stat counnnter

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

More Trump hatred.

I'm reposting this from the New Clarion FB page of yesterday.

Wow! The MSM is going all out to smear president Trump over immigrant families being separated at the border. Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post oped titled "Trump, Sessions must be proud of imprisoning kids" claims "The moral outrages from the Trump administration come so fast that they blur together, but this one stands out: The unconscionably cruel policy of ripping the children of would-be immigrants away from their parents at the border."

News slanting alert!

Mr Robinson is using a slanting appeal to emotions here by using the verb "ripping" which has a violent, negative, unwanted connotation. He could have used 'separated from parents at the border' which would be more accurate because that is what is actually done. But which doesn't elicit the frightening, condemnatory emotion he seeks. He's clearly appealing to his readers feelings instead of their reasoning minds.

From what I've read most of the children are reunited with their parents unless the parents are problematic in some way like being a criminal. I do think that immigrants making children walk through a hot, dry desert to our border approaches child abuse and the kids should be separated for their own good. In my view it is the parents who are being cruel.

I have seen many videos of immigrants crossing the border but have never seen little children with them. Until now. This has to be a new tactic that I suspect is financed by progressive sponsors somewhere. The use of children I believe, is to make believable the notion that the immigrants just want asylum.

But asylum is something we grant to people who are being persecuted, tortured and killed in their homeland. That is not happening in Mexico.

There is I'm sure, a deliberate campaign to swamp our entitlement society in order to collapse it. Then the progressives will declare--like the Nazis in Germany did--something like "we can fix this, we know how" and the American voters will let them back in to take over the dictatorship oriented justice system already put in place by the Clinton and Obama administrations.

And the media will celebrate.

Full disclosure:
I'm all for an open door policy but I think we need to stop considering immigration exclusively as a domestic problem. It is also a foreign policy problem and that needs to be addressed.
To this I want to clarify that I shouldn't have used the word problem in the last sentence. Better would have been the word issue. I don't see immigration as a problem. The main problem we face is two fold: 1, we have allowed our government to set up a giant welfare state that politicians use to buy votes, and 2, we have to hunker down inside our borders because our leaders have neither the moral clarity or moral courage to completely destroy our enemies.

Sunday, June 03, 2018

Hatred of the good because it is the good.

Right after congress passed the GOP led tax cuts hundreds of companies began giving $1000 bonuses to their workers. Former speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called those bonuses "crumbs."

And now thanks to those same tax cuts the country is experiencing record low unemployment numbers. Ms Pelosi is now claiming that those numbers "mean little to families" hit by rising costs of health care under Trump's watch.

First of all, those rising costs were written into  ObamaCare to go into effect after the 2016 election so it's not Trump's fault as she is implying.

But why is she poo pooing benefits to American workers? Ayn Rand wrote about this in her excellent essay "The Age of Envy" in her book "Return of the Primitive." I will paraphrase paragraph 3 on page 131: "If a politician wants to do good for his or her constituents but is unable or unwilling to achieve it and begins to hate those politicians who do,"that is hatred of the good for being the good.'

What Pelosi really means is that workers who get $1000 bonuses are 'crumbs' to her. And workers who now have a better chance to get a job "mean little" to her. What's important to her is not that the workers are better off, but who is causing it. What she is against is benefits that have to be earned. She wants to appear to be the giver of benefits through various entitlements, the unearned.

This should give pause to all those who are thinking about reelecting her in the future.