Posted on

Conspiracy TV-THE BIG SCOOP

Conservatism Bittersweet has received from an anonymous source a new recording of a secret meeting between Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff. We have withheld the name of our whistle-blower on this major story as our last correspondent responsible for recording such a meeting has lost his hearing when a professional screamer caught him dining at his favorite restaurant. Below, you will find a transcript of that secret meeting, exclusive to Conservatism Bittersweet.

[ For previous transcript revelations, see April 1, 2019; Conservatism Bittersweet transcript]

 

Pelosi: Sit down Schiffty

Schiff: Please don’t call me that, Ma’am.

Pelosi: I thought it was a badge of honor.

Schiff: Please, Adam.

Pelosi: Enough of this small talk.

Schiff: I don’t do small talk.

Pelosi: Good. Here’s what I want you to do. So far, we have lost everything with this President. We could lose the next election. I don’t want to even think what that could mean to our long-range plans. How do those Republicans elect a teflon president every time out? I don’t understand.

Schiff: I think it was Hillary’s fault. She didn’t get her story lined up.

Pelosi: I’ll pretend I didn’t hear those sexist words.

Schiff: Thank you, Ma’am

Pelosi: Remember, it is the Russians.

Schiff: Oh, Oh, I forgot.

Pelosi: Now here’s the problem. The Mueller report didn’t work. Angry citizens screaming didn’t work. Kavanaugh didn’t work. That leaves just one thing.

Schiff: What’s that?

Pelosi: Impeachment.

Schiff: Impeachment! That is exceptional.

Pelosi: You and I need to work out a plan.

Schiff: Why me? Nadler is head of Judiciary.

Pelosi: That idiot. Why would you call Trump’s campaign manager as a witness? Why not just let Teflon President in here and let him run the House? Why not let him run your [redacted] committee? Why not make him Emperor of the Imperium? Why not . . . [unknown suction sound]

Schiff: Can I help you with that?

Pelosi: Get your [redacted] hands off my teeth.

Schiff: Yes, Ma’am. I’ll wait a moment while you . . . uh, adjust yourself.

Pelosi: Look, here, Schiffty, we need this done right. If I give this assignment to you . . .

Schiff: If not me, then who? Agriculture?

Pelosi: Alright, you got me there. On the other hand, I could put Al Greene in charge of your committee.

Schiff: Hold on! I’ve got some ideas.

Pelosi: Shoot, metaphorically, I mean.

Schiff: I know this guy with the spooks. He can get anything done. I’ll have him send someone over from the administration that doesn’t like Trump. He told me there’s this fellow who worked for Biden that hates Trump. Phase one, we get him to do a whistle-blower job on Trump. That way we can prevent them from knowing who the snitch, I mean, the whistle-blower is.

Pelosi: Brilliant, Adam. I love it. Keep going.

Schiff: The key to the whole thing is secrecy. We can bring in witnesses from the State Department. No one, except Trump appointments, is happy there.

Pelosi: Why the State Department?

Schiff: Because they’re smooth talkers. They can make a cesspool sound like Shangri-La. They can even say two opposite things that contradict each other and make it sound like, “You can keep your policy if you like it, but I know you won’t like it.”

Pelosi: Ok. I can see that. What else.

Schiff: Well, just to avoid the Nadler problem, we hold all the interrogations in secret.

Pelosi: Is that Constitutional?

Schiff: As a lawyer, I can easily make the case. I went to Harvard, you know.

Pelosi: I thought you went to Stanford? In my home state.

Schiff: That was my undergraduate work. I have broad experience.

Pelosi: Oh. I just had a thought. We can’t expose our winning candidates in Trump districts to electoral peril.

Schiff: That is the beauty of secrecy.

Pelosi: You mean, I don’t have to call for a vote?

Schiff: I told you, I am a Harvard Lawyer. We can eventually release the transcripts as long as we don’t let Republicans get answers to their misleading questions.

Pelosi: What about claims of Due Process?

Schiff: Don’t worry. The ACLU is on board.

Pelosi: I think I’ve made a wise choice for this job. But . . .

Schiff: But what?

Pelosi: But we have to make it last. We all know, that when you are telling a story, there is just the right time to end it.

Schiff: The media, the Department of State, the press, academe, Robert De Niro, it will never end.

Pelosi: Excellent start. But what if that doesn’t work?

Schiff: I thinking of several disgruntled generals we can influence. Mass marches on the capital—no, no, every state capital. Ma’am, what are you doing?

Pelosi: I’m praying for you.

Posted on

THEY HAVE NO ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION

Recently, the Kennedy avatar known as Beto O’Rourke, who is still running for President of the United States was asked a simple question by a man in the audience. “I was born September 8, 1989,” he stated, “and I want to know if you think on September 7, 1989, my life had no value.”

A somewhat befuddled O’Rourke answered that he did think that the young man’s life had value and then proceeded to tell the man that his mother would have had the right to kill him if she had so chosen. While it is true, that left-wing Democrats have no problems with the numerous internal contradictions of their thoughts, this one seemed particularly stark considering the subject of abortion has been around for a long time.

Recently a news story broke concerning the abortionist, Ulrich Klopfer, who stored the remains of 2,246 babies he had killed in utero. Klopfer, deceased on September 3rd of this year, shocked the conscience of many when it was revealed he had retained the remains of the children he had killed.

One wonders what it is in the barbaric mind of the executioners that allows such carnage. Most of us will never see an abortion, or the tiny body parts torn away and flushed down the toilet, or caste aside as medical waste, or in the case of Klopfer, bagged as a curiosity. Humanity cries out for a better answer to the moral misjudgment that allows abortion to happen.

The religious devotion to this point of view takes on a life of its own for Democrats because it is tied to the left-wing view of the women’s equality debate. Equality is a slippery slope [see September CB]. In order to have equality (with men) you must kill your child. That frees the would-be mother to pursue career goals, personal desires, and a trouble-free life. That little romantic encounter with that fellow, what’s-his-name at the party, shouldn’t hold you back from becoming CEO of Giant Corporation of America. Babies are as disposable in the left-wing world as a tissue. Even more so, if you claim poverty. You can get it paid for by a third party—the tissue costs money.

Here is one of the ironies of this issue: If you talk to the pro-abortion side, they will say that it is wrong to deny women reproductive healthcare. In what sense is it healthcare to kill a child in the womb? Maybe they mean that healthcare will never be a problem if the child is dead. What if they mean it is reproductive healthcare for the mother? It certainly isn’t “reproductive” anything because the abortionist elimination the product reproduction.

In order to advance the pro-abortion argument, you must deny humanity to the unborn, deny human rights, deny equal protection under the Constitution, deny representation by an attorney who might fight for her or his life, and deny paternity rights to the father of the child. That is a lot of denials, both legal and moral, required to sabotage the life of the unborn. Yet, that was the effect of Roe v Wade, the single legal precedent based on “the right to privacy.” Prior to Roe v Wade, a first-year law student using a broadly stated ill-defined, term such as this would have been laughed out of law school. While the Constitution does embody the right to privacy, it does so by enumerating these rights. The right to be secure in our homes and possession is specified in the IV Amendment to the Constitution. Other rights are granted, but they are specified. A “right to privacy’ does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, and for good reason. Any statement of personal preference can be used as a right to privacy. Countries, like individuals, need boundaries, and that is one thing the Constitution provides.

The idea that a mother can conspire with her doctor to kill her unborn baby is bizarre in the first place. No one else has this privilege. It is a medical fact that a mother is attached to her baby. In rare cases a mother may die (i.e. in an automobile accident) and the baby might be saved. The child is an independent actor as well as dependent on her or his mother for life support in the womb. Who would not try to save the baby? Yet, the people who call themselves pro-choice, give no choice to the unborn.

Finally, let us address the issues raised by the abortion side. A recent conversation went something like this:

“Women have the right to do with their bodies, what they want.”

“Why is that.”

“Women are victims of rape, incest, or their lives may be threatened by the birth itself.”

“Alright, join me in a Constitutional amendment in banning abortions, except for those reasons.”

“Oh, no. a woman has the right to do with her body what she wants.”

Thus, it becomes a tautology; a woman has the right to do with her body what she wants because a woman has the right to do with her body what she wants.

 

Sadly, there is neither logic nor comfort in the answer that allows the most barbaric acts of the current generation to prevail over acts that can only be describe as a crime against humanity. The act of being human contemplates a reverence for life. The death of one person is diminishing to all humanity. The death of millions is more than a statistic, it is a tragedy linked forever to humanity which passes by this issue and says, “I don’t care.”

 

Posted on

HEADING FOR THE DARK AGES

The devotees of the philosophical underpinnings of Socialism depend on entangled ideas that form a confused string of concepts based on a utopian ideal. There are two ideas for the virtuous socialists that are frequently mentioned together: equalizing the masses and bringing down the wealthy. For the sloganeering socialist this process is defined in terms of absolute equity and equality. The opposing conservative point of view focuses on equality of opportunity. The socialist view determines success in terms of equality in result. Although socialism is primarily an economic concept, it cannot be separated from the social or political contexts of the day.

 

Equity and equality are two words normally associated together, but are in fact, words with two different connotations. Also, equity and equality serve the master of fairness. Fairness is an undefined term in any natural state. It stands for whatever the user of the word wants it to stand for. These three entangled words, equality, equity, and fairness have no standing in nature by themselves such as the right to choose one’s leaders. There is no structural reason for their existence. To clarify, equity and equality imply slightly different connotations. Equity is more of a social construct whereas equality is measurable in units of equal measure.

 

The socialist asks, why should one man have more than another? The religious point out that we are equal under God, the atheist points to our state in nature. “All men are created equal . . . .” The latter question is a little confusing. The former state is that all humans are born such that “Naked we enter the world . . . ,” We all enter the world with nothing intellectually or physically. Even if a child should be born and the single parent mother dies at that same moment so that the child inherits the mother’s estate, that child is, as a child, still naked for a moment and in a state of equality with all other just born children. But it doesn’t take long for inequities to develop. Mother-1 may be wealthy, therefore her child becomes wealthy. The child is still a child, only trivially different compared to others in the amount of clothes she wears. Child-2’s mother dies also, but leaves the child only debts to the hospital for the cost of being born. The two children as individuals are equal, but their estates are not. In order to achieve equity, they must achieve equality, therefore estate-1 pays (usually through insurance) for Estate-2s medical bills.. In other words, they are now equal and that is fair (fairness is achieved). A mathematician might put it this way:

 

ei (equity) + ea (equality) = fairness.

 

The involuntary arrangement where the estate of mother 1 pays the hospital bill for mother 2’s child seems fair to the socialist, and as a matter of humanitarian concern, perhaps to anyone else where the unexpected randomness of life creates damage to one’s life. After all, child 2 is not responsible for where he is at the moment of birth. These value judgments are often made. That is fairness is a desired state, fairness is defined as equity in action, which achieves fairness.

 

Since Child-1, let us call her, Mary, is too young to complain (and is orphaned) she has no say in what has happened. This is a blissful state for the socialist who believes in both equity, equality, and fairness. Not so surprisingly, the genetic code and environment of Mary and Child-2, we shall call her Jane, are not the same. In real life, the two children as they mature will set off on different paths. The socialist rolls on also, but realizes that equity and equality are distorted over time. Mary becomes wealthy and Jane has a drinking problem and slumps into poverty. The Socialist does not give up. Fairness is a maintenance concept requiring adjustments on the way.

 

Here is the second part of socialist entanglement theory. Uppity rich people need to be brought low. Fairness is related to the need to bring down the high and the mighty. Accommodation is made for elite members of the ruling class. They are the last ones to starve. Doing so is the only way to achieve fairness. The only way to do this is to divide the gross national product by the number of people in question. Entanglement theory posits that we are all together, as far as we know, on the great, blue marble known as planet Earth.

 

So, what happens when Governor Nanny grabs takes the wealth of Mary? Does that make Jane wealthier? That might happen in the short run, but Jane, with a different genetic code, different experiences, different desires, and different environment is not capable of reproducing Mary’s success. Jane dissipates her wealth in Las Vegas, buying expensive cars, and enjoying the wild life. For a moment the economy of Las Vegas grows which benefits everyone. But when Jane runs out of money, Governor Nanny turns again to Mary. But Mary has become an artist. Why should Mary continue to support Jane, whom she doesn’t even know. Was she working 60-hour days for the fun of it, or was the idea of financial success a part of it? Governor Nanny doesn’t care. The reduced circumstances of Jane need to be addressed.

 

The socialist state does not build wealth. It doesn’t even pretend to build wealth. American socialist Bernie Sanders has three homes and is a millionaire. He makes no apologies and does not attempt to explain the contradiction, just that he wrote a successful book and he was happy to keep the money. That he seeks redistribution of wealth in the United States, appeals to a different side of him; that is, socialists seek wealth in the form of power. They may even hoard wealth and power becoming the elites of the nation. Elitism is a requirement of the socialistic model because Socialism is not a natural state in complex economies. It is a top down philosophy in which experts, including elite leaders, rule for the sake of the masses in a form of noblesse oblige one relegated to the Lords and Ladies of European society. Socialists seek self-aggrandizement in their own way. That is why Communist and Socialist governments rule by fear. Even within early societies there was a hierarchy based on a skill set in demand for those societies. Early societies had no choice. Living in a tribe of a few dozen surviving humans is not a test of socialism. Rather, it is the confinement by the natural environment that imposed itself on early humanity; poverty was not a community goal.

 

The Free Enterprise philosophy is a bottom up system with a regulatory device called competition. There is, of course, government for the purpose of establishing the rules of the game. But it serves a purpose to create its own equality. It is a mistake to think that it guarantees success to the entrepreneur. Perfection does not happen. But when the rules are the same and the rules are just, the idea of equity and equality merge into fairness in the same idealistic way claimed by Socialists.

 

The frightening part about Socialism is that it is an economic system seeking a bottom in a downward spiral. Socialism seeks the lowest common denominator. It averages down until it finds the authoritarian floor in which the Orwellian state must regulate the details of an unnatural system not suited to the human experience.

 

Hong Kong, which is the economic jewel of China is in the throws of that environment. They know their freedom is at stake. The equality of socialism and the forces of government enforcing it in a system where the rule of law does not exist points to the loss of liberty, not equality of wealth and status. Imagine a world of equality. It suppresses the skilled at the expense of growth. Riots and violence between the free Chinese and the restricted Chinese will likely result in an averaging down of the Hong Kong people. Venezuela has seen the same process, there is only averaging down and loss of liberty—the life blood of economic success and scientific discovery that makes life better for a country’s citizens.

 

Science will die because it depends on the wealth an economic system brings. The degree of freedom counts for something, for if socialism averages down, free enterprise averages up in the opposite way. Equality among the unequal does not exist. Ideological Socialist puritanism is a prescription for a new Dark Age. A period of economic and scientific decline will not stop until the people are starving and overwhelm the elites with revolution. History can repeat itself. Americans will have restricted healthcare because there won’t be enough money to pay for it, nor enough skilled physicians to undertake the rigors of medical training and cost of medical school for little pay. The pulse of the economic system that creates wealth, rather than redistributes it, will end in zero.

Posted on

NGO GOOD

Portland, Oregon has seen its share of peace signs. It was a hotbed of flower power in the 60’s in opposition to the war in Viet Nam. The slogan back then was, “make love, not war.” Leftist radicalism was at the root of Oregon politics. That the left did not live up to the “love” part was always understood. Eugene, Oregon was also the sight of vandalism. The University of Oregon ROTC building was torched and vehicles at a car dealership were destroyed. Tree spikers risked the lives of loggers in order to stop logging. Still, it was a national problem.

Some groups were violent or threatened violence. Patty Hearst was kidnapped on February 4, 1974 by the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA). The next year, another domestic terror group, the Weather Underground, bombed a State Department Building. No one was killed, but the following year they perpetrated 25 bombings. The group was corralled by improved police work but lasted into the mid-‘80s when the last members of the group stopped the attacks, although some did not answer for their crimes for decades. The Revolutionary Black Panther Party carried guns and advocated for black nationalism and was perceived as a threat to order by the police of the day.

Since the 60’s, the sense of moral entitlement has been retained, but now violence from the Left has been directed at conservatives, the most recent of which has been Andy Ngo. By way of background, Ngo, an Asian American of slight build and pacific temperament, is conservative writer. He also happens to be gay. None of this is relevant to the issue of the crime committed against him except it bears on the motive for the hate crime perpetrators who caused him brain and other injuries. He was known to Antifa thugs and so it was not surprising when they spotted him during one of their controlled riots. In a recent Fox News interview, he stated that he was struck with a brick or other hard object and was dazed as a result. As he ambled off the scene, visibly shaken, he was continuously assaulted and humiliated by masked assailants.

Meanwhile police lined the street and did nothing to stop the assault. When Ngo, dazed and confused, was able to make his way to an officer away from the frothing demonstrators, he was told by the officer that he could get a ride in an ambulance, but only if he walked to the police station. Ngo was eventually evacuated to a hospital where he says he was diagnosed with bleeding in his brain and numerous cuts and abrasions caused by the pummeling he took, including, he thought, from milkshakes laden with cement. Throwing milkshakes on conservatives has been a recent method of protest by protesters in Great Britain.

The attack on Ngo was part of a wider unpermitted conflict labeled by the police as a “civil disorder,” thus defining the conflict below the status of riot. The Oregonian [July 2, 2019] described some of the Antifa violence that occurred in addition to that against Andy Ngo, as follows:

“Gage Halupowski, 24, of Portland, faces a second-degree assault allegation, accused of repeatedly using a baton to strike a man near Pioneer Square. Police said Halupowski also turned on a second man, Adam Kelly, who tried to help the man who was no the ground and bleeding. An officer watched Halupowski deliver a ‘full overhead swing that struck the top of Kelly’s head from behind’ and reported that the ‘sound of the blow was sickening,’ causing many in the crowd to collectively gasp, according to a probable cause affidavit. Kelly received more than 20 staples to close wounds to his head and suffered a concussion.”

Violence against Conservative supporters of President Trump has been a recurring tragedy. The Trump campaign and the Trump presidency have been subject to violence of one kind or another—everything from egg throwing to vandalism, to bodily threats, to political suppression by indifference.

Those who blame the president need to know that they will not succeed in their tactics. Attacks on free speech as has been seen at the University of California at Berkeley teach violence.

The same The Oregonian article also noted that “ . . . public safety advisor Robert King was telling reporters that police are directed to enforce all laws as they’re ‘able to’ and work to keep feuding demonstrators separated. Would they act the same if their salary was paid as the city was able? Would the city’s Mayor and Commissioners behave differently if they were paid as the city was able?

Recently, violence in this country was attributed to White Nationalist. Political violence is not justified in a Democracy. Judging by the City of Portland, violence is allowed. Violence will beget violence regardless of the inner political meaning intended by its sponsors.

Some have blamed President Trump for hostility and violence in America. Two recent gun attacks sparked sadness and outrage in the country. One in El Paso, Texas where twenty were recently reported killed and twenty-four wounded and Dayton, Ohio were nine dead and twenty-six wounded were also reported shocked the nation. The President denounced White Supremacy, although White Supremacists were not involved in both cases. The perpetrator in Dayton was said to have been a support of the left-wing Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren. The El Paso shooter released a racist “manifesto” condemning Hispanics entering the United States which was, in his view, damaging to the environment. The Left seized on half the truth and blamed President Trump, which caused him to, once again, condemn White Nationalism. Most Americans have, by now, become used to the half-truths and lies propagated by the “fake news” media. They ignore Madonna having thoughts of threats of bombing the White House, Kathy Griffin holding a severed fake Donald Trump head, and many other vicious attacks on the President.

No president has ever had to endure the kinds of political attacks that President Trump has had to absorb. The highlight of these might include the false charge of collusion that has dogged his presidency since the beginning of this presidency. Based on no justifiable facts, nineteen Lawyers were assembled to provide a report to the Attorney General on Trump’s involvement. Th result of the investigation was a legal document known as the Mueller Report. It revealed no criminal guilt against the President, yet the nineteen Democrat lawyers writing the report were sure to insinuate there was proof of a kind, only if Congress continues to investigate the President. Even the lack of evidence does not stop the accusations. And in dogging the President, the President’s opponents have not only called him racist, misogynist, treasonous, and many other names, but maligned him and his family, including his children and wife, and anyone who touches him.

Not only that, but members of Congress and many others have encouraged their supporters to verbally assault the President, Cabinet supporters, and employees of the President in public places—anywhere they might be in order to attack the President. Yet they claim President Trump is the cause of internal conflict in America. The Big lie is always preferable to the Left and is reminiscent of Nazi claims against Jews.

Political violence in America is not new. The Civil War took 700,000 lives and claimed to make the point that violence is the answer to divisions in America. But the left in the 20th and 21st century has set the tone by directly assaulting Democracy. In America, there is no place for hate speech of any kind. From Andy Ngo to President Trump, the Left knows no bounds in their attack on Democracy. Small targets to big targets receive whatever treatment is necessary to discredit the Conservatism that created America and culminated in a Constitution that set the limits of government and defined personal freedoms. The Left assures us that their moral superiority is all that we need. The worst-case scenario for America is to allow complacency to replace the noble values our country has fought for over its history. The Leftward vision projects a one-party state run by elite bureaucrats and politicians who design governmental policy in backrooms based on secret manifestos of their own which are designed to remove individuality and decent from their decisions. In Congress, the left labels itself “the resistance.” The election of President Trump exposed the failures of the Left and revealed much more truth than they could have envisioned. Just the same, Americans must lawfully oppose in a long struggle the uncivilized barbarism of the hallucinating heads on the necks of left-wing agitators whose nihilistic bias is the enemy of America.

Posted on

INDEPENDENCE DAY 2019

Flag of the U.S.S.Constitution

A country is like a person. It is neither wholly good nor wholly bad. Countries have a lifetime and display national characteristics by which they become defined. The French are romantic, the Italians are creative, The Germans are precise, Americans are extroverted and brash. Any sort of generalization is both correct and incorrect at the same time.

On the fourth of July, Americans celebrate themselves, the founding of their country, and their country’s achievements. Celebrations are good as they force the negative, combatively contentious personalities to rethink their nature, ideals, and history in the form a more complete view.

Now that the left has taken to criticizing Donald Trump for everything and anything, they have also seized on the extravaganza he is planning to celebrate the Fourth as a day for criticism of his plans for a more military inclusive demonstration than some of his predecessors. Conservatism Bittersweet will pass by their carping and whining, because it is more important to reflect on the meaning of American history than it is to acknowledge the irrational hate speech of a deranged opposition.

The United States was the first nation to establish a modern Republican form of government, the significance of which cannot be overstated. Providing a constructive mechanism for disagreement and debate allowed the country to adjust to historical changes as it grew and matured based on established principles of equality in discourse. The founding of the United States Constitution has been the country’s finest achievement. The one great failure was the Civil War. But even the great failure was turned into a triumph when the country defeated the Confederacy after choosing Abraham Lincoln, the finest president since George Washington. Slavery, an archaic legacy left by the English, was eliminated and opened the door to other changes to the countries oppressed minority. Thus, the greatest of the Constitutional achievement has been the ability to change over time—to adjust to the evolving problems.

Contrary to the Marxian, Socialist view, the future cannot be predicted. The future is like the weather and is the summation of forces too complex for even supercomputers to understand. What took humanity so long to evolve to this point of industrial and intellectual accomplishment? Partly it has been a matter of scale. There must be an underlying economic base to produce what the world has produced in its abundance. But it has also been the ability to achieve free thought and innovate based on that free thought, where others feared to go or could not imagine. Greatness does not come so much from overcoming fear as it comes from individuals acting fearlessly for the next great idea that moves the world. All democracies owe the United States for the precedent that allows them to achieve and grow. The top ten innovative countries in the world are all democracies. The United States is third in per capita patents in the world. We are the engine of successful world economies, and have been so for many years.

Among the great achievements of the United States, has been the reaper by Cyrus McCormick, innumerable inventions from Thomas Edison, and many other Industrial achievements by Eli Whitney, Robert Fulton, Samuel Morse, Elias Howe, and a long list of others who facilitated economic growth. That the United States grew into a mighty industrial and international power allowed it to defend itself and others against dictatorships and oppressors around the world. One thing leads to another for a country as for a person.

Social growth has been marked by many successes. Overcoming slavery and granting women’s suffrage broadened the countries world view. Providing a haven for masses of poor from oppressive or depressed countries from around the world has benefitted the growth and understating of Americans and made the point that there is value in people around the world who only need a haven to survive and succeed. America has been that umbrella for the world—a place of comfort, opportunity, and rest from malevolent oligarchy.

Nothing is more significant than the amount of wealth America has produced. Sometimes this concept is maligned as greed or selfishness. But economic wealth has allowed the country to defend itself against vicious foes who do not uphold basic human rights. It has allowed the country to develop life saving drugs, medical devices and procedures for the entire world. The nation’s wealth has fed the world when a part of it would otherwise have starved. For many, the United States has been the savior from oppression of the body, mind, and soul. From the very founding of the country, disparate peoples have been saved by American generosity, openness, and innovation founded on a powerful economic engine.

Perhaps one of America’s great strengths is to acknowledge its failures. Slavery, mistreatment of native peoples, and the exclusion of women from political decision making, reflected poorly on the country, though world conditions were no better. In contemplating our ideals of democracy and capitalism, we can look backward and see how our democracy has led the world in human and material advancement.

We can and should salute our flag proudly for what we have accomplished. We can look upon our beautiful land as a gift from God. It is a gift we must work and nurture, for nothing is certain except we shall be rewarded for doing what is right, just, and fair in a world where these values do not always survive or flourish. We also salute those of us who never made it. We salute the dead of our wars who fell on beaches and fields so that the rest of us could carry on in their name. They rest in peace on foreign lands as well as domestic, and in our memorial to them we pledge a better life for those who arrive in the future. Individually we remember the immortal words of an American who did what no human could ever do again by establishing our flag on the infinities of space, as we live our principles, both individually and collectively, for every day; we take “one step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.”

Posted on

DONALD TRUMP IS A HUMAN BEING

Donald Trump is a human being. Is this a clear and concise enough statement for the left-wing crazies of America to understand. The level of abuse endured by this president has been extraordinary. As Conservatism Bittersweet has recognized before, the Left is right to be unhappy. President Trump has proven them wrong, and nothing is more embarrassing or frustrating than that.

 

America was told by left-wing elites that the steel industry and other industrial businesses were dead. President Trump proved that wrong. Other deceptions or incompetency’s by the Left suggested that America was enjoying maximum prosperity under the heavy regulation and high taxes of the Obama Administration. Instead, the economy bloomed under the leadership of Trump, pursuing an opposite strategy of low regulation (by eliminating two regulations for every new one and giving everyone a tax break.) The Left under President Obama signed the Paris accord which he knew Congress would not approve as a treaty because it required the United States to pay for other countries green initiatives, among other faults. Trump withdrew from the agreement with Iran which had been falsely pitched as a denuclearization of Iran. The Obama Administration also transferred $180 Billion in cash to Iran, thus funding their missile, nuclear, and foreign military programs of these assassins of American and allied troops.

The Leftward narrative asserted that Trump was guilty of abusing children on the U.S. southern border. Never did such accusers mention that the President was left with Obama era laws that made it impossible to deter illegal border crossings into the United States. Trump’s solution is a border wall for much of the length of the U.S.-Mexico border. To pay for the wall, he is going over the veto of house Democrats and Senate filibuster threats. No wonder they are angry. He is finding a solution to a problem they created under the Obama Administration in which illegal immigrants were given unconstitutional legal status (the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program). There was only a weak effort to stop human and drug trafficking on the border as Democrats sought further electoral support from grateful illegal aliens or those sympathetic to them. They want to play ruff, but they can’t take it. Democrats in Congress complained that there was no border crisis, that the crisis was manufacture by a racist Trump Administration. More recently, Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated, “We never said there wasn’t a crisis.” Apparently public sentiment was turning the Left’s narrative into an obvious falsehood.

In order to counter the truth of Trump policies, including a flourishing economy, the Left (including the “Deep State,”) concocted a story asserting that Trump colluded with Russians in what was asserted to be an anti-Hillary Clinton campaign, to win the election. Using false research, actually commissioned by Hillary Clinton, the Left used this threat and Deep State Condoterrie to concoct a story that the President had conspired with the Russians to sabotage the election in Trump’s favor. The level of persecution knew no bounds as the President, his family, and supporters were attacked by 19 attorneys, nine of which had contributed to the Hillary Clinton Campaign. Even with the deck stacked, the Deep State Democrats could not come up with a plausible scenario in which President Trump colluded with the Russians to defeat Clinton. The Deep State attorneys produced a report (the Mueller Report to the Attorney General) which exonerated the President on charges of collusion (which is not a crime, go figure) but left a smear on the president in stating that Trump could not be exonerated of obstruction of the investigation. What constitutes obstruction, especially for a sitting president is a matter of legal debate, but Mueller violated a principle of judicial procedure in leaving this taint on the report as it was his duty to either recommend prosecution or not. Instead he left this crumb of personal animus for the Democrats to continue their contrived narrative.

Unable to remove the President by the false collusion narrative, the Democrat Deep Staters have talked impeachment. But Speaker Pelosi sees the political danger in making accusations again that prove to be false. Alienating the moderate voting public is proving to be a dangerous tac.

The collapse of the Mueller investigation narrative has not stopped the Democrats and their long history of abuse of the President. Unable to prove that the president and his supporters colluded with the Russians or obstructed the investigation, they now see impeachment as a demonstration of their emotional state. Some of the older Democrats remember the failure of the Clinton impeachment which did not impede his reelection. The Democrats, whose loyalty to left-wing ideological fantasy’s blinds their judgment to real world practical considerations, continue to heap abuse against the President. , John Brennan he former CIA chief, verbally assaults the President calling him treasonous. He does this though it is Brennan who betrays the values of America’s belief in fair play and the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty. Brennan is thought to have violated the law with leaks, though this has yet to be proven in a court of law. A court Mr. Brennan may see soon as the evidence mounts against him.

The lack of respect for the Office of President tears at the fabric of America and sets a precedent for those who follow. Deep Staters should rethink their politics of abuse. It may come back to bite them some day.

Likewise, the charge of racism leveled by some of the Presidents opponents bespeaks of a monumental lack of judgement. Ironically, some of those hurling the racism charges are among the anti-Semitic cult of extremists that is totally unaware of their own contradictions. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich) has a world class hate list, including the President of the United states and an entire nation—Israel. Saying the president is racist even as he designs a better life for minorities through early release of prisoners who have not committed a violent crime, opportunity zones, and improves job chances for the bottom ten percent denies truth through action.

While there are as many contenders for hate-speech champion, the queen of all of them is Maxine Waters whose advocacy for disruptive behavior has been questioned even by a handful of her own fellow Democrats. Remember Maxine, what you can do to others can be done to you. Remember that the use of Executive power by President Obama has led to the use of Executive power by the Trump Administration. The precedents you give are the precedents you will get. You and your fellow Democrats created or supported the policies on immigration that President Trump must deal with today. If families are separated, join in a bi-partisan effort to change the Obama laws. But continue to abuse President Trump. You will get him elected. Someday you may realize the truth of your abusive nature. You said, “God is on our side.” You should be sure of what you say and do because God is on the side of the just and the righteous, not the unjust and the self-righteous. The best bet for you is to conduct yourself with respectful words given your position of responsibility. Harassing those you disagree with and hissing like a snake will not make your case. This advice is needed for the legions of media pundits, Progressive Democrats, and blind followers stuck in the same empty echo chamber. Everyone deserves fairness and you have not given that to President Trump, though he remains and will always be a human being.

Posted on

JUSTICE COMES WITH A SOCIAL SCIENCE LESSON

The following letter-to-the-editor from Debi Baskins, Hood River appeared in The Oregonian (4/28/19):

 

I was proud when my daughter became a paramedic, a profession that helps others. I had no idea that I would worry about her safety every time she works her shift. She’s been jumped on, pushed, kicked, cursed at, spit on, had things thrown at her, and ducked out of the way when patients take a swing at her. Several months ago, she told me she doesn’t think about “if” she’ll be attacked by a patient, she thinks about “when.” Her number came up last week, and she was beaten and bitten in the back of an ambulance.

A couple of weeks ago, the courts had an opportunity to send a message that paramedics’ lives matter. But the person who pulled open the door of an ambulance and stabbed a paramedic was given 14 days in jail and three years of probation (“Man guilty of bloody attack on ambulance paramedic at Portland stoplight gets 14 days in jail,” April 9). If a police officer had been stabbed, would the sentence have been tougher?

Paramedics in the courtroom that day told Judge Kathleen Dailey they’re tired of being assaulted on the job. Dailey suggested they walk the streets of downtown Portland to understand the mental health crisis. Dailey should go on a ride-along in an ambulance to better understand what medics deal with. They have first-hand knowledge of the mental health and homeless crisis in Portland.

Sentencing a person to significant jail time for assaulting paramedics will not stop the attacks, but it will send a message to paramedics and all first responders that law enforcement, district attorneys and judges have their backs.

Someday if you call for an ambulance, you might not get a prompt response because there won’t be enough paramedics to fill all the shifts because they are tired of being attacked when trying to help people and save lives.

(Debi Baskins)

 

If judge Dailey was offering a solution to the mental health crisis, there might be some reason to believe that she was offering something of value. It is not inconsistent with the Left’s point of view, that they would let fester a problem in order to radicalize a population of supporters into choosing the wrong solution to the problem—that is, their solution. But the justice and equity crowd does not view justice and equity for those who are not sufficiently lacking in victim status to be the same as that of those who dwell in the social underworld, such as an angry, mentally ill individual. Underworld dwellers are perceived as victims of the privileged and high-born. Thus, the judge is really saying, go out and solve this social problem, and then you won’t have people you are trying to help attack you.

 

One part of the Ugly side of left-wing violence against the virtuous is its tendency for elites to justify their aloof lifestyle as a natural privilege. These are lifestyle choices not available to the masses. They live well on the bench with sergeant-at-arms, behind walls, gated communities, secure with bodyguards, cameras, and their own armory, as a justified privilege few. Meanwhile, the masses, such as the unnamed medical technician must clean up the mess on the streets for them. Besides, it is societies fault for not saving the felonious victim-class perpetrator. Those who might be struck, stabbed, or shot are collateral damage in left-wing world. It is the job of people like Judge Dailey to keep the pressure on, and one stabbed EMT won’t make a lot of difference compared to the example the Judge must make of her.

 

Debi Baskins wonders whether the sentence would have been different if the victim had been a police officer, to which might be added, what if the victim were Judge Dailey’s daughter, sister, or mother. The lack of empathy for the victim is not unusual in left-wing culture. Equity and justice are abstractions and everyone is ranked according to their socio-economic, gender status.

In Chicago, echoes of inequity and injustice were heard when Jussie Smollett alleged a hate crime perpetrated by Make America Great hat wearing bullies who put a noose around the poor man’s neck and doused him with a foul liquid. If you have not heard of this it is all true. That is, the allegation was true, but the alleged facts were not. It was a made-up scenario. The left-wing State’s Attorney, Kim Foxx, might have lowered the boom on Jussie who was charged with 16 felonies counts, but instead she ignored the crime, and the well-to-do Smollett walked away clean, except for a $10,000 loss of bail money and public service which he had completed before the incident occurred. It should be noted that there is an investigation into Foxx’s actions prompted by the email she received from Tina Tchen the former chief of staff to Michelle Obama. Mmmmmmmmm. The fix was in? So, what did Jussie Smollett, a wealthy actor, have that aroused the inside political players in Chicago? Smollett is black and gay! Victim Status! Bingo.

 

Victim status makes the law flexible to the Progressive Left. It is permissible in Left-world to bend the law in the name of equity and justice. After all, black and gay people have been victims for millennia. The old notion of what is legally acceptable—the idea that what is appropriate for one person under the law ought to be the same for another accused of the same wrong doing—is not sufficient in Progressive America. Victim status is the driving force behind justice. The same may be said for large scale mass violations of United States law. One hundred thousand law violators marched over the U.S. southern border in March of this year. But law violators who are poor and Hispanic need not worry once they are in Left-world. They are victims and that is all you need to know.

Posted on

Conspiracy TV—This Channel Knows What You’re Thinking

Conservatism Bittersweet wishes to announce that it has received a transcript from an anonymous source concerning a meeting between Adam Schiff, Gerald Nadler and the well-known (but unnamed for defensive reasons) host of Conspiracy TV’s hit blog, What Do You Know? In the interest of transparency and truth, CB is providing this service to our readers. The following is unedited and unredacted.

CTV: Congressman Nadler and Schiff, welcome to our humble studio. We rarely have two white males on our campus at the same time. It looks bad.

Schiff: The studio was hard to find. I had to call John Brennan to locate this place. I found it anyway.

Nadler: Yea, me too. I had to ride with Schifty.

Schiff: I told you not to call me that.

Nadler: Sorry, it just slipped out.

CTV: Gentlemen, I mean Gentlepersons. Conspiracy TV has gone through a wrenching ratings plunge. Our alliance has some strains right now. I’m hoping we can come to some agreement as to how we are going to rebound from the temporary setback caused by the Mueller Report.

Nadler: Of course, we double down. We know Trump has a pipeline to the Kremlin. It’s just a matter of finding it.

Schiff: That’s it exactly. We also need to know who got to Mueller.

Nadler: He is a Republican.

Schiff: That is the first clue.

Nadler: Trump is the one, obviously.

CTV: But how did he get to Mueller.

Nadler: He probably promised him a cushy, top job with the Trump organization after our candidate, whoever she is, beats him in 2020 and he goes back to Mar-a-Lago.

Schiff: That is likely. But there is another possibility, we impeach him.

Nadler: that would be easier, but no guarantee. It took the Republicans a full two years just to squeeze some misleading information out of Justice on Hillary.

CTV: Yes, we wondered about that. Tell me it wasn’t true that Hillary bought and paid for the whole dossier, then lost the election.

Schiff: I don’t want to talk about that. That was two years of misery, having to listen to that crap they were putting out.

CTV: Gentlepersons, let’s stick to the reason why we are meeting here.

Schiff: Your ratings?

CTV: No, sir. I meant, how do we get that anti-Progressive president out of office.

Nadler: It’s all about narrative. The public likes a good story, not a lot of statistics.

Schiff: True, but it has to be woven from the great work we’ve already done using the dossier to prove that Trump is a slime ball. I think about attacking his family. They are his support system. Maybe you could find another dossier and use the anonymous source route here at Conspiracy TV to keep his impure thoughts in the news.

CTV: I’ll put some of our best people on that. It’s not hard to find a typical citizen Trump has made into an enemy—Alec Baldwin, Robert De Niro. We need to think big.

Nadler: Meanwhile, we can keep the committee busy with demands from those nitwits running the White House.

Schiff: The more people we can get going on this the better. Publicity is our friend.

Nadler. Quantity and . . .

Schiff: Saying it loud. I’ll get Nancy to move ahead with the shock troops: Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Omar, the gang of three.

CTV: Aren’t they falling down in ratings? We watch those very closely here.

Nadler: Not really a problem. Nancy will just have to tell them to turn up the megaphone.

Schiff: Have those ladies say that they are pregnant by Trump—you know they were walking in Central Park and were attacked by Trump.

Nadler: Okay, but AOC only. She’s a New Yorker, that will add credibility.

CTV: Wait a minute! We can’t make her get pregnant, carry a fetus, and give birth, just to go along with us. She won’t go along because more children in the world will cause carbon harm to the Earth.

Schiff: Look, she doesn’t have to do all those things. She just says she exercised her right of choice. That’s how you get rid of the evidence.

Nadler: Oh. You’re really good at this stuff.

Schiff: I’ve had a lot of practice.

CTV: Maybe we could get Hillary pregnant.

Schiff: What.

CTV: I was just joking.

Schiff: I was laughing too.

Nadler: But your lips weren’t moving.

CTV: You know, Congresspersons, I think we have a plan. We can embellish it as we go along, but I like what we’ve done to this point.

Schiff: Yes, I agree.

Nadler: I agree too.

CTV: It’s been an honor to have you in our studio this evening. Let me check behind the curtains to make sure there isn’t a MAGA hat outside waiting for you.

Nadler: You ready to go Pencil Neck.

Schiff: I told you not to call me that!

Posted on

DIVISION IN AMERICA

Flying flash bang grenades, foul invective and, violent threats to fellow human beings seem to coincide with the appearance of Donald Trump on the political scene. So, is it true that Donald Trump has caused these sordid events to occur?

Wikipedia notes an Einsteinian principal, as follows: “simultaneity is not an absolute relation between events” Put another way, two events occurring at the same time do not prove that one occurred as the result of the other.

In the case of the Trumpian presidential candidacy, it can fairly be said that rough language and ad homonym attacks happened during the primary. By conventional standards, John McCain was a war hero, and yet Trump suggested the opposite. Trump, also, denigrated a Muslim family speaking against him at the Democratic Convention whose son had died in service to his country. At the same time, patriotic Republicans were getting ready to nominate Donald Trump and elect him.

During the Campaign, Trump, the presidential candidate, labeled Hillary Clinton as “crooked Hillary”. That the truth is a defense in argument, makes the candid, if impolite words, more stinging. Trump jumped from mere slander to sharp harangues that said something. Hillary Clinton committed felonies in using a non-government issued server and obstruction of justice in destroying equipment and information belonging to the government in an attempt to cover up her crime.

Up to that point, the Left-leaning press, had mocked Trump in documented scenes of derisive laughter while denouncing the possibility that a billionaire businessman and reality show host with orange hair could ever become president of the United States. As the race progressed, this view never changed because they knew that America saw what they could plainly see, Hillary Clinton would be the first female president and her views were the mainstream and the embodiment of American values.

On election day, the bad news arrived like that old two-by-four on the forehead. The idolizing press wept and struggled to explain the Clinton loss. It was not just a political setback, but the death of a vision. As Hillary supporters began to absorb the setback, their emotions and their minds began to separate.

As time went by, the Hillary opposition coalesced behind a cabal of Department of Justice and FBI conspirators who contrived to undermine the authority of President Trump by inventing a story of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Never mind revelations by Wikileaks of actual collusion by the Hillary campaign to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination. Among other revelations, this appears to be a case of blaming the victim for what the perpetrator did herself. As noted, Hillary through her Democratic National Committee (DNC) tool contacted Russians using a route designed to create deniability. The DNC/Hillary actors contracted the firm, Fusion GPS, who contacted British spy Christopher Steele, who contacted the actual Russians who produced the so called “dossier” implicating President Trump before he became president in scandalous behavior in Russia. The dossier has, since, been repudiated by Christopher Steele as untruthful. Money will work wonders when you are talking millions of dollars from deceitful Democrats. Recent information shows the true collusion was between Bruce Ohr of the FBI whose wife works for, surprise, Fusion GPS. The Left continues to fight the facts as they are revealed one by one by investigations through congressional inquiries.

Still in denial over their stunning loss of the sure thing presidency, the Left contrived to connect Trump to actual knowledge of and collusion with a known attempt by Russia to induce division in America by releasing, what has become, “fake news.” The idea of simultaneity appears. If the sun rises and sets every day, and so does Trump from his bed, there must be a connection.

So, you ask, what does this have to do with the idea of division in America? The answer is that it is not the coarse-speaking Trump who has lowered the level of respect in this country, but the very real actions of Trump’s political opponents. It is obvious that emotions play a strong part in the enfolding events and magnify every word into vitriol. But the reality of the Trump Presidency has been the true nightmare for the Left. Truthfully, it has been a Shakespearean drama once the left realized how deeply conservative the president actually was and is.

The vision of Hillary as the first female president lacks consequence compared to the actual damage done to the world view of the Left—a view taken as sacrosanct and universally understood on their part. No longer would the selected elite be running an empire dedicated to the fear of death by planet overheating. The regulatory environment established by the Left, much of it by presidential executive order and bureaucratic control, appeared to collapse as the people realized the connection between suppressed employment and their own lives.

Even before the President took office, business confidence was boosted. Then, a tax reduction was signed by the president, jobs became plentiful, minorities once cast outside the circle of wealth, now had a way to build their own lives around income greater than the handout culture cultivated by the Democrats.

Great symbols of left wing victory came crashing to the ground as oil leases were granted on sacred democratic turf they thought would never be touched by any president. The same was true for bureaucratic control as Trump cited a new rule: for every new regulation, two had to be eliminated. Automobile mileage regulations were frozen, thus saving American automobile companies millions of research dollars. The research dollars will become investment dollars, and more liquidity percolates through the economy generating even more business activity and more jobs in a virtuous circle.

The Left has responded to the demolition of their empire with hate speech, and silence at the atrocious, rock throwing, window bashing, behavior of anarchist groups. And as they contribute to the retrograde confrontational nature of American leftist culture, they are defined, as the clergy say, by what they choose to ignore.

In the end, it was not Trump’s language that  lowered the level of discussion, but it was the act of tearing down the leftist world created by the Obama administration that did the trick. The response by the chief sponsors of the welfare state has generated the language of lies, obfuscation, and deception that reveals how the Left has lost their judgment along with their minds. The substance and revelatory nature of the Trump administration is what continues to exercise the hateful side of the Left in America. With business confidence restored, President Trump has been able to create jobs by reducing bureaucratic weights on business activity. He has also stimulated the economy with tax reductions for most taxpayers and the result has exposed the drag on the economy created by the Obama administration.

Finally, it is the unmasking of the truth that the left cannot abide.

Posted on

CATCHING YOUR TAIL

Like a great beam of light, the Trump administration has revealed a great deal about the mischief of the Left in America. At the top of the list of revelatory events must be the suppression of normal economic activity and the effects of subdued economic development.

 

President Trump, freshly elected, but not in office yet, invigorated the economic juices of America by a few simple acts of kindness. His response to Obama economic suppression was to criticize American manufacturers who sent jobs to low cost foreign countries and to support the workers who had languished as a result. Some of the companies backed down and brought a few jobs back. The mere act of firmly supporting a growth economy galvanized his support and reinforced his image as an economic enforcer. That made his other promises even stronger He promised tax reform in the form of tax reductions. Additionally, he threatened strong measures against unfair trade practices by trading partners and he sent into retrograde bureaucratic regulatory expansion. In carrying out these policies as an elected President, the economic measures ignited a level of optimism that has led to staggering growth prospects.

 

Under the Obama Administration, the eight-year dark ages of minor league expansion growth hovered around 1%-2%. Under Trump, growth has been nearly substantially improved. Confidence, the one thing that economics has difficulty understanding when inputting data into their models, exploded and the country has enjoyed a massive growth of activity it hasn’t seen for many years. And now comes economic growth of 4.1% from the Trump Administration.

 

Meanwhile, the Democrats and other resisters, have seen their schemes and secret agendas revealed. Chief among these is the truth about economic suppression. Not only were they holding back in a lazy economic boat drifting wherever the current took them, but they were actively suppressing the economy. Why would they do such a thing?

 

Clearly a happy economic outcome works against the Left’s agenda. If the country is swimming in happy waters, they don’t need the socialist welfare state. If the American worker has a job, he/she probably has health insurance. How can you implement a health insurance program which forces people to buy insurance at a higher cost when they can get it as part of their workplace compensation? Dependency is their middle name. How do you force a single payer system on them when they have the goods in hand?

How do you create envy in a satisfied people by taxing “Cadillac policies”?

 

What President Trump has exposed is the scheme by which the Left in America chases its own tail. The worse the economy is, the better to impose more controlling regulation on the public, and as the economy grows worse, the perverse emphasis is to create more dependency on them in a never ending downward spiral.

 

Having been exposed by the Trump Administration, they now rely on lame arguments. They tell us they can create jobs, too, with a return to the environmental policies that suppressed economic wellbeing. Perhaps literally true, but obviously the net difference is not the same. They tell us we need them to bring in additional poor people to bolster an economy with low-wage labor. Ironically, the left tells the American people spot shortages of labor can be helped by admitting people illegally into the country when it was such illegal entries that suppressed wage growth in the first place.

 

If the confusions of the Left in this country could have produced more jobs, then why didn’t they produce more jobs. If they could have brought tears to the eyes of newly employed steel workers, why didn’t they. If they could produce more healthcare through the private enterprise system, why didn’t they. They know the answers. They would have exposed their own suppressive policies for what they are – a failure. As a result, they now have no policies for economic advancement. They chase their economic tail, yet they can never catch the truth of their actions.