Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 260: Authenticity in short supply for Democrat presidential wannabes

Beto on bans
In case it wasn’t obvious prior to last Thursday’s cryptic Democrat socialism-peddling free-for-all (aka, presidential primary debate) in Houston, it was crystal clear afterwards -- American life would change drastically if a member of the liberal party defeats President Donald Trump next year and takes over the executive branch starting in January, 2021.

If the worst case scenario does happen, brace yourself for a wave of red-tape executive order crapola heretofore never experienced on the north American continent. There’d be so much regulatory manure raining from the sky and shooting up from the ground people would need to don raincoats and rubber boots to stay sanitary.

Start with the unlovable, unemployed, clueless and practically unintelligible dolt “Beto” O’Rourke, a politician so out of touch with the real heart of the country that he came right out and swore he’d confiscate legal owners’ firearms if he were to call the shots from the White House. Such threats are tantamount to a declaration of civil war in most parts of the freedom loving American fruited plains, no doubt engendering many return oaths of, “I’d like to see you try.” Would federal law enforcement officers follow President “Beto’s” dictate to break down doors and rip the guns out of cold dead fingers?

Hopefully we’ll never find out.

But as nonsensical as the El Paso idiot’s vow was to mercilessly infringe on one of our most sacred God-given rights, it might not have been the dumbest thing “Beto” said last week. Yes, O’Rourke the would-be tyrant hopes to tell you where to live, too. Douglas Ernst reported at The Washington Times, “Presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke says it is a fundamental ‘right’ for individuals to live near their place of employment and that wealthy Americans should ‘be forced’ to live among the poor.

“’Living close to work shouldn’t be a luxury for the rich. It’s a right for everyone,’ the former Texas congressman tweeted Monday evening. The Democrat’s tweet also included a video further explaining his position.

“’Here’s the tough thing to talk about, though we must. Rich people are gonna have to allow — or be forced to allow — lower-income people to live near them, which is what we fail to do in this country right now,’ Mr. O’Rourke says in the campaign clip. Mr. O’Rourke then claims lower-income Americans must drive ‘one, two, three hours in either direction to get to their jobs, very often minimum wage jobs, so they’re working two or three of them right now.’”

There’s so much wrong with this tricked-up fantasy it’s hard to know where to begin. The practical challenges alone would preclude Beto’s deluded vision from ever becoming reality. Starting with, who’s considered “poor” and who’s deemed “rich”? Would someone with a great family be considered “rich” in personal attributes? Is Beto’s brainstorm based on annual income, investment assets, land ownership, membership in the Democrat party…? Beto, please help us clarify!

Besides, don’t Democrats hate the concept of “right to work”? Didn’t Beto get the memo?

John Locke and the Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves right now. If the most basic unalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of… property (no, not happiness), then what Beto’s suggesting basically infringes on all of them. Forcing people out of their homes -- rich or otherwise -- is something we just don’t do in this country unless it’s a relatively rare eminent domain situation where private property is taken (with adequate due process and fair compensation) for public use and benefit.

Highways and airports probably wouldn’t exist without eminent domain -- but that’s another subject entirely.

It’s highly unlikely Beto’s “mandatory economic integration” fits the legal requirements for “public benefit,” so therefore, Beto’s inane blabbering is ridiculous on its face -- and heartily unenforceable unless he’s a Venezuelan, Cuban or North Korean dictator who can do anything he wants regardless of what the constitution or laws say about limiting personal powers. Here in America it’s considered essential for people to own homes (hence, the tax advantages), accumulate wealth and provide for yourself and your dependents. At least it used to be.

Since when is proximity to one’s place of work considered a fundamental right? It’s not like the “rich” are purposely snatching up huge tracts of land so as to be within walking distance of their offices. Last time I checked there were lots of wealthy people working downtown in major cities yet there isn’t a whole heck of a lot of sprawling estates with palace-like grounds in the near vicinity.

Yes, Donald Trump built his former residence into the confines of Trump Tower in New York City, but his is the exception rather than the rule. If all the moneyed-class is dwelling among the skyscrapers, why are there so many huge mansions out in the countryside? And why are there so many poorly maintained apartment buildings near the centers of every metropolis? Does Beto think the rich should be forced to live among the homeless in San Francisco, Chicago and Detroit?

If you’re making x amount of dollars, in Beto’s world you could be ordered to occupy a rent-controlled unit next to someone at the poverty level. Must you also share your eggs and dairy when the neighbors run out, too? Would the poor even want to live next door to rich snobs who hire private security firms to protect themselves from the unwashed masses down the hall?

Ernst’s article further indicated “Beto” offered high-speed rail and transit as an initiative to “make sure that if you do not have a car, do not want to use a car you will not need to have one, or you will not be penalized for not having one right now.”

I can’t speak for everyone, but most of the car-less folks I know choose not to own one, but easily could afford it if they felt it necessary for their own pursuit of happiness. And what about all the people who, thanks to the tremendous advances in communications technologies, now work at home or in locations that are far, far away from the main office? If they’re above a certain income threshold will “Beto” move them too?

Beto-world is starting to sound a lot like mandatory busing, but only for those in the productive class above a certain age. Why not just take the rich guy’s car away and give it to the poor guy? Wouldn’t it be cheaper in the end to just provide the poor with all the fuel-consuming, climate change inducing vehicles and roads they desire instead of building more costly, inefficient, environment-destroying and money-losing public transportation? Wouldn’t this just contribute to the global warming problem, Beto?

Before the nation really understood who “Beto” was -- and how dumb he is -- he was considered a rising star in the Democrat party, simply because he threw a scare into Ted Cruz in last November’s Texas senate race. Now the secret’s out -- O’Rourke is perhaps the most shining example of a soulless, brainless jacka-s of a politician in America. And considering his fellow Democrat candidates, that’s saying a lot.

He’s like Joe Biden without dentures or a bloodshot eye. Oh yeah, and a resume and career accomplishments too. Little things, right?

Whereas “Beto” is increasingly being exposed for the fraud that he is, one of his Democrat competitors is apparently being viewed in a more favorable light than she was before. S.A. Miller and Seth McLaughlin reported at The Washington Times, “Sen. Elizabeth Warren has turned a corner in the presidential race, emerging as not just a maven of policy plans but also someone with whom Democratic voters would like to crack open a beer…

“A new poll confirmed the friendly factor buoying Ms. Warren’s campaign, with Democrats and Democrat-leaning voters saying they view the Massachusetts senator more favorably than any of her rivals. She enjoyed a favorability rating of 75%, besting Mr. Biden at 71% and Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont at 66%, according to the NPR/PBS/Marist poll.

“The spike in favorability is a startling change for Ms. Warren, who was mocked as inauthentic when she opened a beer on Instagram this year and was described in a January profile in Vanity Fair magazine as coming across on Capitol Hill as ‘holier than thou,’ ‘aloof’ and having a ‘moralizing’ tone.”

However, it should be noted Warren’s gradual increase in favorability doesn’t extend to Republicans and conservatives, most of whom continue to view her with suspicion as a phony. It’s hard to imagine wanting to have a beer with the woman President Trump mocks as “Pocahontas” unless a little alcohol serves to soften Liz’s bird-of-prey-like glare and somehow makes her irritating screechy voice sound more pleasant.

Even then she’d likely start spilling details of how oppressed she was as a young woman who had to postpone her career dreams because she was a female, got married young and then…ended up going to law school. Yeah, real underprivileged there, “Pocahontas”. Like practically everyone has a personal story of overcoming hardship to achieve. Isn’t this America?

It’s striking to see how the Democrat presidential candidates depict themselves as a collection of poor outsiders who somehow rose up to be elected to high national office and now they want to tell everyone else how to live and what to do. “Pocahontas” definitely has her laundry list of giveaway programs. While she hasn’t yet talked about “forcing” rich people to live next to poor folks, it can’t be far away in her warped government-centered world.

Close observation reveals the Democrat presidential candidates are all about the same, which is the reason why they’re having a hard time cutting into Joe Biden’s polling lead. Collectively they’re so far outside the mainstream it’s hard to relate to any of them. Authenticity is in short supply in Democrat-land these days.

Share this