Right News and Views

I’ve often thought of liberals as long on heart (a sincere complement) but short on brains (a sad reality). Now I’m beginning to wonder about the heart part. According to this piece on Politico Nancy Pelosi says Iraq is a failure.

Should those not be white flags behind Pelosi?

Really? World War II would have been a failure, too, had we left after the Battle of the Bulge. German concentration camps would have remained factories of death and the war lost not because of a failure of our troops but because of a failure of the hearts of those at home.

In the piece she says our troops “deserve better than the policy of a war without end.” And what do the Iraqis deserve? Mass graves without end? If we leave before true stability occurs we very likely look into another such abyss as the holocaust or killing fields where mass numbers of people die at the hands of barbarous monsters.

So where is the heart for Iraqis? Do liberals say they should suck it up and just get the job done? Oh, would that they felt that way about the so-called poor here. Shouldn’t they suck it up and get jobs and off welfare? Oh, no- it’s okay to redistribute the wealth of others in a war on poverty “without end” but to heck with Iraqis facing a real genocide. Again I ask, where is the heart in that?

No, Pelosi is wrong. Just because this arch liberal has called it quits doesn’t make Iraq a failure. Only her actions that may (but hopefully will not) end the just fight for liberty for Iraq will make it a failure.

Iraq can be - and will be if we but keep our courage- a glittering jewel in the crown of democracy.

Or we can abandon Iraq to become once again a bloody hole in the nightmare of tyranny and genocide.

Here is a question I’ve been thinking about about all week: do some have the right to force others to be charitable? Well, it has actually been on my mind ever since I received my first paycheck. At that moment I remember wondering what I did wrong. I knew how many hours I worked, I knew what I earned for each of those hours, so why was my check so much smaller than what I had expected?

Poverty is caused by greedy corporations, Edwards believes. Whatever. Jobs are created by “greedy” corporations. So are the benefits that come with many of those jobs.

Oh, I knew of course that some taxes would be taken out. But the number I was looking at couldn’t be right. Well, of course, it was. And ever since then I’ve known that they do not have that right.

To be sure they take the liberty (your liberty, actually) to reach into your paycheck to fund what they believe is a worthy cause. They deeply believe in the collective (much like the Borg collective on Star Trek: The Next Generation). They don’t care how much suffering they spread so long as they are doing what they believe is just. Take their stance on helping the poor. It doesn’t matter if they are trapped in a never ending cycle of government dependency. I suppose that is why the “War on Poverty” is so very wrongly named. Using the word “war” suggests that there will at some point be some sort of victory and that poverty will go away. Some lefty attack puppy will will now start sputtering about the “War on Terror.” Check Iraq- the surge is working (I know, I’m sorry for you libs but Bush isn’t a total flop after all).

But back to the misnamed “War on Poverty.” It should be called the “pipe dream.” Poverty will always be with us. Granted, it can be lowered but it will not go away.

And how do we lower poverty? The best way to lower it is not through hand outs but through hands off. Think of how many jobs could be created for those currently in a state of poverty if we would just expand our nuclear energy program and drill in the arctic preserve and offshore in the gulf. Think how many jobs could be created if we deregulated business and lowered their taxes so they could hire more people and do more research and development to grow their business.

Business seek profit. The best way to get profit is to grow your business. You grow your business by hiring people, investing in new technologies (which help other companies hire new employees of their own) and being competitive. Think of it: job growth. Jobs for people who what them!

But that is not a liberal enough solution for many. “What, make people work?” That sounds too much like accountability for a liberal. And if there is one thing liberals hate, it is having to take responsibility for their actions or holding people to task for there’s.

It is all pointless musings, though. Government will continue to enslave its citizens that work to provide perpetual free rides to those who don’t. Liberals will continue to be totalitarian, ripping my freedoms away from me to enjoy the fruits of my own labors by demanding through coercion that I help them fund their feel-good schemes. Lets just hope all those poor working slobs like me and so many others don’t loose their own pride and decide that the American dream is not their own home and a brighter future for their children but government housing and dependent future for their progeny.

In closing I want to note that charity is a very good thing. It is just not governments place- it is my place and your place. In other words, people must help people- not some department in a far off capitol city that has no ability to love and show human compassion for the person in need nor the ability to expect accountability and an eventual end to their current state of need. In sum, a hand up- never a hand out.

By now, I’m sure most people are aware of this nonsense. Berkeley has gone over the edge with its anti-military lunacy in telling US Marines they are not welcome in their town. It staggers the mind, really. Liberals have never been ones for much thought beyond their fantasy land daydreams but you would think they at least realize that it takes real men to defend the freedoms we all enjoy. Without a military we would be overrun. How long before some nut job would come along and do in the Unites States what is pictured below?

Holocaust victims

The Holocaust is one of the worst events in human history. Without a military to stop Nazi Germany, how many more would have found their way into the ovens and mass graves of Hitler’s Europe?

The most pitiful victims of the Holocaust

How many more children would have starved to death? And remember, these children made it out of the womb alive- so liberals are supposed to care about them.

This is what happens to innocent people when good people do nothing

And how many did we allow to die, like this man probably did, and allow to suffer in the horrors of Pol Pot’s mad dream of a communist utopia? This is the real legacy of Vietnam.

Pol Pot’s Legacy

Here is but a very partial answer to that. This pile of bones is from the Killing Fields. Over a million died because “peace loving” Americans lacked the basic understanding that there is evil in the world and it must be confronted. They believed Walter Cronkite over this basic truth.

Victims of Saddam’s evil

And today? Obama and Clinton, despite clear, obvious, and overwhelming proof that we have turned the tide in Iraq in favor of the Iraqis and our troops, compete to see who will pull the troops out faster if elected. What a message to the enemy- “just wait a little longer- we’ll give up soon!”

More of Saddam’s evil

Here family members search among the dead, those butchered at Saddam’s command, for a sign that any given body is that of their loved one.

Berkeley slaps our troops in the face - the best of our country who bring nightmares like this to an end - when it shows its petty and colossal stupidity in telling Marines they are not welcome.

Would liberals stand for this if it were African Americans being told they were not welcome somewhere? Would liberals stand for this if it were women being told they were not welcome somewhere? Would liberals stand for this if it were anybody else but the men and women who protect or freedom and fight to spread that freedom to others under a tyrants boot?

Of course not. Remember, for liberals it is all about intent; not results.

Unlike Rome, America may still be shiny and new looking on the outside. But how long before the decay on the inside begins to show?

That any votes were cast at all for Hillary and Obama is deeply disturbing; further proof that our society is degenerating into a government dependent collective.

McCain, obviously, is far better than either of the two front runners in the Socialist Party (read: Democratic Party). But his success last night only demonstrates that conservatives are themselves drifting towards bigger government and more “entitlements” for all.

Well, if history teaches us anything it is that all nations rise, decline, and eventually fall. We may still be the most powerful country on earth, but we’re in decline. Perhaps not obviously, but when the majority of people vote for goodies for themselves over the values of the candidates you know the slide has begun.

You gotta be kidding me!

I ran across this image and was just stunned at the ignorance of whoever put it together. If it refers to modern liberals it has it all wrong. Let’s take it point by point.

1. Tolerant? Only if you agree with their deranged view of the world. Put a fact in front of them and they get downright nasty.

2. Generous? Yeah, with other peoples money.

3. Enlightened? As in enlightened enough to leave Saddam in power in Iraq and let many more millions die at his, and later his sons, hands? Yeah, real enlightened.

4. Broadminded? Broadminded enough to reject military recruiters on college campuses but invite a holocaust denying, genocide promoting Iranian president to speak at one of our colleges? Wow, that’s broadminded.

5. Lavish? What does this mean, anyway? I suppose it means lavish with the tax dollars they steal out of working Americans paychecks.

6. Charitable? This is getting repetitious. Charitable with other peoples money.

How it ought to read is:

LIBERAL -

Softly bigoted, wealth redistributing, morally ambivalent, small minded, thieving, arrogant, ignorant.

As to the Conservative, it ought to read:

Demanding, prepared, brave, strong, world-wise, moral, intelligent.

But liberals probably do see us the way that silly image contends. Expecting others to take care of themselves is not bigoted. Being stingy is not wishing to keep most of your paycheck to benefit your own family and help your own children. I could go on and on but liberals don’t want to understand us. They want to live in their happy little fantasy world. Fortunately, we’re here to do the heavy lifting and the real work.

Indeed, they ought to be thankful for us. Or lives make their lives possible. War protesters cannot protest if they do not have the freedom our military protects. Nanny state lovers cannot hand out other peoples money without big business generating all that wealth. Ah, liberals must lead a happy life. Ignorance, they say, is bliss.

A few of those who just don’t get it

I’ve always respected Thomas Sowell and faithfully read his columns. And I can’t wait to get my hands on a copy of “Economic Facts and Fallacies.” As Heather Wilhelm observes the book “dismantles many of the pervasive fallacies running rampant in politics today, broken into categories of urban life, gender, academia, income, race, and the problems of the third world.”

But liberals won’t let the facts get in the way of their mission to make the world how they think it should to be rather than how reality dictates it is. In failed idea after failed idea many of them stick to the belief that more government is the answer be it redistribution of wealth to other forms of government intrusion like Social Security, rent controls, dictating what restaurants may or may not serve, too-heavily regulating businesses, and so on.

Wilhelm points out that “for many, it seems, beliefs in economic fallacies take on a quasi-religious significance, fueled by a fervent belief in the way things ought to be or in a worldview soaked in victimization. Sowell suggests that certain “evidence is too dangerous–politically, financially, and psychologically–for some people to allow it to become a threat to their interests or to their own sense of themselves.”

I would call this weak-mindedness. And if you are liberal that pretty much sums up your problem. Take San Francisco, for example. The military protects their freedom to hate the military. The military protects their right denounce others for holding traditional moral values. Homosexuality would be one of the many things Islamic terrorists would seek to suppress or wipe out if they took over- a fact that seems to escape the bashers of those who protect San Francisco and the rest of the US from invasion.

How do we get the truth out and “sell” it so that people will act upon their newfound knowledge? I’ve seen a few liberals become conservative (Dennis Miller and Dick Morris come to mind) though I don’t know of any conservatives that have become liberal. I suppose as one gets older a form of dementia can set in and one may become liberal but for the most part those that “get it” maintain their understanding. But back to the point- I’ve seen some liberals become conservative. So I know it is possible. The only thing I know to do is keep pounding them with the facts or just run over them in the quest to strengthen and improve our country. Maybe one day they’ll catch up.

Ask not what you can do for your country, but what it can do for you.

The Kennedy Camelot is a fiction just as is the Camelot of King Arthur, Merlin, Lancelot and all the other Knights of the Round Table. Ted, of course, shouldn’t even raise his head in public much less serve what empty headed Mass voters have apparently decreed is a lifetime appointment to the Senate.

Which brings me to Froma Harrop’s op-ed, Media Swallows Kennedys’ Arrogant Presumption. How true it is. Despite the fact that such endorsements do not mean very much (this is America- make up your own mind) the media has reported this tidbit with relish. But we should care why?

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard Caroline Kennedy’s statement. “Over the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.”

Lady, he inspires me with deep disgust. His sunny optimism that he can waltz into Washington and somehow make people who justly hate liberal idiocy and fight against the harmful effects of liberal legislation is at best gross naïveté and at worst an outright fabrication.

Further, my hope for America rests not in a president or in our government but in limiting their power and influence over our lives.

But most obviously this smacks of arrogance. Caroline is wealthy, attractive and, didn’t you know, a Kennedy for goodness sakes! What does she know of not having hope about a country that has allowed her ancestors to build such wealth and pass it along to her? Besides, anyone who has come to her and said they wish they could feel inspired and hopeful about our country aren’t paying any attention. This is America. We are the wealthiest nation in human history. Even those of us determined by our government to be in poverty are often fat. The vast majority of us own homes, cars, TV’s, have computers and internet access, and so much more.

You want hope for America? Then be inspired to believe in its people and not in its government.

Just one of the many points about liberals that make them dangerous to our nation

When I first started my student teaching I was possessed of the belief that I could make history interesting to all of my students. I believed I could get them engaged in class discussions and excited. At one point I produced an actual Nazi party pin (part of a collection of various historical items I had obtained over the years). It didn’t register with them. I had already described the horrors of Nazi Germany. But no one in the class sat up straighter, no one gasped. There was no reaction at all. I remained puzzled for a long time after that but finally concluded that some people (though I admit some of them would later grow up and change their view) just didn’t care about much beyond themselves.

I felt the same way - though you would think I would have learned by that point - when I started writing a political column. I felt my simple way of explaining things and the obvious truth behind what I had to say would result in at least some responses indicating that I was changing minds. Instead I get vastly more attack letters than I do e-mails that show support. I don’t know of anyone who has a better understanding of conservatives or liberals now that, originally, hated or disliked the former and loved or merely allowed by inaction the growth of the latter.

I’ve become increasingly confrontational and harsh, fully aware that you catch more flies with honey. After years of attempts, however, I have reached the conclusion that die-hard liberals- the modern variety that hate the military, wish to destroy the traditional family and the values they represent, and worship big government but hate Christians and most other faiths - cannot be reasoned with. They just have to be stopped. That’s what my latest column is about.

But, in the end, I think conservatives will loose this fight. Human beings are possessed of many qualities and good points. But our own ignorance, fear, laziness, and selfishness sometimes overwhelms the better parts of our nature. If it looks too good to be true it probably is. But too many fail to understand that. But that doesn’t excuse those of us who do realize the value of small government, responsibility, and family values from fighting too keep us out of the abyss as long as possible.

I will therefore keep fighting- for as long as I draw breath.

There is a lot in this Slate piece that deserves comment. First, by the end of the speech John Dickerson notes that Democrats “looked a little sour.” Of course they did. Bush stands in their way of a communist “utopia” where government controls everything.

Not a perfect president, but since the liberals hate him so much he has clearly been doing something right (photo from when congress was under better management…)

I’m surprised- given Bush’s inability to control spending and curb the growth of government you would think they would like him better than they do. Ah, but as to the other things they love so much; keeping American weak, allowing the existence of mass-grave creating madmen with little or no comment, and unquestioned hand-outs to people who don’t work Bush hasn’t been so easy to work with.

The best line in the piece follows: “The kicker for Democrats was that Bush made it clear that while they may want troops out of Iraq quickly, he’s not going to bend to them in the least.”

But there is other golden nuggets to Bush’s presidency. His use of signing statements to ignore some of the worst parts of Congressional mistakes has been a Godsend for conservatives. Further, Bush promised to veto new spending bills with congressional earmarks (pork projects that steal from taxpayers to build Alaskan bridges to nowhere or superhighways to nowhere in West Virginia- among many other wasteful projects congressmen on both sides love to send to their districts to get reelected).

This is all good news- if Bush can hold back the tide of liberal idiocy until the more responsible party regains control (and, we hope, no socialist loon takes the White House; be it Hillary, Obama, or Edwards) we can at least keep the country at the edge of the abyss of socialist destruction rather than plunging headlong into what will be a new dark age. For that is what the end result of ultra high taxes and having no responsibility will be.

But one part that stuck out was Dickerson’s comment that:

“This is the first part of a standard GOP refrain: We trust the people; Democrats trust the government. If you oppose Republican policies, it is because you don’t have faith in the American people.”

That’s not exactly how I would word it (I believe in true conservatives- not Republicans) but, generally, it gets the point across and it is, despite how Dickerson puts it, the truth.

Hide from your fear or confront it- here in this illustration a liberal shows you how to hide.

Here is great story and it illustrates how our courts ought to approach crime. James T. “Smoky” Taylor, age 80 and the oldest member of Chapter XXXIII of the Special Forces Association, was put on trial by his peers under the charge of “failing to use a weapon of sufficient caliber” in the shooting of an intruder at his home in Knoxville, Tennessee. The trial was conducted good-naturedly and the charges were dismissed but it illustrates the vast difference between men of courage with good judgement - men who have served their country - and people who wish to coddle criminals, to excuse their most terrible crimes, and paint them as the victim rather than the innocent citizens they prey upon.

The hero of the story: Smokey Taylor

If every home had a real man in it like Taylor then crime would drop significantly; at least successful crimes. What do the folks who want us to give up our guns say to this case? I don’t know and I couldn’t care less. In that utopian world they are always fantasizing about they neglect to study their history or bother to admit to mans very real nature. I’m surprised they have not attempted to bring Taylor up on charges for defending his home. I’m sure they would if they could- anything to weaken the citizens and give the government even more power.

I love movies. New ones, old ones, color ones, black and white ones. They are fun and a wonderful escape from the average day. But one thing about movies that bother me, unless they are intentionally supposed to stretch credibility to the limits, is when their are gaping holes in the plot but the characters move forward as if everything is normal. Why watch a movie like this when it unfolds in real life before your very eyes?

Tap any one land to steal half your opponent’s paycheck and redirect to any other player too lazy to work…

I refer, of course, to a vast number of my fellow Americans. For example, I recall the verdict in the OJ trial. Here was a man that most felt certain was guilty and all, who paid any attention, knew that he had abused his wife. Yet when “not guilty” was announced videos of the reactions showed one room full of African American women cheering the verdict. Even if one stretches credibility and feels he didn’t kill her one knows he beat her. Yet here are a room full of women cheering a known wife-abuser. Unbelievable.

Or, in a more current example, Bill Clinton’s “rock star” status with Democrats. Americas “first black president” is out attacking Obama to cheering crowds. And many woman love this man who cheated, and the evidence suggests repeatedly cheated, on his wife. Here, too, is a man who lied under oath. Why is he - a man who disgraced himself, humiliated his wife, and embarrassed his fellow countrymen in front of the entire world - a hero to these people? Astonishing.

Another example is animal rights activists like PETA. Here we’ve had nearly 50 million babies murdered since the monstrous Roe decision and these people are out attacking KFC. Crazy.

Or feminists who view everything through that particular prism. They believe that evil men are out to subjugate them. They are particularly amusing to watch as they put themselves at the center of everything. If a man believes abortion to be murder the feminist believes it is because he hates women and is out to take away her rights. If a man sees that Hillary is a socialist - and it doesn’t matter if he equally views Edwards or Obama as threats to his liberty and paycheck as well- he is afraid of smart or successful women. As for me, I would vote for Secretary of State Rice for president in a heartbeat. Now there is a smart and successful woman. And she is African American, too! Guess I’m not racist, either, I just don’t like liberal loons that announce to the world that they will “have to take more” from me and my fellow Americans “to insure fairness.” Screwy.

And that’s another thing. Here is party, the Democrats, that admits it wants to take even more out of peoples paychecks and people actually vote for them? Insane.

And then there is the war in Iraq. Saddam was a mass murdering monster but Bush is evil for ending his reign of horror? Have these detractors read any of the reports of Saddam’s crimes against humanity? We should have just let that continue? It was none of our business? Ah, but back to the movies. We cheer when the good guy has the guts to take down the bad guy. We want to see justice done when watching fiction on the screen. Why are so many against it in real life?

As Lamont Cranston (played by Alec Baldwin) learned in The Shadow, the clouded mind sees nothing. And that is the problem today- too many minds are clouded by selfish interests, by beliefs in sound good but demonstrable negative policies, and by ignorance of or hostility to traditional moral values.

Here come the Libs…

I’ve always believed liberals are totalitarian socialists. But call one of them that and see the reaction you get. “We believe in freedom,” they will scream. “We believe in an unencumbered individual!” Yeah, freedom from responsibility and individuals unencumbered from personal accountability.

They just wont’ see that SOCIAL Security is socialistic. To insure the lazy and unprepared are free and unencumbered to not plan for their future means enslaving and burdening somebody else with paying for their mistake.

The just won’t see that a vast redistribution of wealth is socialistic. To insure that the unwilling to work are free and unencumbered then you must chain another to expending their time and talent only to stay trapped where they are to pull others up from where their lack of effort keeps them.

They just won’t see that their endless class envy/warfare mantra is a call to socialism. Blaming the wealthy for the world’s ills is like accusing your teacher of being an evil witch for teaching you how to read. The wealthy provide jobs at their companies, benefits, 401K’s and more. You provide a service and, through their genius and hard work, they are able to provide you with things that make your life far better than it
otherwise would be. Unless you want to be a poor farmer living off your own land, of course.

Now are CEO’s heroes? No, but at least they come by their wealth more honestly than government does. Don’t think so? If a company offers you a salary you don’t like you can go somewhere else. Government takes from your paycheck and the only place you can go is jail if you somehow succeed in keeping them from stealing it from you.

You would think that all the mass graves communism/socialism/fascism/totalitarianism whatever you wish to call it would have clued in most folks. But it doesn’t. Re-label it liberalism or progressivism and you still have the same bad ideas.

If one is honest one will admit that Social Security, that liberal pillar of government run amuck, is totalitarian. Don’t believe me? Try to opt out. Tell them you don’t wish to participate in the “program.” Just see how far you will get. But I’ll tell you; NOWHERE. They don’t care if you don’t like it- you’ve got NO choice. That’s totalitarianism.

If one is honest one will admit that the liberal attack upon Christmas, upon crosses in government displays across the land, and on other Christian symbols and traditions is liberal totalitarianism. Don’t believe me? Look at how much money the ACLU spends to attack such symbols at the request of a handful, or even just a single individual, to subjugate the popular will below that of one whiney, misguided loon.

We could go on and on and on. But let us consider this in closing. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. But, through the power of a totalitarian and liberalized government, give him the fruits of other peoples labor and he’ll not only eat for a lifetime but have housing, medical services, and a host of other “freebies.”

Liberals are, in short, totalitarian.

When reading this piece I was struck by the fact that here are two people that are in each others way. It is the same for Republicans, of course, but for the most part you can’t tell Republicans hate each other nor do you sense, really, that they actually do.

Just when you thought neither could get any faker….

But for the Democrats it becomes a bit more obvious as, unlike true conservatives, the Democrats are not trying to get elected to improve the country. True conservatives use an election as a means to an end; the lowering of taxes, the shrinking of government, the return of accountability and responsibility to where it belongs, and other goals that would improve our country. We’ve had so few recently; hence the countries problems.

But for Democrats, who simply make promises of more handouts, more benefits, more freebies, the election is the end itself. And that’s why the vitriol is so obvious between Obama and Clinton. Election is their goal; nothing else really matters until the next election. So it is not really important which one gets in there. Oh, sure- you can make a case for this one or that one being able to actually do more damage to moral and traditional values, our economy, and our freedoms but for my money it is six one way and a half dozen the other.

In a characteristically thoughtless attack upon our security, our military, and upon reason itself Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) issued a statement condemning Bush for being the Commander in Chief he should be.
Bush’s crime in the glazed over eyes of this lefty loon? He granted the Navy a waiver to the act regardless of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). This waiver allows Navy sonar technicians to train off the California coast to detect quiet submarines.

Weaken America, raise taxes, kill more babies, save more fish? I’m you’re woman!

“Once again the Bush Administration has taken a slap at our environmental heritage, overriding a court that was very mindful to protect marine wildlife, including endangered whales, while assuring that the Navy’s activities can continue,” mindlessly whined Boxer.

First, I didn’t know we had an “environmental heritage.” But what Bush did was allow our servicemen an opportunity to train to not only protect us (HUMAN BEINGS) but to defend themselves in combat. Americans with any brainpower at all have no trouble distinguishing between this critical activity and the Left’s “all important” environmental concerns. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: this planet is a meaningless mud ball without us. And all life on it that is not human is of secondary importance in any issue that involves humanities wellbeing or betterment. To be clear, harming animals for no reason or no gain is monstrous. But
the reason is clear in this situation and it is perfectly valid.

How about this- how about an enemy nuclear sub gets close enough to wipe out all of California? Doesn’t that constitute a REAL crisis for the environment? Sure it does but Boxer can’t think past her anti-military, anti-American outlook to see that far.

Somebody please tell me when we’re going to wake up as a nation and stop these people from destroying our country?

When Mother Teresa visited the White House during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, she pointed out the lavishness of the meal and, if memory serves correctly, she also said how many hungry people the cost of such a meal would feed. When she won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, Mother Teresa refused the banquet given to laureates, asking instead that the $192,000 funds be given to the poor of India. Wow, someone who lives what they preach. To turn down all that attention, a wonderful meal, the pomp and circumstance… well, to do that you have to be a truly great person. It is a shame that those pretending to care so much about the poor in the United States don’t have the same dedication and do not measure up to Mother Teresa’s standard. Or maybe it’s not that they lack dedication- as they are truly dedicated to taking YOUR money for their charitable urges - but that they lack the true concern for helping others that they claim they have.

Take this piece, for instance- Clinton spent what can only amount to over $75 per person (I figure there are about 20 meals based on the order placed) for a dinner from a fine steakhouse while in Vegas. If she really cared about “insuring fairness” would she spend over $1,500 for dinner for a handful of her staffers? If you can afford it, fine- but when she advocates stealing money out of my pocket (I’ve never ate a $75 meal before, by the way) to redistribute to somebody else I find that a bit hypocritical. Ask yourself- if she truly cared about the poor rather than her own power and ambition - would she spend that much money for all that food or would she help the poor? You can feed ever one on your staff at McDonalds for about $100 and give the other $1400 to a charitable organization.

Hillary explains how much she cares about the poor while pointing to who she thinks ought to pay for it.

I’m sure all the candidates on both sides are this way; Democrat or Republican. It just goes to show how far removed from reality they all really are. But in Clinton’s case it adds that hypocrisy I noted earlier on top of the wastefulness. If she cares so much, if she wants to “insure fairness,” if she has to “take more from” us for the common good then shouldn’t her crusade start at her own doorstep rather than in my paycheck?