of the 1%, you’re part of the problem!

Or… is it?

Perhaps the greatest economic misconception of the 21st Century is the idea that 1% of the world’s population are greedy jerks who keep the other 99% of the earth living in poor houses made of mud and tears.

Think the top 1% are billionaires? Nope. Millionaires? Nada. Well, they’re at least cracking $750K, right? Wrong again. In fact, YOU are probably far more affulent than you realize. And you disgust me for it. Let’s look at the numbers, American style:

If you make more than $100,000, you’re in the top 20%.

If you make more than $149,000, you’re in the top 10%.

If you make more than $522,000, BINGO, you’re a 1%’er. You’re probably a greedy jerk too, so screw you.

This is just a guess, but even if you don’t fall into one of these categories, chances are, you at least know somebody who does fall into any of the above categories. Which makes you a second-hand 1 percenter. That’s like a second-hand smoker only more vile. You probably don’t even think of those friends as being rich, but they are compared to the rest of the world. And these are the people leftists tell us are causing all the world’s problems, including the diminishing bee population (not really, but maybe one day), who need to do more for the country by paying their “fair share.” Except, that top 1% of earners already pays more in taxes than the bottom 90% (that’d be EVERYONE making less than $149K) COMBINED. Behold, graphs:

who are the wealthy

Oh, and by the way? If you’re under 31 and make over $300,000 – you’re in the top 0.1%. For realzies. Check out this chart from The Atlantic:

wealthy

But let’s take things a step further. If we expand the comparison globally, you become waaaaay wealthier than imagined. Like Scrooge McDuck from Ducktales, swimming in a vault of coin.

The average yearly income on a global scale? $1,225.

Yeah. You’re rich. Bastard. How does it feel to cause global warming? Even if “your” money is sent to you on a bi-weekly basis from the US treasury… you’re rich. And kind of a succubus, but that’s for another article.

If you make more than a whopping $34,000 a year? You are in the top 1% of the world’s wealthy.

Over half of the world’s 1%’ers (those making $34K+), live in the United States.

the wealthy

Maybe you’re not so bad off after all, Mr. college hipster making $15 serving coffee, huh? Maybe life isn’t so bad climbing the corporate ladder for “just” $75K a year, is it? Also, a nutless monkey could do your job. You mad? Please leave room for cream.

Saying the wealthy need to pay more (paging Bernie Sanders), is really saying we all need to pay more.  Because really, you’re rich. If you’re an American, you’re rich. Like, super, ridiculously rich. Period. Also, you have running water, a flushing toilet, probably a phone of some kind, a flat screen, and maybe a Netflix subscription. So please, stop the whining. It’s getting old.

SO, how rich are YOU?

Here’s a fun tool created by Giving What we Can: you punch in your income and household size, they tell you how rich you are compared to the rest of the world. You’ll probably be shocked. And that’s a good thing. Seriously. Go try it. Like, right now, money-bags.

Go ahead, I Dare you! 🙂

Lesson? If you’re living in the USA, you’re a greedy one-percenter and a bastard for it. Screw you with your flushing toilet and your five figure annual income. All this comes down to dollars, common sense, and perspective. The United States is a bastion of wealth, even for the “poor” Americans binge watching Orange is the New Black. Our top income earners aren’t paying their “fair share,” they’re paying YOUR share too. So get the numbers, memorize them, and every time you hear a gender-studies hipster talk to you about the one percent and shares and fairness and the latest iPhone, tell them about the real facts. If they’ll listen. (Steve Crowder)

But we all know that Liberals do not respond maturely to facts. 🙂

And if Democrats didn’t have the Envy Card, The Hate Card they would be just a husk of nothing floating on the winds. 🙂

But I want us to be super careful when we use the language “hard worker,” because I actually keep an image of folks working in cotton fields on my office wall, because it is a reminder about what hard work looks like. So, I feel you that he’s a hard worker. I do. But in the context of relative privilege…”- MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry.

And remember in  the FY 2015 the government took in more tax money than anytime in it’s history and still ran a deficit!

elect me d5c6f-democrats6

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

“Thank you, sir, may I have another?” No Thanks!

Now is when the adults in the room are supposed to rise from their rocking chairs and send us uppity conservatives to our room without our supper. But instead, we’re going to stay right here and have another cheeseburger. And another beer. And there’s nothing you Chamber of Commerce-kissing, Obama-submitting moderates can do about it.

When Paul Ryan was drafted for Speaker, who held the real power in that dynamic? Not Ryan – he knew he couldn’t say ‘No” because he would catch the blame if everything went to hell. No, the guys with the real power were the dreaded conservatives – they were the ones whose bottoms were getting bussed.

Sure, there are only a few dozen in the Freedom Caucus, but today they are in the driver’s seat, forcing the caucus kicking and screaming to the right. They are the ones who pummeled the House GOP into transforming from the old status quo-reinforcing transactional paradigm based on trading earmarks into an ideological paradigm based on fighting the liberal agenda. The conservatives have won. We need to understand and accept that so we can move on to the next phase in our campaign to destroy progressivism and restore America.

The fact that conservatives have taken the reins away from the moderates makes people mad, mostly moderate people. Their problem is that we conservatives just won’t cooperate and compromise and lose. This insistence on actually doing conservative things freaks out the squares – “You mean, when you said you wanted to defund Obamacare, you guys were serious?”

“All good is hard. All evil is easy. Dying, losing, cheating, and mediocrity is easy. Stay away from easy.”–Scott Alexander

Now, that’s not to say that many of us on the right are not also frustrated and annoyed at the hardcore conservatives. We are. Even I am occasionally, like when they won’t take “Yes” for an answer. Paul Ryan was saying “Yes” when he agreed to not push amnesty, to maintain the Hastert Rule, and to reform House procedures. In return, all Ryan wanted was to be allowed to spend more of his time with his kids than sucking face with donor class squishes and trading our principles for their cash. Oh no, Paul – don’t throw us in the briar patch.

Yeah, hardcore conservatives are a pain, but it’s a good hurt, like when your legs get sore after a run or your knuckles ache after punching a hippie.

Let’s face facts – without the hardcore conservatives, Paul Ryan would be happily wonking out as Ways and Means chairman instead of promising to give up about 90% of what we want. John Boehner would still be the Annoying Orange of GOP politics, clinking his highball glass in his secret conclaves with the same K Street jerks we want to see shuttering their expensive offices and wearing barrels as they ride out of D.C. in a caravan of battered U-Hauls.

“It is a wretched taste to be gratified with mediocrity when the excellent lies before us.” -Isaac D’Israeli

The smart center right guys get this. They know how to make hard lemonade out of the hard right lemons of the Freedom Caucus. I negotiate for a living as a trial lawyer, and I understand that getting 80% of what my client wants on a given deal means I’m getting hi-fived and a bonus. And I love playing the “Craziest Guy in the Room” card. Sometimes, I even am that card. The CGITR strategy involves being the guy willing to pull a Samson and bring it all down on top of everyone – he’s perfectly happy to get smooshed in the collapse just as long as he takes you all with him. That’s the role of the hardcore conservatives who won’t settle for anything less than 110% of what they want. You can point to them, sigh, shake your head sadly, and say, “Gosh, you better give me 80% and then maybe – maybe – I can hold off these lunatics.”

All hail the conservatives who won’t compromise, who won’t buckle, who won’t let the go-along/get-along gang keep going along and getting along. After all, without the hardcore conservatives, the speaker issue would be moot. Pelosi would be in charge and busy helping Obama turn this country into Venezuela II: The Enfascisting.

There’s no turning back either. We are not returning to the days when the House GOP caucus was satisfied to be a bunch of gentlemanly losers happy to spend several terms spinning their wheels on the Potomac as the government grew and metastasized on their watch. Every election cycle, more of the old guard retires and more of the new breed comes on board. The tilt has happened. John Boehner left the speakership and the House for one reason and one reason only – to avoid a humiliating repudiation at the hands of the GOP caucus that a dozen cases of Jack Daniel’s couldn’t make him forget.

Boehner made no secret that he held conservatives in contempt. And for that the conservatives broke him. Maybe the media missed this essential truth, but that’s a lesson ambitious Republican politicians are all going to learn. The likes of David Brooks will wet their collective Dockers, but the Age of the Squish has come to an end. The RINOs are Cecil, the conservatives are the dentists, and the no one wants to the next head on the wall next to Eric Cantor and Sobby John’s.

This isn’t some phase the GOP is going to outgrow. We’re not afraid to demand that those who lead us be conservative. No dignified elder statesman with a track record of honorable defeat is going to talk some sense into us. We have no desire to utter the squish war cry of, “Thank you, sir, may I have another?”

Competition is always a good thing. It forces us to do our best. A monopoly renders people complacent and satisfied with mediocrity.

Yeah, conservatives can be annoying. Hell, they often annoy me, and I’m so hardcore that I’d oppose replacing EBT cards with community gruel pots because I think that’s still too generous to deadbeat Democrat-voting losers. But people who actually believe in something often are annoying.

“I react very badly when mediocrity throws a tantrum of entitlement.”-Lee Siegel

And I want all every illegal alien thrown out of the country. Period. Realistic, maybe not, but i’d settle for 80%. 🙂

Here’s the reality. We conservatives have won. And as we exchange our place on the fringes of the party with the RINOs – when the squishes mutter that the GOP they knew is gone, they’re right – we are dealing with a whole new set of challenges. We conservatives now represent the GOP consensus, and power struggles we have seen are our growing pains.

We will get through them. We will prevail. We are the conservatives, and this House is now our house. Deal with it. (Kurt Schlischter)

Grumpy Cat  -  Suck it up princess

The Inequity of it All

Today is my Birthday.

What I want for my birthday is for Liberals to stop thinking with their emotions and be rational, logical adults who aren’t narcissistic, greedy, power mad, 2 years old at heart.

Not going to Happen.

Neither is getting Establishment Republicans and RINOs to stop being narcissists and thinking only of their own agenda and thinking about The American People for a change.

I might as well wish for World Peace at the same time, it’s just as likely.

Strike up a conversation with any taxi cab driver or any fry cook at a roadside diner and the word “inequality” is unlikely to ever come up. That’s not on the list of top concerns for middle class America. It’s also not on the list of concerns for the world’s poor. Millions of people are willing to risk life and limb just to come here and start out at the bottom of the income ladder.

(Don’t the immigrants realize how unequal things are? Yes, they want to live in a country where a poor immigrant can become a billionaire.)

So why is anyone claiming that inequality is our most important problem? Because the chattering class has decided that stoking envy is the only way to energize the Democratic Party. Think about the problems we really do have: runaway entitlement spending, poor public schools, welfare dependency, an overly burdensome tax system and anemic economic growth. In every case the solutions we are debating come from the right: Privatization, school vouchers, tough love, a flat tax and lower taxes on capital.

The left has no solutions, or at least none that anyone takes seriously. So, over the years of the Obama presidency the topic of inequality has emerged front and center. Democratic candidates could rail against the super rich and imply that their high incomes are the cause of everyone else’s stagnating income, without ever saying what exactly they would do about it.

Until Bernie Sanders came along. Sanders actually has a few concrete proposals – including the idea that we should become like Denmark, a high tax welfare state. Once the discussion turns from pure demagoguery to serious conversation, inevitably we are forced to look at what economists have to say. (Warning: it’s not good for Democrats.)

In other words, you can’t solve the problem by taxing the rich. If taxation is your only tool, you have to break again one of Barack Obama’s frequently broken promises and raise taxes on the middle class.

In a Brookings Institution study, Peter Orszag (former chief economist for President Obama) and his colleagues discovered that if you raised the top tax rate from 40 percent to 50 percent and redistributed that money to people at the bottom, the top 1 percent’s share of income would only decline from 16.4 to 15.6 percent. The Gini coefficient (the numerical measure of inequality) would change so little you would have to squint to see it.

Then there is the question of why we have increasing inequality in the first place. Another study by Orszag and current Obama chief economist Jason Furman found that a primary source of inequality among people is inequality among firms. Take a look at the chart below. If you happened to be working for one of the top 10 percent of most successful companies over the past two decades your salary, bonuses and other compensation probably soared. If you have been working for the median firm, your income has probably risen modestly. If your employer is in the bottom half of the distribution, your income has probably been stagnant.

So what can be done about that? The idea of arresting the growth of highly successful companies is silly. But that isn’t necessarily a deal breaker for the left. The problem for Democrats is that Silicon Valley is heavily Democratic. It’s one of the places Democrats go to get mega gifts. My bet is that you won’t hear a peep about inequality among firms in the coming election.

orszag chart

 

SOURCE: KOLLER ET AL. (2015); MCKINSEY & COMPANY

That leaves Denmark. People on the left are fond of citing the Nordic states — Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland — as examples of countries with higher taxes and less inequality. It’s easy to see why. As Matt Yglesias writes

Danish mothers enjoy 18 weeks of guaranteed maternity leave at 100 percent of their ordinary pay. Danish students leave college free of debt. Everyone is covered by a national health insurance system and can take advantage of subsidized child care; plus, thanks to a generous welfare system, Denmark’s child poverty rate is about a quarter of America’s.

So how do the Danes afford all that? With high taxes. As Yglesias makes clear, it’s not just taxes on the rich. The top tax rate in Denmark is 57 percent, about the same as it is in California. If California wanted to become like Denmark, it would basically leave the rich alone. But it would have to sock it to the middle class with effective tax rates averaging from 35 to 48 percent. Then the state would need to pile on with 25 percent value added tax — which is basically a form of sales tax and every bit as regressive. Car addicted Californians would also experience a huge spike in the price of gasoline and a 180 percent tax on the price of a new car!

So how does Denmark keep from looking like Greece? Answer: They believe in privatization, deregulation and free enterprise. Denmark is rated as one of the best places in the world to do business. It scores higher on the Heritage Economic Freedom ranking than the United States does. Unlike the US, public sector unions in Denmark don’t control public services and push up costs with job protecting regulations. For example, a private, for-profit company is currently in charge of 65 percent of municipal fire departments and 85 percent of ambulance services in the country. According to Yglesias:

In Copenhagen … the metro is driverless, the suburban rail network features one-man train crews, and many urban bus lines are run by private companies. These are all kinds of measures that US labor unions would normally oppose….

Øresund Bridge from Copenhagen to Malmö was constructed at a drastically lower price than the United States is prepared to spend to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge in New York even though the Nordic bridge is substantially longer and includes a major train component along with the roadway.

The Danish model is awfully hard to emulate if public sector unions are the backbone of your party.

Finally, there is Yale law professor Stephen Carter’s observation that the word “inequality” was used eight times by the candidates and once by the moderator in the Democratic debate the other night. In every instance the focus was on taxing the rich, not on helping the poor. In fact, the word “poverty” was used hardly at all. Apparently, envy sells better than charity when communicating with Democratic voters.

Yet Carter, himself a bona fide liberal, notes that we don’t really have an inequality problem. We have a poverty problem.

That Democrats ignore it is hardly surprising. When is the last time you heard a Democratic candidate for president talk about the poor in any respect? The last one I can remember was John Edwards and that was eons ago. (Townhall)

And look what happened to him… 🙂

Oh, the inequity of it all.

 

Entitlement and Grievance

“The moment we begin to believe that we are doing badly because someone else is doing well, that moment that aggrievement takes over, it’s not long before his twin brother comes behind, and that would be entitlement”-Condi Rice 2012

“We need people in Washington who believe, but who believe based on the right values — personal responsibility, fiscal discipline, care for one another, strength for our armed forces and a sense of this very special, exceptional country,” –Rice

After all, when the world looks to America, they look to us
because we are the most successful economic and political
experiment in human history. That is the true basis of American
exceptionalism. You see, the essence of America, what really
unites us, is not nationality or ethnicity or religion. It is
an idea. And what an idea it is. That you can come from humble
circumstances and you can do great things, that it does not
matter where you came from, it matters where you are going.
My fellow Americans, ours has never been a narrative of
grievance and entitlement.
We have never believed that I am

doing poorly because you are doing well. We have never been
jealous of one another and never envious of each others’

And we need to give parents greater choice, particularly,
particularly poor parents whose kids, very often minorities, are
trapped in failing neighborhood schools. This is the civil
rights issue of our day.
If we do anything less, we can damage generations to
joblessness and hopelessness and life on the government dole. If we do anything less, we will endanger our global
imperatives for competitiveness. And if we do anything less, we
will tear apart the fabric of who we are and cement the turn
toward entitlement and grievance.
Condileeza Rice 2012

“America has never had a narrative of grievance. We’ve never believed ‘I am doing poorly because you’re doing well,'” she said. “The moment we begin to believe that we are doing badly because someone else is doing well, that moment that aggrievement takes over, it’s not long before his twin brother comes behind, and that would be entitlement.”– Utah 2012, campaigning for another black female running against a male Democrat.

Grace Williams explains how Black Americans need to stop acting like victims:

It is a cry of many Black Americans that ,”We have not yet reached the Promised Land.” and “When will we reach our Promised Land.” Guess what? This is the 21st century and those mantras are tired and worn out. We Black Americans must create our Promised Land through high intellectual and academic achievement in addition to a prodigious work ethic.
Sadly, many Black Americans believe that they need a savior to help them to achieve educational and socioeconomic parity. I heard that many Black Americans state that they voted for Barack Obama to be President of the United States solely because he is Black. A lot of Black Americans pinned all of their hopes and dreams on President Obama, praying and hoping that he would get them out of a hopelessly dire socioeconomic situation and into a more affluent lifestyle. Now many Black Americans are displeased with President Obama because they believed that he did not create for them the housing and jobs that he promised that he would create.Many Black Americans contend that they are blameless for the educational and socioeconomic morass they are in. This belief and ideology are not only prevalent among lower socioeconomic classes of Black Americans but also among a few middle and upper middle socioeconomic classes of Black Americans. For example, one maternal cousin once removed, who has a Master’s Degree in Psychology and is in a high-level administrative position, steadfastly maintain that “the man” is holding “us brother/sisters back”.

Every Saturday morning in my area(Harlem) without fail, in a park opposite that of my apartment complex, there are a group of Black Americans led by the Reverend Al Sharpton shouting repeatedly, ” No justice, no peace!” as if only doing this will obtain them quality education, housing, and job equality. Many Black Americans want to be rescued. It seems that they are waiting for a Great Savior to come to Earth and make everything copacetic.

Each time I go into the African-American section of Barnes & Nobles and any other book store, 75% of the books regarding the Black American cultural experience are about Black victimology and 25% of the books are about Black achievement, excellence, and self-empowerment. Many of the subjects pertaining to Black American culture on some Black-made DVDs and CDs stress Black victimology and how we are oppressed by the enemy. Seldom do I find any Black-made DVDs and CDs stressing Black education, achievement, empowerment and how to be socioeconomically successful. Finding a book on Black American culture that is not imbued with the victimization mentality is analogous to finding a needle in a haystack.

Tom Burrell, Black American author of BRAINWASHED: CHALLENGING THE MYTH OF BLACK INFERIORITY asserted that Black American students are the worst students in the country. Many Black American leaders cited institutional racism and poor socioeconomic living conditions. According to the Education Trust, only a minute 12% of Black American fourth graders were reading at their grade level and beyond; however, an abysmal 61% of Black American fourth graders lacked rudimentary reading skills.
Now let us look at the racism factor. To reiterate, yes there is institutionalized racism in this society not only against Blacks but all people of color. However, studies authenticate that Black students in Caribbean and African families outachieve Black American students in the academic arena. A second study showed that middle and upper middle class Black American high school students had similar SAT scores to lower socioeconomic class Caucasians. Regarding socioeconomic class, it has been substantiated that Asians in poor neighborhoods are high academic achievers and score high on SAT tests. So the variables of race and socioeconomic classes are declared invalid. Now, what is the underlying factor which is a determinant of the academic underachievement of the Black American student?

Many Black students are told by their parents, relatives, and peers that they are performing well “as long as they pass the course.” In the Black American student milieu, they are told that education is for nerds and to “stay real/Black” and “not to act white” i.e. being a high academic achiever. In the Black American student milieu, the high achieving Black American student is often stigmatized, ostracized, and/or worse by the lower achieving Black American student. In many Black American families, intellectualism and academic achievement is not highly prized.

Oh, look, A Secretary of State that was not only a woman, she was black, and not as corrupt and universe is wide….

BUT

since she’s a <<shudder>> CONSERVATIVE!  She must be evil and forgotten… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

The Future of America: Debate-able

Matt Walsh: It’s comforting to project all our anger onto politicians. Lord knows, they deserve a fair amount of it. However, the difficult reality is this: America’s biggest problem is its citizens, not its politicians. Indeed, its politicians are a symptom, a reflection, of its people. They may manipulate and coerce and propagandize, but when it comes down to it, in a democratic system, if a bunch of lunatics and scoundrels are in power it’s because the people chose to put them there. The sickness originates, then, with the people. And the people’s sickness is rooted in the soul.

Depressing how ignorant and narcissistic they are, many willfully so.

My mind kept going back to this fact last night as I watched the Democrat debate on CNN. To be honest, I’m not totally sure why I watched it. Clearly, a person must have some serious psychological issues if they elect to spend an evening with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. It’s like choosing to be mentally water boarded for two and a half hours. Only a troubled man would willingly subject himself to such torment. I’ll be making an appointment with a therapist later today.

That’s why I wasn’t watching. I already have high blood pressure and heart problems I didn’t their help to my grave. Plus, it would just soul-crushingly depressing watch the Liberal Media coddle these nutters and the audience applauding them for it.

But whatever my masochistic motivations, I watched, and although I wasn’t terribly surprised by anything that occurred, I was nonetheless deeply disturbed and grieved. This is what’s become of my country, I kept thinking to myself. This is America. These are mainstream, popular, beloved Democrat politicians participating in a presidential election on national TV, yet from what they’re saying, you’d be excused for assuming they were just a handful of fringe crazies campaigning to be the next leader of some hippy commune in upstate Oregon.

corrupt

There wasn’t a single good or feasible or coherent idea offered at any point from anyone not named Jim Webb. Just hard-left hokum and naked socialism, because that’s precisely what millions of American voters demand.

The want the visceral, gutteral, hatred that they’d been raised on. They didn’t want ideas, they wanted EMOTIONS.

I’m old enough to remember when Democrat politicians in national elections had to pretend to be capitalist and at least vaguely Christian and constitutionalist to get elected. Now, it’s a race to see who can play the most convincing godless commie demagogue.

I started out my voting life as a Democrat. I even voted for Jimmy Carter, to my ultimate shame.

But they don’t make Democrats like, say JFK anymore. They were exterminated.

The Far Left is “centrist” to these loons.

With the frazzled Muppet from Vermont leading the way, all of the candidates (except Jim Webb, who apparently stumbled into the wrong debate) spent the first several minutes complaining about “income inequality.”

Because that is the emotional buzzword of The Party. Forget the facts, especially about the income gap GROWING under Obama…Liberals and Democrats don’t do facts.

This was a theme they’d all return to incessantly throughout the evening, because there’s nothing more exhilarating than listening to old rich white people complain about old rich white people.

The “diversity” of it is hilarious. But it would be a thoughtcrime for that to occur to them so their brains just skip that detail none the wiser.

Bernie Sanders lamented again and again that the “middle class is collapsing,” but never expressed any interest in seeing us poor middle class folk move up and out of the middle class.

Socialism doesn’t have a middle class, by the way. Just Very rich and everyone else whose poor. Talk about “inequality”… But again, that’s facts, and facts don’t matter.

For Sanders and the rest of them, the “middle class” should be all we peons aspire to. Success and wealth ought to be solely possessed by the left wing ruling class. Wealth is evil, you see, so that’s why we should let our great and generous protectors carry the burden.

After all, they are so vastly superior!

Middle Class! Inequality! Greed! Middle Class! Inequality! Greed! I can’t really blame them for shouting socialist catchwords all night. This is what their voters desire. They don’t desire capitalism, because capitalism means opportunity and freedom, and opportunity and freedom mean hard work. Economic freedom is so unpopular among liberals that Bernie Sanders openly disavowed it to the sound of roaring applause. Clinton was hesitant (for now) to fully label herself a socialist, so instead she said she’s a sorta-capitalist who thinks “capitalism has to be saved from itself.” This is another way of calling American people children who need to be rescued by benevolent bureaucrats, but that’s OK because Democrat voters fervently wish to be treated like children. They want their own failures and struggles in life to be the fault of “the rich” and they want a president who will magically make it better.

They want their Mommy Government to make the hurt of life go away.

It’s a bit awkward, of course, because they already voted for a guy who promised to do just that, yet the “income inequality” has only gotten worse. This, as Hillary asserted several times, is still the fault of the Republicans. Even when we had a Democrat president and a Democrat Congress, all of our economic woes could be laid at the feet of Republicans and “the rich.” But not every “the rich.” Just “the rich” who aren’t Democrat politicians, or Democrat donors like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, or union leaders, or Planned Parenthood executives, or Hollywood liberals, or university administrators, or any other group comprised mainly of wealthy left wingers.

Leftist “rich” = Good. Right-wing “rich”= Evil!

Isn’t Doublethink wonderful… 🙂

Anyway, the fact that the most prominent critics of “the rich” are themselves rich is of no concern to the Democrat voter. Consistency, logic, and sincerity are not priorities to this crew. They just want to be coddled and cuddled and soothed.

Don’t actually make them think. Thinking is too hard. Just let them have their primitive base emotions and leave it at that.

That’s why the candidates pivoted back to “inequality” and mythological, phantom issues like the gender wage gap over and over again, but never once, so far as I can remember, even mentioned the word “liberty” or “freedom.” This is where we are, culturally speaking. Five presidential contenders can spend 150 minutes blabbering on about their supposed principles and plans for America, but never once pretend to be even moderately concerned about protecting and preserving liberty.

And the Democrats watching are obliviously happy.

Why? Because Democrat voters don’t want liberty. It’s really that simple. They want easy answers and free stuff. On the free stuff end of the spectrum, all of the candidates received massive applause when they, often entirely out of nowhere and in response to completely unrelated questions, endorsed making college education free or much cheaper for citizens and non-citizens alike. And not only free college, but free health care, and more paid leave, and a doubled minimum wage.

The Narcissism of a 2 year old spoiled brat in adults. That’s a Democrat.

I felt like I was in fifth grade again watching our class president promise us bi-weekly pizza parties. Even then I knew that kind of pledge was unrealistic and disingenuous. Even then I knew the school couldn’t possible pay for 70 pizza parties if we were going on field trips to the freaking post office because they couldn’t afford to take us to the zoo or the aquarium. Even then I knew you need money for things. I was 10. Democrat voters are adults.

But they absolutely don’t know better and more importantly, DON’T WANT TO know better and will actively fight you to NOT know any better.

They want to feel protected, like a child, by their parent Government, for all the evil people of the world. The Not-We.  (Doctor Who reference).

Naturally, nobody ever explained how a country with $18 trillion of debt and over $127 trillion of unfunded liability might manage to suddenly become Santa Claus for 320 million Americans and illegals.

And they don’t care, either.

Indeed, along with “liberty,” the phrase “national debt” was never uttered. And if they weren’t going to explain how the government would start handing out full ride scholarships, paid vacations, “living wages,” and free medical care to every human being who happens to exist within our borders, they certainly wouldn’t attempt to explain why.

And the sheep don’t care. “The Rich” (the evil one version) will pay for it, naturally.

The idea that college in particular should be free is not only absurd and unworkable but incredibly offensive to any self-sufficient adult (a small minority, I admit). I’ve got news for you, my fellow young people, college isn’t a human right. It’s also not a necessity. I pay a mortgage and support a family of four by myself, with no government handouts, and I do it without a college degree. It is possible. If you can’t afford college — and God knows it’s obscenely expensive and not worth the investment for most people — don’t go. Forge your own path. Think for yourself. Do something different with your life.

But that involves potential for failure and the Liberals never prepared them for that. Hard work, is well, HARD.

It’s much easier to sit back with your iPhone, your Starbucks, and let Mama Government just give you presents all day long.

You really want to drive down college costs? That’s how you do it. You can eliminate your own college expenses by simply choosing not to take on any college expenses. Crazy how that works, isn’t it? But that’s not what liberals want to hear. They want to hear about the crusty old socialist genie who will make free stuff appear out of thin air.

Poof! Free Stuff for everyone!

The gun control portion of the debate was the most instructive. All of the candidates (except Webb, it goes without saying) fiercely and passionately competed over who most opposes the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. Bernie Sanders was accused — accused! — of being not completely against our Constitutional rights to keep and bare arms, and had to take great pains to assure liberal voters that these were unfounded rumors. It was a scene that would have made Thomas Jefferson weep had he been around to witness it: presidential candidates rushing to distance themselves from the Constitution.

That’s Democrats for ya…

Later, the topic turned to foreign policy, and Hillary was only tentatively and briefly asked about her role in the Benghazi fiasco. While attempting to dodge the question, the moderator interrupted and reminded her that “Americans lost their lives.” Clinton curtly shot back, “I’ll get to that,” and proceeded to explain how her policies in Libya worked out splendidly because the Libyan people were able to hold an election.

And no one missed her non-answer I bet. And no “journalist” did either.

The problem, of course, is threefold: 1) She again callously dismissed the deaths of four Americans, because, put simply, she doesn’t care about any human life that isn’t her own.

Human Life must be part of THE AGENDA in order to matter. This is the “compassionate” and “sensitive” Left at its finest.

2) She forgot to mention the “democratic Libyan government” is now in exile, hiding away on a boat in Tobruck while militias run the country.

The consequences of a Liberal’s actions never matter. The intent was good, and that’s all that natters.

3) The real issue is that Clinton and Obama were running guns through Benghazi to Syrian terrorists. This is what got our ambassador killed, and it’s why both Clinton and Obama lied about it. Obviously, this incredible scandal should be enough to disqualify someone from the presidency and land them in prison for the rest of their lives, but here in America they aren’t even asked about it during a presidential debate, much less prosecuted for it.

wanted

Instead, the candidates were told to name the biggest national security threat we face, and two of the candidates said climate change. These, I remind you, are adults running for president of the United States who believe our greatest enemy is the weather. Islamic State is overseas torturing and decapitating women and children but, according to Bernie Sanders, the real problem is that temperatures get a little balmy in the summertime. God help us.

This moment of sheer dementia was eclipsed only by a question posed later on in the debate. The candidates were asked whether “black lives matter or all lives matter,” and those who answered agreed that only black lives matter. The question alone shows you how far the Democrat Party and the culture as a whole has fallen in just the last few years. During Obama’s first run, you would have been flabbergasted by such an inquiry. Do black lives or all lives matter? What? Huh? Really? Talk about a false dichotomy.

But White People are evil. 🙂 (except the white people on the Democrat President Ticket that is). 🙂

Now you barely bat an eye at the full frontal stupidity of the question or the insanity of the answer. You aren’t in the least bit surprised that Democrat politicians cannot simply affirm the value of all human life without upsetting a significant portion of their base. When “do all lives matters?” becomes a difficult gotcha question in politics, you know things have gone severely off the rails.

Perhaps the most unsettling moment came when Clinton was asked about her decision to commit a serious federal crime by conducting classified business on her private email servers. It should be no surprise that a pathological crook who spent decades intimidating and silencing her husband’s rape victims would think this, in comparison, is rather small potatoes. That’s to be expected. It’s the Democrat voter’s cooperation that’s the real outrage here.

Clinton said the whole thing was a right wing conspiracy and then started babbling about free college tuition. Sanders got on his knees and kissed the feet of Her Highness, insisting that Clinton’s rampant criminality is a distraction. The audience of trained seals burst into applause at the sight of two powerful people agreeing that powerful people shouldn’t be required to obey the law. Then the auditorium nearly exploded in a fit of joy and exuberance at this exchange between Lincoln Chafee, who is a person who apparently exists, and Her Highness:

CHAFEE: … There’s an issue of American credibility out there. So any time someone is running to be our leader, and a world leader, which the American president is, credibility is an issue out there with the world. And we have repair work to be done. I think we need someone that has the best in ethical standards as our next president. That’s how I feel.

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, do you want to respond?

CLINTON: No.

Her Highness refusing to address her illegal activities was, by far, the most popular response, or non-response, of the night. I felt like I was watching some sort of strange reimagining of a George Orwell book. It was creepy, really.

The Democrat Playbook, and instruction manual is “1984”.

Of course, there were a few other big applause lines, like when Hillary defended the baby killers at Planned Parenthood and when Bernie promised to raise taxes (a promise he repeated 16 times or so). Hillary scored points on several occasions by noting that she has a vagina. When asked how her administration won’t be a third Obama term, the only difference she could highlight is her genitalia. Hillary has made it clear that she’ll bust out the “I’m a woman” card anytime her back is against the wall, and it will always work with her supporters because her supporters are profoundly immature.

I did say that was going to be the ploy, did I not? 🙂 Vote for Obama or you’re a racist. Vote for Hillary or you’re a sexist!

There was one genuinely good line, courtesy of the sore thumb Jim Webb. All of the candidates were asked who they’d consider their number one enemy. Chafee said he was proud to make an enemy of poor coal miners. Clinton said her greatest enemies are not Islamic State or the Iranians, but Republicans. Sanders said something about corporatebankersWallStreetyaddayadda. Webb, the Marine veteran, said his number one enemy would be the Viet Cong soldier who threw a grenade at him, but “he’s not around anymore.”

It was a fantastic moment, particularly in contrast to the fools before him who bragged about fighting with coal miners and Republicans. Webb actually fought with his life on the line and defeated his enemy on the battle field. In a Republican debate, his answer would have brought the house down, as well it should. But in a Democrat debate, it was met with awkward silence, just like the silence that followed Webb’s earlier declaration that all human lives matter.

He was NOT WE. Who let him in?

This is the Democrat Party, ladies and gentlemen. Behold it and weep. Just remember to reserve most of your disgust for the people in the audience or at home who cheered as politicians promised us death, tyranny, and free crap. To give you an idea of how enthusiastic some of these people are, consider this: I offered criticisms of the candidates on Twitter last night and one liberal responded by saying she hopes my children kill themselves (she’s since deleted her account). I got an email from a Hillary fan this morning telling me she’ll “pray” I get leukemia. You’d like to think these reactions are isolated, but they aren’t. It’s pretty common.

All too common. And this, of course, is the vaunted and much bally-hooed “Tolerance” that Liberals go on about incessantly. 🙂

The Democrat Party exists in its current state because this country is infested by evil, fear, stupidity, and hatred. Clinton and Sanders are but manifestations of it. And never forget that they are just that: manifestations. Expressions of the spiritual malady that’s eating this nation alive, not the source or cause of it.

The voter and the politician are, in the end, one and the same, both equally to blame.

Speaking of Orwell, I’m reminded of the last line in “Animal Farm”:

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

TRUE.

And then there’s the RINO’s running the “opposition”  <snicker>… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Sowell Issue

One of the many painful signs of the mindlessness of our times was a recent section of the Wall Street Journal, built around the theme “What’s Holding Women Back in the Workplace?”

Whenever some group is not equally represented in some institution or activity, the automatic response in some quarters is to assume that someone has prevented equality of outcomes.

This preconception of equal outcomes requires not one speck of evidence, and defies mountains of evidence to the contrary. Even in activities where individual performances are what determine outcomes, and those performances are easily measured objectively, there is seldom anything resembling equal representation.

For 12 consecutive years — from 2001 through 2012 — each home run leader in the American League had a Hispanic surname. When two American boys whose ancestors came from India tied for first place in the U.S. National Spelling Bee in 2014, it was the 7th consecutive year in which the U.S. National Spelling Bee was won by an Asian Indian.

We all know about the large over-representation of blacks among professional basketball players, and especially among the star players. The best-selling brands of beer in America were created by people of German ancestry, who also created China’s famed Tsingtao beer. Of the 100 top-ranked Marathon runners in the world in 2012, 68 were Kenyans. The list could go on and on. Although blacks are over-represented among professional football players, even the most avid National Football League fan is unlikely to be able to recall seeing even one black player who kicked a punt or a point after touchdown.

Should there be an article titled: “What’s Holding Black Kickers Back in the NFL?” Could it be that blacks are more interested in playing positions where there is more action and — not incidentally — more money?

Should there be an article titled: “What’s Holding Back Whites in the National Basketball Association?” Or an article titled: “What’s Holding Back Non-Asian Indian Kids from Winning the Spelling Bee?” Lawsuits claiming discrimination have been won on the basis of statistical disparities far smaller than these.

Among the many reasons for gross disparities in many fields, and at different income levels, is that human beings differ in what they want to do, quite aside from any differences in what they are capable of doing, or what others permit them to do. Observers cannot just grab a statistic and run with it, though that is what is done too often in the media — and even in courts of law.

Particular opportunities are seized by some groups and used to rise from poverty to prosperity. But, for other groups, those same opportunities might as well not exist, because other groups are oriented in different directions, and those opportunities might not even catch their attention.

As regards statistical disparities in the representation of women in various occupations or at different income levels, a number of outstanding female scholars, including Professor Claudia Goldin of Harvard, have shown many ways in which women’s circumstances and priorities differ from those of men.

Men, for example, don’t get pregnant. And where children are raised by a single parent, that parent is a mother far more often than a father. You cannot work the 60-hour weeks that are needed to reach the top in some fields when you have children to raise.

But we seldom hear about such facts, while we constantly hear charlatans loudly proclaiming numerical “gender gaps” in employment or pay, and suing for discrimination.

Charlatans are only half the story. The other half includes people who are gullible enough to be led around like sheep by those exploiting the prevailing political correctness dispensed in our schools, colleges and the media.

Moreover, the sheep in both high and low positions often also implicitly believe that the cause of statistical disparities must have originated wherever the statistics were collected, and therefore must be the fault of the employer — even though the factors behind those disparities may have originated far from the employer and long before the people involved reached the employer.

So long as there is widespread gullibility, there will be charlatans ready to exploit it for their own benefit, either politically or financially.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Never Let a Crisis Go To Waste

The immortal words of the former Obama Chief of Staff rang in my ears as yet another school shooting happened in Oregon and immediately, almost before the bodies hit the ground Obama was out there pushing The Agenda, Gun Control.

Don’t make it about politics, the Left says, then makes it about THEIR politics almost before the bodies are cold.

Sickening.

Some people jumped on “muslims” early on. So the Leftist media jumped on THEM.

We are advised to not judge all Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge all gun owners by the actions of lunatics.

“The shooter was lining people up and asking if they were Christian. If they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs.” it was said to be.

Gee, no hard “war on Christians” there. The Left and their Muslim brothers are safe. 🙂

The more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight“.– The shooter

The Left WILL make him famous, for the sake of their Agenda.

liberal gun violence

Instead of focusing on what your agenda can gain, how about talking a long hard look at yourselves and the shooter first!

Naw, THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA!!!  It’s the only thing that matters.

Less than six hours after the mass shooting today in Roseburg, Ore., President Obama called a press conference to demand new gun laws, a move he predicted would spur critics to accuse him of politicizing the issue. If they don’t accuse him of that, they might accuse him of making the tragedy about himself. 

During today’s 12-minute address, President Obama referred to himself 28 times. (For those counting at home, that’s almost three times per minute.)

Note that in arriving at this calculation, we included mentions of “we” when he was clearly including himself as part of the plural pronoun; the many uses of “we” in referring to America at large were not included. (Grabien)

So, as usual, it’s all about him and his agenda. He wants to own the limelight, how ironic. 🙂

Harper-Mercer wrote in a post this August about how much he admired Vester Flanagan, the Roanoke shooter who killed a cameraman and newscaster at the television station where he had been employed after getting fired. 

On that same profile it also showed that just three days ago Harper-Mercer uploaded This World Surviving Sandy Hook BBC Documentary 2015 for people to watch on the file sharing site.

The Shooter posted: ‘On an interesting note, I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are. A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone,’ wrote Harper-Mercer of Flanagan. 

‘His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.’

He closed by saying; ‘Also, if anyone gets the chance, go on youtube and see the footage of him shooting those people. It’s a short video but good nonetheless. Will post more later.’ 

So he’s learned his lessons will, the dead Padawan did.

On a Dating site he listed himself as a mixed race Republican. Well, the Leftist will have slobbering Partisan chops fun with this one.

It will be all about the politics, destroying your ‘enemy’ (Republicans) and the Agenda.

The message that is screaming at you will be missed because it doesn’t serve The Agenda.

Gallery: On the killer's MySpace page he has several posts and pictures where he appears to praise the IRA and their terrorist activites

‘And they would stand up and he said, “Good, because you’re a Christian, you’re going to see God in just about one second,”‘ said Stacy  (one of the survivors).

‘And then he shot and killed them.’

Umpqua College was a gun free zone.
No guns allowed…

Unless you’re a crazed lunatic, that is…

Chris Harper-Mercer – a 26-year-old who idolized serial killers and who isn’t even remotely interesting to the Left, except for what he can do for their Agenda.

I often think the only reason Leftists are for Gun Control is that when they come to you with one of their Agenda items to destroy your life (The metaphorical “gun to your head”) and you want to resist so THEY want to be the only ones with any guns, metaphorical or otherwise. That way, you have no choice but to do what they want, when they want, because they want.

A Military style junta dictatorship. That suits the Left’s ambitions for control, does it not?

The Left should focus on the people first. It is after, the sensitive and compassionate thing to do.

Nope, Agenda first!

Let’s ban the guns!  Not treat the people.

It’s the Gun’s fault!

If we prevent you from having a gun this won’t happen, the Left’s Agenda thinks.

Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people. Treat the cause not the symptom, Doctor Leftist.

Sorry, not covered by the Agenda Medical plan.

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA!!

Gun control is “is something we should politicize.”–Obama.

“This is a political choice that we make. To allow this to happen every few months in America. We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction.”–Obama

It’s YOUR Fault!

Did this happen “every few months until a few years ago, my dear?

Sorry, The Agenda is The Agenda!

Obama admitted that this issue would require a change of politics, and that Americans who think gun violence is an epidemic should be thinking how to change the politics in Washington on this issue.

Aka elect Liberals, they do such a fine job of it.

Chicago, run by Raul “dead fish” Emmanuel who made the quote in the title of this blog infamous runs Chicago, and it has had even MORE gun violence since he and his liberal gun control buddies took over.

Guns don’t kill people. People with guns kill people.

Just like most blacks are killed by blacks, not whites, or white cops.

BUT

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA.

The truth doesn’t matter.

guns

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez