Pardoning Roger Stone Should Only Be the Beginning
I hope President Trump wasn’t serious about not using his power to make things right with Roger Stone. If he pardons Stone, it would increase, not decrease, his popularity. Democrats, of course, would go crazy, but they go crazy over everything anyway.
And, of course, Adam Shitt would insist that it’s another impeachable offense, because everything Trump says or does is an impeachable offense. It was surprising that the Dirty Dems didn’t impeach him for taking two scoops of ice cream when his guests were limited to one.
All this being said, even if Stone is pardoned, there are those of us who will not be satisfied. I’ve said from the beginning that everyone who was indicted or convicted of a crime as a result of the biggest scandal in American history — the Russia-collusion coup attempt — should be pardoned.
Everyone includes Paul Manafort. There undoubtedly are thousands of people who have committed crimes as bad or worse than Manafort (like, for example, Hillary and the Podesta brothers) who have never been indicted. Why should Manafort be singled out just because he got caught up in an illegal investigation that had nothing to do with his business dealings of more than a decade earlier?
Further, Trump should issue an executive order (if that’s possible) calling for substantial compensation for victims of malfeasance on the part of the DOJ and FBI — especially Roger Stone and Michael Flynn. And on the other side of the two-tiered justice-system coin, Andrew Weissman, who should have been disbarred after using his trademark Gestapo-like tactics to destroy Enron and Arthur Andersen, not to mention the lives of four Merrill Lynch executives, should be thoroughly investigated by Bill Barr for the tactics he employed in the Russia-collusion hoax.
How to Pay for Healthcare for the Elderly
Because the Dirty Dems cannot talk about the economy, healthcare is certain to be the most important topic in the upcoming election. All of the remaining degenerates in the Democrat field favor some form of government control of healthcare, and government involvement in any way is the kiss of death — literally. This is especially true for senior citizens, whom Democrats want to subject to so-called death panels.
Instead, how about eliminating 100 percent of all benefits paid to illegal immigrants — no food stamps, no medical services (including emergency room access), no schooling, etc. — and use that money to help the elderly with their medical expenses. Why should non-citizens receive any benefits at all when elderly Americans can’t pay for their medical care?
Cutting off benefits to illegals is not inhumane, because taxpayers have no moral obligation to provide noncitizens with anything. What is inhumane is allowing American citizens to suffer needlessly while noncitizens reap benefits paid for by those same citizens.
The Ultimate Red Herring: Income Inequality
Another topic the grievance-oriented Democratic field is pushing hard is the “problem” of income inequality. And why not, considering that even supposedly conservative Republicans refuse to speak out on the subject?
It’s time to stop humoring redistributionists. The truth is that “income inequality” is a red herring, just another piece of emotional shaming used by Democrats to appeal to the envious compartment of morally deficient brains. Without question, envy is the basest of human traits and the mother’s milk of the Democratic Party.
Did you ever wonder why you weren’t drafted to play quarterback for the Kansas City Chiefs? Hmm … my guess is that it’s because you are aren’t equal to Patrick Mahomes when it comes to football skills. Or why you aren’t a theoretical physicist like Michio Kaku? Maybe not equal to him when it comes to gray matter? Alert the media: People are unequal in every respect! Get over it.
Nevertheless, throughout history the Radical Left has espoused equality — particularly income equality — as a means of gaining the support of the masses. But since human beings are programmed from birth to act in their own best interests, all attempts to redistribute wealth must be accompanied by the use of force.
Ultimately, of course, the end result of redistribution-of-wealth policies is not equal wealth for everyone but equal poverty and equal misery. We know this because radical attempts to redistribute wealth have been tried in many countries throughout history, always with the same results.
One other important aspect of this red herring is that not only do the masses end up impoverished, but socialist/communist leaders, by contrast, always live quite well — usually in luxury. So, let’s not be too hard on Uncle Bernie just because he has three homes, millions of dollars in the bank, and travels by private jets. He’s just following in the footsteps of men like Castro, Stalin, Mao, and all other communist leaders who demanded an end to income inequality. After all, some animals are more equal than others.
For my part, I say long live income inequality, because it’s a natural offshoot of freedom. I hope Trump will speak out on this red herring in the coming months and cut the legs out from under one of the chief talking points the Dirty Dems have left.
As the great Will Durant explained it, “Freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies.” Which is why Trump need not be afraid to tell the truth about income inequality. When push comes to shove people, acting in their own self-interest, simply do not want equality nearly as much as they want freedom. History makes that clear.