Posts Tagged ‘New’

Trump On Shutdown: “We Have to Open…”

Sunday, April 5th, 2020

We have to get back to work!

The whole thing is a put-on. I don’t mean there isn’t a virus, but the whole over-hyped panic is just that. On Thursday, this past week, I saw that there were real signs that the fog was lifting. People were beginning to question the whole thing. It’s not that anybody thinks Coronavirus 2019 isn’t real, but that the statistics were being questioned, and the models were being questioned, and finally, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx were being questioned.  More, the reality of the unemployment numbers was coming to light, as an additional 6.6 million Americans added to the unemployment rolls that had already surged by 3.3 million the week before. That’s basically 10 million Americans, whose jobs are gone. More, businesses are now going belly-up, unable to sustain themselves in a shutdown or even skeleton-crew condition.  Real people, with real businesses are losing their businesses, not because they did anything wrong, but because of some order by a government official. Those officials will all claim sovereign immunity to any lawsuits, but no matter what anybody claims, it is a real “taking” as the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fifth Amendment defines it. They’re being wrecked, and their employees will have no jobs to which they can return. This must end. On Thursday, the American people finally realized it, and began to say so. Now, finally, two days later, it seems our President, already inclined to think along these lines, seemed to have gotten the message. In a lengthy briefing on Saturday, he said “We have to open…” He said it more than once.

After the debacle of the Fauci/Birx reliance on the statistical models, some of which were provided purportedly by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, people were beginning to question not only the obvious distance between projected death rates and reality, but also some of the underlying stories used to sell the panic. One YouTuber, channel name: AmazingPolly, who is an excellent researcher found some interesting problems with the video package prepared by the NYTimes about the catastrophe happening at the Elmhurst, Queens NY hospital. What’s interesting is that the video is now all in question. CBS famously aired footage that looked like a serious situation, allegedly in NYC, but actually from Italy.  Other footage and stills showed lines of coffins that were actually from a movie. The media is a pure propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. At this point, it truly is the Democrat-Media Complex. The idea is to sell panic. The idea is to push the country as far down into the ditch as is humanly possible, because there’s really no other way for them to defeat President Trump. They’re willing to wreck America to get rid of him, and to cause the death of additional Americans if necessary. There’s really no bottom to their black hole of hatred for this country. They see Trump and his supporters as the last obstacle to vanquishing America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, forever. This is not hyperbole. They hate us that much.

I know there is that segment of the readership who will assert this is some sort of conspiracy theory, but there’s no “theory” to it. The Democrat-Media Complex has conspired to create an apocalyptic narrative with COVID19.  The Washington Post already called Tom Cotton a “conspiracy theorist” for suggesting that the #WuFlu might have come from a Chinese Bio-Lab in Wuhan.  Now, they’re being forced to report that it may have indeed leaked from a Chinese laboratory, just miles from the “wet market” where the cover story has asserted this virus originated. H/T to Dan Bongino(Twitter handle @dbongino) for this tale of the despicable double-talk of the media. His episode Friday focused on the sickness of the Democrat-Media Complex. Watch it here if you have time:

I will tell you that the longer I observe the whole of our national polity, I am continually amazed at how absolutely disgusting is our so-called “Mainstream Media.” Sarah Palin had them pegged when she called them “Lamestream,” but lately, they seem to be more diabolical than that.

Back to the hospital in Elmhurst, Queens, why would they choose that hospital to target for their big scare story? On whom would this have the greatest effect? Amazing Polly figures that out for us, if we hadn’t guessed who might be from Queens, NY, who might be the target of a media disinformation campaign:

Every time I get the chance, I thank Polly for her work via Twitter. This video deserves a thorough watching. She admits up front that she can’t necessarily prove all of her conclusions, but she is always careful to provide documentation for the material she presents, in the information attached to her videos on YouTube. You can follow her on Twitter @99freemind. I don’t necessarily agree with her on everything, or subscribe to all the theories she presents, but I can tell you that she works very hard at her research, and she is very thorough, and also that she provides an alternative view of events and history that can offer a perspective that reveals new things the Lamestream Media will never, ever tell us. Give her a view if you haven’t already, and take the time to Like the videos of content creators like her and Dan Bongino.

Another person with whom you will cross paths if you research this overall CoronaVirus2019 shutdown is Candace Owens. Some of you will be familiar with her from FoxNews, or from other platforms, and on Twitter, she’s @RealCandaceO.  She has real courage in many respects, and one of them is her willingness to take on the #FakeNews, particularly with respect to issues of race, and also with the pigeon-holing of black Americans as Democrats.  She’s exposing those myths, and she has a new book coming out. Now, she’s exposing the governor of Connecticut who actually blamed the death of an infant on CoronaVirus when in fact, the death was due to being suffocated:

 

 

This sort of displacement of blame onto CoronaVirus is rampant in states run by Democrats. It’s being done to grab more of the federal relief money from the $2Trillion package that Congress passed last week.  It’s despicable, and it accounts for at least some of the mounting death toll being reported all over the news. It’s fraud. They’re mostly going to get away with it, since they compile the statistics, and they control the medical examiners, although these will mostly be considered “natural causes” and will never undergo autopsies.  I’m not suggesting that there are no CoronaVirus deaths, as I’m sure there are, but as I covered in my previous article, this is all being blown way out of proportion.  Now, we have even more evidence that this whole panic is contrived, and we also know the motive: This is all about elections, money, and power. What else? The idea here was to trap President Trump so that he would have to shut down the country. Instead, he left it to governors, as he should. He focused on the Federal response as is the job of the President.  In short, he took the steps appropriate to the President under our constitution, but this is also why the Democrat-Media Complex kept pressing the President to take more steps, and force a state quarantine in New York.

Today, at the press briefing by the President’s CoronaVirus Response Team, he made it plain: “We have to get back to work.”

Remember, if it’s bad for America, Democrats approve. If it’s bad for Trump, Democrats insist. The media is now so utterly broken that the smarmy reporters in the room can’t help but become snotty in their questioning of the President. If I were the President, I’d throw at least half of them off the White House grounds and tell their networks or papers to try again with somebody else.  There was never this kind of conduct toward President Obama. Not once.  Not even during his most miserable and provocative failures, when actual reporters would be expected to be more insistent in their questioning.  Here, the way these reporters talk to the President of the United States is an utter disgrace.  Even were I given the opportunity to question Barack Obama in the White House in the aftermath of Benghazi, I’d never have been so basically rude and disrespectful.  I certainly would have asked a couple seriously difficult questions. The problem here is that the media doesn’t really want any information.  They’re not really asking questions designed to reveal any news, but merely questions aimed at catching the President in some inconsistency, or in some sort of disagreement with one or more members of his team.  In some cases, they’re plainly argumentative.  Just once, in the eight years of the incompetent and corrupt Obama administration, they should have gone after that President with such fervent zeal.  Instead, they blithely pitched softballs that even the increasingly confused Joe Biden could hit out of the park.

Over the last few weeks, as the nation has attempted to deal with the WuFlu pandemic, one of the things that’s gotten short shrift is the economy.  We had an economy in pretty good condition by the middle of February, and as you’ll remember, unlike during the Obama administration when the jobs numbers were “unexpectedly poor,” instead our Department of Labor found itself having to upgrade the numbers in weeks following original reports that understated the economy’s performance.  Now, we’re losing jobs at a phenomenal rate, and President Trump has to do something to bring the economy back online soon, or the country will be wrecked.  Most of the small businesses shutting down are highly leveraged, and with a halt in revenues, they’re facing serious, perhaps catastrophic, consequences. The typical situation looks like a Mom-and-Pop shop of some sort, opened up a business on tight margins, perhaps by re-mortgaging a recently paid-off home. Now, shut down by order of some public official, usually a governor, county judge, city manager or mayor. they find themselves without revenue.  They have to lay off their employees, as a matter of pure financial survival, and then, within a month, they’re staring down the barrel of that debt service, and if they can’t service it, not only will they lose their business, but they might just lose everything. They’ll never be able to reopen.  They’ll never be able to call up employees and offer them their old jobs back. Instead, the avalanche will gather momentum and mass, with a mounting depression at the bottom of the hill.

I am reminded of a line by Bruce Willis in one of the many Die Hard sequels. The young guy he’s escorting to the FBI makes an off-hand remark about crashing the “system.” Willis’ character stops, and lets the kid have it a bit: “It’s not a system. It’s people!” Or something to that effect. His point was to say it is very easy to imagine shutting down a system like shutting down a computer or an assembly line.  For some reason, when people eliminate the myriad complications implied by specific, concrete human beings, it become easy to be cavalier about their disposition. The point Detective McClane was making is that “the system” is really people, and what you’re really talking about wrecking is the lives and dreams and aspirations and plans of real live people, just like you.

Democrats suffer from the same childish misunderstanding and unfocused view of the world around them. It’s easier to imagine an amorphous system that just gets “shut down.” The same is true of the economy.  They see it like turning off an engine.  Instead, it’s like putting a country’s worth of people into suspended animation, only without the preservative aspect.  The decay, the atrophy, the heart failures and the deaths begin to mount immediately. In short order, it’s much worse than any disease. Our country is much more complex than most people imagine, but the fundamentals of the situation are simple. We’re wrecking the economy, which means we’re wrecking businesses and that means we are wrecking people.  Each minute this goes on, more businesses are lost, and with them, jobs die. Most of them won’t be back, and this is where people who don’t understand the entrepreneurial cycle fail to see the real danger: Small business creates a sizable majority of jobs in the United States. If you’ve just gone out and created a business, and had it wrecked by a government-ordered closure, and probably lost substantial money, or worse, had your entire life’s work demolished, assuming you find yourself in the position to launch another business some day, would you? Why? The next time a virus comes along, the government might just shut you down again.

It isn’t simply that this response to this virus was overblown and entirely unnecessary, but that the entire methodology is bankrupt, unfeasible, and wrong. We must never permit this kind of shutdown again. Ever. Under any circumstance. We have created a situation that will take years to repair, if it can be fully repaired at all. Your individual rights are not and must not be subjected to the vagaries of virologists’ models. Your liberties must never be placed in the hands of governors, mayors, county judges, and other elected numb-skulls whose motives and decisions will always be dominated by politics, their public declarations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Ladies and gentlemen, the worst aspect of the great WuFlu shutdown of 2020 is the precedent set by permitting government to behave this way in the first place. The very idea that the government can order the shutdown of the country is a preposterous notion. This is tyranny, whether you’ve recognized it or not.  For the business owners whose concerns are now in serious jeopardy, if not already wrecked, this much is obvious. They’re carrying the largest burden in this entire fiasco, and those of us who do not bear their burdens should be thoughtful about the losses they face as a result. It is their lives and liberties, along with the properties of these entrepreneurs that have been cast onto the pyre of sacrifices created by this exercise of government authority.

I believe President Trump has been played, and the economy laid waste as a result of his desire to safeguard the lives of Americans. I believe the people upon whose guidance he relied are not all good people with innocent or virtuous motives. I also believe that certain elements opportunistically joined into this attack on our country. I know the President was trapped between doing what he believed at the time to be the best path for saving lives and what he knew would be catastrophic for the long-term economic and financial health of the country. I can forgive him for his motive of protecting and saving lives, but I’m less forgiving in another aspect: He should have recognized that the people around him were simply another brand of deep-state players, equally corrupt and equally apt to carry out a different form of a coup d’etat. If you don’t see that this has been the motive, I’d urge you to look more closely.

 

As one example, I want you to read this email from Dr. Fauci, first exposed by WikiLeaks:

 

TODAY’S PERFORMANCE

To: Hillary Clinton Date: 2013-01-23 11:21
Subject: TODAY’S PERFORMANCE

 

Advertisements

The DC Role-Playing Game Continues Over the Fiscal Cliff

Sunday, December 2nd, 2012

Knuckle-draggers…

It’s as though it were a written script.  All the players are carrying out their performance with practiced expertise.  Given our past experiences with the leadership of both parties, one might guess that the outcome of the “fiscal cliff” crisis had been preordained.  It’s beginning to nauseate me to watch this same old crowd play the same old game without any hesitation.  Those of us who’ve watched these sorts of situations in the past have come to expect this sort of performance, as exemplified most recently the Debt Ceiling Deal of August 2011.  All of the actors know their lines, and the end of the plot will go as planned, while they throw in some plot twist for your entertainment.  As it seems we’re to be the endless butt of the insiders’ jokes, we might just as well prepare ourselves to be disappointed once again.  These people aren’t serious, and the leadership on the Republican side is downright hostile to conservatives, so we shouldn’t be surprised if they’re readying themselves to put another one over on us.  One can almost imagine the script, knowing the deal’s final composition has been determined already:

Boehner: “We’ll need to pass our own plan first, to blunt criticism from the knuckle-draggers.”

Obama: “I know, and I’m going to need to let Harry do most of my talking. Now John, just don’t be too rough on me in the press.  Throw in some of those tears-it drives your base berserk!  We’re still on for a round after the inaugural, right?”

McConnell: “I’ll let it leak to the press that I laughed at your offer.”

Reid: “Perfect! I’ll come out and say that the Republicans want to starve children and feed the rich their supper.”

Boehner: “Come on Harry, do you always have to lay it on so thick?”

Pelosi: “I just want to know if you’ll let me hold that gavel for a couple more years in 2013. We got rid of that dreadful Allen West, didn’t we?”

Biden: “Hey Barry, can I sit at the Resolute Desk while you’re in Hawaii? It’ll help me build my image for 2016.”

(Joint laughter.)

Obama: “Okay, John, let’s go with your plan.  You make the tough stance to get your folks aboard, but don’t blow it this time. They need to believe you gave it your all before caving.  The tears will help.”

Boehner: “Yessir, this ship is going down, and there’s no sense in getting people unnecessarily riled up. Let’s keep them busy with the deck-chairs, and when it all goes, they’ll never know what hit them.  Permit me to say, Mr. President, that you’ve been masterful this year.”

Obama: “Okay, we know what we have to do. We’ll say we did all we could. Questions?”

Boehner: “How long until we pull the plug?  Do we go all the way this time, ’cause I’d like to get sauced on New Year’s Eve.”

Pelosi(Laughing joyfully): “Oh, champagne! The bubbles always make me laugh.”

Reid: “I think we should keep them guessing, at least right up until Christmas.  We can probably work up another ‘Grinch’ deal with you as the star this time, Mitch.”

McConnell(Grumbling): “Why do I always have to be the heavy?”

Obama: “Because nobody’s going to buy a crying ‘Grinch.’ Other questions?”

Biden: “Has anybody checked out a 7-11 lately?”

All others: “Shut up, Joe!”

 Ladies and gentlemen, that queasy feeling in the pits of your stomachs can be explained not as some sort of premonition, but perhaps a little more like Déjà vu.  If it seems as though we’ve been here before, it’s only because we have, but in this case, even the names haven’t changed, because there are so damnably few innocents.  For those who may have forgotten how conservatives were betrayed in 2011, during the extended Debt Ceiling debacle, let me remind you that Speaker Boehner watched the House pass “Cut, Cap & Balance” knowing it would be killed in the Senate where he had already worked out the framework of a deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Barack Obama.  In short, while we were prodding our members to stand fast, he had already pulled the rug from beneath us, and as was disclosed during the aftermath, it was done at the urging of Mitt Romney because he didn’t want to have this fight impinging on what he assumed would be his Presidential campaign, a strategy history now proves had been a failure.  At the time the deal was struck in July of 2011, I along with many other conservatives urged the Congress to stand fast, because we knew that this was an election issue any Republican nominee ought not give away.

The truth seems to be that there is never a “good time” to do the hard things in Washington DC.  There’s always another election “right around the corner,” and there’s always another excuse to kick the can down the road a bit more.  Rational people will have known that there’s really no time like the present to take up these issues, and if the House of representatives won’t exercise the power we’ve given it, there’s not much point in having this collection of perpetual losers on the payroll.  If Boehner and his bunch aren’t up to the fight, either due to coziness with Democrats in the DC establishment, or merely as a result of cowardly political calculations, we must at long last send them home.

The so-called “fiscal cliff” and any sequestration is really a small divot compared to the disaster looming with more unbridled spending.  Republicans complain that the media complex will blame them, and it most assuredly will, but it will also blame them if they go along and the economy flat-lines as the result of tax increases on the productive segments of our economy.  It’s long past time to simply acknowledge that the media is going to blame Republicans, right, wrong, or indifferent, and there’s no point in wasting time with all of this whinging about the state of the media.  The media is what it is. It’s awful. Life’s hard. Get helmets.

Unfortunately, we don’t have any leaders currently serving in Washington who are willing to stand up and make a case. Instead, they’re looking to cut deals, any sort of compromise at all, and they’re willing to poke you in the eye while they reach for your wallets [again.]  Whether things are quite so collegial as my imagined exchange above, the fact remains that when all is said and done, more will have been said than done [again.]

This is the way things are(or aren’t) done in Washington. As you sip your coffee, watching the Sunday shows, know that somewhere behind the scenes, Boehner and the boys are cooking up another sell-out, and the script is already written.  As your country, your children, and the prospects of both are being bankrupted, you don’t need to wonder whether disaster can be averted. It won’t be.  Our leaders will cut a deal that will permit them to carry on the charade a little longer, purchasing only one more installment of delay for the coming disaster borne by their inaction.

Note: The site had been experiencing some difficulties with the comment system.  I now believe it to be repaired. Thank you for your patience.

 

 

 

Thinking About The Presidency

Friday, September 23rd, 2011

Too Much Power?

One of the features of the 20th Century and continuing in even more grand form now is the extent to which the office of President of the United States has come to represent the country at large.  Given the development of mass media, it’s not surprising, but in truth, I’m not sure it’s been entirely healthy.  We speak of presidents as “running the country,” but none of these characters, neither the worst nor the best of them, ever really run the country, or at least, that’s not what our founders intended.  The President and the federal establishment are supposed to be as remote in our daily lives as they are from most of us in geographic terms.  The notion of the President “running the country” is illusory in most respects, and a testament to the fictions propagated by government in collusion with media that we perceive things in this way.  We shouldn’t regard our government as such a fundamental part of our daily lives, but over time, people now view the presidency in this light.  It is time that we begin the discussion about returning the government and our elected politicians to their rightful place, but the trouble lies not only with the temperament of our presidents, but also with the character of the presidency.

Our present constitution was established in part to create a stronger federal government than had existed under the Articles of Confederation.  That government was considered insufficiently weak by those who saw flaws in its ability to bind the country together in issues of taxation and expenditure, particularly with respect to a common defense.  This left the presidency, merely an instrument of Congress, in a state of impotence, incapable of responding to changing conditions, or coordinating the new nation’s defense.  This was intolerable, and there were significant problems even collecting revenues.  Provisioning for the Army was unreliable, and there was little of centralized form in the execution of law.  The United States was at this time more like a version of the present day United Nations, or European Union, in the sense that it was strictly a treaty among the separate and sovereign states, with little of their powers delegated to the confederation except as pertaining to warfare and foreign policy.  Some critics today would suggest that it had certain advantages over our existing constitution for precisely these reasons.

The anti-federalists argued that much as our Articles of Confederation had perhaps been unduly weak as a reflex against the tyranny of the British empire, in much the same way, the proposed constitution was likewise unnecessarily and even dangerously powerful as a reaction against the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.  Patrick Henry and George Mason were among the most notable critics, and there can be little doubt that he considered the new constitution to contain too many weaknesses, loopholes they thought, through which despots could arise.  The anti-federalists had three central objections:  There was no “bill of rights”; there would be a centralizing tendency; the government would take on an aristocratic character.  While the new constitution was ultimately amended to quiet critics on the matter of a bill of rights, the other two objections have come into sharper focus as it is clear that the history of the 20th Century is one of the centralizing of power, and the death of the concept of citizen legislators, resulting in a permanent political class that rules seemingly in near perpetuity.  The anti-federalists worried about the presidency created in the new constitution arrogating to itself new and terrible powers not specifically proscribed in Article II.   Some would argue with good cause that they had been correct, since at varying times throughout the course of our country, successive presidents have tended to accumulate more power than their predecessors.

This is the curious problem that now confronts us:  We must elect a President who will exercise the power of that office to slowly, wisely return such excessive power to its proper jurisdiction, either in the Congress, or within the several states, but perhaps most importantly, with the people.  Of course, this will not be done without the will and legislative commitment of Congress, but the truth is that a new President, properly inclined, will be able to change and diminish not only the role of the President, but also of the Federal Government generally.  Our nation has become too focused on and dominated by Washington DC.  This is why our federal budget has exploded out of all previous bounds. This is why we are beset by a regulatory nightmare in our small businesses, in our homes, and in almost every other facet of our lives.  We must begin the process of deconstructing the federal establishment to a degree that permits us to function as a nation again without daily reference to Presidential, Congressional or judicial whimsy.

The office of President of the United States was created to remedy an over-weak central government, but it has been so thoroughly enlarged in its power that we must elect a person with the character and temperament to practice self-restraint in the exercise of powers not explicit in the Constitution.  We need a leader who will slowly, carefully devolve as much power as is prudent back to the states and the people.  Our current economic morass is evidence of the accumulation and centralization of power in the hands of those who run our federal government, and they have become a blight upon our economic future, and indeed, our lives.  One need consider only those EPA regulators who have banned inhalers for Asthma drugs.  Some people will die because they will have been unable to afford the new inhalers, but the regulators are unelected, and frequently unaccountable, and they create new rules by which we are governed without respect to how those rules may harm us.  President sign executive order implementing what are essentially de facto law, with the stroke of a pen.  Somewhere along the course of the last two-hundred years, we have lost contact with the stern warnings the anti-federalists about the arrogation of power and the aggrandizement of the presidency, never mind the general growth of a permanent political class that no longer much cares for the will of the people, or even the constitution to which they’ve sworn to uphold.  These are also questions we must ask the GOP candidates for nomination, because we will soon lose our country if we don’t reduce the reach and scope of the U.S. Federal Government and its powers.  It’s time to tear down this leviathan, before it kills all of us.

The Other Side of Class Warfare: Taking Society Down

Thursday, September 22nd, 2011

Society's Lowest Common Denominator

One of the most divisive and intractable problems we face in the U.S. is the growing poverty in our society.  More people are connected to the governmental umbilical cord than ever in history, and there are complaints emanating from all the usual sources that the wealthy segment of our society doesn’t pay enough for the privilege of their wealth.  I look at this from a completely different perspective, based in reality, and not in some grand socialistic dream about the good in humanity.  I know that humans are fallible and imperfect, and easily fall into a destitution of spirit even more readily than they do into a poverty of material things.  Encouraged to do so, many people are more than willing to live from the efforts of others and to subsist without reference to their own sloth.

I realize that what I am going to tell you will cause many to hurl derision in my direction, but it’s time that we tell the truth about who the real free-riders in our society have been.  Our country cannot thrive so long as the free-riders of whom we ask exactly nothing can collect by virtue of their unwillingness to contribute anything.  Our “welfare” system is becoming the largest segment of a rapidly growing government that rests not on a poverty of material things it provides, but on the grotesque destitution of spirit of those among those who these programs were intended to assist.

First, I’d like to address the question of entitlement programs, and differentiate among them on the following basis: Social Security, a program I think has thoroughly impossible problems, has been promised on the basis of individual contributions over a lifetime of work.  While it is clear that some substantial reform is necessary, and many  have been misled about the nature of the program, it is not the program I wish to discuss.  Instead, I’d prefer to focus on the massive programs for which there is no connection between benefits paid and the manner in which they are funded.  This includes the myriad programs that fall into the category widely regarded as “welfare,” and includes everything from public housing to Medicaid, among the more well-known, but includes also Pell Grants and Home Energy Assistance, and extends now even to Internet Service and Cellular Phones.

Over the last number of days, I’ve been verbally hammered via email and on the phone by those who have become disheartened at the things they now witness in their daily lives.  It’s not merely that these programs exist, or that they now provide every imaginable need, but that the recipients no longer appreciate them as a gift of a generous society.  Instead, they now view these benefits as a primary means of existence, and a right to which they are entitled to exercise.  Imagine subsisting in the belief that society owes you a living, based on no more exhaustive claim but for your existence.  It is to say “I’m here, so pay for me.”  If this seems stunning to some Americans who are less familiar with this sub-culture of economic dependency and moral depravity, it shouldn’t.  We have allowed our politicians to create a system in which they are rewarded with votes by providing material goods to people who produce nothing, owe nothing, and more, are being conditioned to believe that they possess an endless right to the wealth of those who produce the wealth of the nation.

Ladies and gentlemen, there can be no doubt that by permitting government to become the great dispenser of benefits, we have built a monster that has taken on a life and a force from which we may not escape.  We have such stellar intellectuals as Elizabeth Warren, a candidate for Senate in Massachusetts, and a former Obama White House flunky, who tells us a few things that ought to disqualify her from any office anywhere on the planet:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.’  No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.”

Do you understand her claim?  She is saying that society enables people to become rich.  This is a lie.  If society enables people to become rich, why aren’t we all rich?  Why? What’s the difference between one person’s wealth and another person’s poverty?  She doesn’t explain that, but she does continue to make absurd statements that reveal her poverty of understanding  of both economics and human nature:

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.”

This bizarre and reckless politician is telling you that the roads came first.  She is plainly asserting that roadways came before commerce.  They did not.  Commerce was the reason the roads were built, and the people who were engaged in that commerce are the ones who built the roads.  If there was nothing to protect, we would not need police.  This asinine would-be Senator actually believes that “the rest of us paid for” all of these things.  She is lying.  Find for me the total number of dollars paid for any roadway by those who do nothing but take from this system?

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

This is pure sophistry.  There is no instance in which her narrative is true.  We cannot  afford any more of this notion.  The people who have paid for those products are most frequently the people who had a hand in producing them.  This is a serious problem.  She is an advocate for free-riders who actually insists on bolstering the notion that free-riders are the great virtue in our system who somehow provide the ability of the rich to become richer, while nevertheless providing exactly and precisely nothing.

This must stop.  We must begin to strip such power from politicians. We must challenge this nonsense at ever turn.  We must begin to say “No” and mean it, not merely to these politicians, but also to the people who have become dependent upon them.  It simply ludicrous to suggest that the infrastructure depends on the payments of people who don’t pay, while people who do pay are compelled at gunpoint to build and provide  it.

We have a real problem, and this insufferable leftist demonstrates it quite well: The poverty we face is in intellect, philosophy, and spirit, and we can no longer afford the luxury of all of these programs.  We must end the welfare state before it ends us.  With each day it continues, it increases its own numbers as more people give up the will to earn their existence as they find themselves increasingly surrounded by those who will not.