The Pinocchios of the Left
There are good lies and there are bad lies, and not just on a golf course. Good lies are those that make me laugh. For instance, the NBA recently held its pre-draft camp in Orlando, Florida, and they discovered that the one thing these college prospects had in common, aside of course from a reluctance to play defense, was that a large number of them have been lying about their height. Memphis center Joey Dorsey, Memphis guard Derrick Pose and Duke guard DeMarcus Johnson, weren’t really 6-9, 6-4 and 6-4, as advertised, but were 6-6, 6-1 and 6-1, respectively. UCLA’s Kevin Love wasn’t 6-10, but actually a tad under 6-8. Kansas State’s Michael Beasley was 6-7, not 6-10, and USC’s Davon Jefferson was a full three inches shy of 6-8. Not only wasn’t Tennessee Martin’s Lester Hudson not 6-3, he wasn’t even a six-footer.
All of this is very peculiar for a couple of reasons. One, I find the notion that guys who have to stoop down to clear doorways feel compelled to lie about their height pretty darn amusing. Two, what’s the point? Psychological warfare? If I’m, say, 6-10 and my opponent claims to be my size, but is only 6-7, am I supposed to start wondering if maybe I’m really 7-1? Frankly, I don’t see how that will throw off my game in the least.
But when it comes to lying about things that really matter, you can’t beat those on the left. Back in the bad old days of Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union built what were called Potemkin Villages. These were show places designed to convince gullible American tourists that the Soviet Union was the workers’ paradise they claimed it to be. But Stalin had a lot of help dispensing his propaganda. He had the New York Times man in Moscow, Walter Duranty, to carry his water. Or in Stalin’s case, make that blood. Even though Duranty knew that Stalin intentionally murdered millions of Ukrainians by starving them to death, he kept quiet about it. Instead, Duranty filed glowing reports about Stalin’s five year economic plans, going so far as to report that Stalin had become a truly great statesman.
My understanding of it is that Duranty wasn’t even a Communist parroting the party line, but simply a reporter who lied because he enjoyed the money he was paid by the Times, the perks that Stalin provided to his favorite parrot and his status as the most famous journalist in the world — all of which would have been lost to him if he had reported the truth about Stalin’s butchery. What’s more, he won a Pulitzer Prize for his despicable lies.
Lest you think that sort of thing couldn’t happen today, I’ll remind you that in order to keep its Baghdad bureau open, CNN never uttered a negative word about Saddam Hussein’s regime. At least in Duranty’s case, the explanation for his moral and journalistic lapses were greed and glory. But what does a so-called news organization gain from having a bureau for 25 years if it hasn’t the slightest intention of reporting the news?
The fact that those on the left lie isn’t so surprising. What boggles the mind is how badly they do it. In the recent past, Jack Kelley of USA Today was caught fabricating stories, as was Stephen Glass of the New Republic, as was Jayson Blair of the New York Times. Janet Cooke cooked up a story about an eight-year-old heroin addict for the Washington Post, and, like Mr. Duranty, won a Pulitzer Prize for her fictional concoction. But at least the Post, unlike the New York Times, had the good grace to return the Prize once the truth leaked out.
Let us not forget CBS’s Dan Rather, who allowed his hatred of George Bush to blind him to the fact that he was going to the mat in defense of obviously forged documents, and that not too long ago, the New Republic, even after the Stephen Glass affair, was so eager to attack the war in Iraq they ran a series of foul and outrageous lies slandering our troops by one Scott Thomas Beauchamp.
The thing about those on the left that I personally find so infuriating is that they’re such hypocrites that they never call one another out for not telling the truth. For instance, Al Gore and his Hollywood disciples are constantly exchanging the environmental equivalent of high-fives, and no liberal ever mentions the inconvenient truth that all of these people reside in mansions the size of hotels and fly all over the planet in private jets. Talk about carbon footprints! Dinosaurs didn’t have feet this big or this dirty.
Speaking of movie stars, they all pretend to be populists, just worried sick about the plight of blue collar Americans. Of course they’ll open their homes to raise campaign funds for any huckster with a (D) after his or her name. But have you ever heard about their offering, let us say, a million dollars of their $25 million-a-movie salary to be divided among the crew? The more generous ones pass out wristwatches or autographed photos of themselves at the wrap party, imagining that the various gaffers, gofers and stuntmen, will forever after mention them in their evening prayers.
Talk is cheap, but not nearly as cheap as those lying lefties.
Well said
Not much to add, except perhaps the intentional machinations of The Big Lie
In this they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big.
Just how much does the entire “chope” phenomenon (change/hope) contain elements of The Big Lie ?
Burt Prelutsky claims that people of all political persuasions lie, but the left do it badly. Yet he does not present us with one example of a person from the Right telling a better quality lie than a person with a left perspective. Not one. I certainly can’t find any examples of Burt telling good quality lies in his article. For example, Burt Prelutsky claimed “in order to keep its Baghdad bureau open, CNN never uttered a negative word about Saddam Hussein’s regime.”
All these are from pre-invasion CNN. “Iraqi defector says Hussein’s son a brutal killer”, “Given this man’s murderous record and his record of frustrating the arms inspectors, what did you mean when you said Saddam Hussein was someone with whom you could “do business”? “, “Few Americans dispute that there is a valid case for taking out Saddam.”, “Confessed Assassin Claim He’s Proof of Connection Between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein”.
Murderous killers with connections to Al Qaeda. What does CNN say about the regimes it doesn’t like!?
While Stalin may very well have built his own “Potemkin Villages” to dupe Western useful idiots, he did not invent the concept. Potemkin villages were purportedly fake settlements erected at the direction of Russian minister Grigori Aleksandrovich Potemkin to fool Empress Catherine II during her visit to Crimea in 1787.
CNN itself owned up to keeping knowledge of some of Saddam’s most egregious killing ventures under wraps.
Eason Jordan is chief news executive at CNN
The rationales offered might be elaborate, but it’s a distinct possibility that the news organization was currying favor, didn’t want to be tossed out of the country or had some kind of other agenda.
Burt Prelutsky didn’t say “CNN kept ‘knowledge of some of Saddam’s most egregious killing ventures under wraps’ ” or anything like it. Burt Pretlusky said “CNN never uttered a negative word about Saddam Hussein’s regime.”
Is that true?
Is Burt’s nose the same length it was yesterday?
Is Burt so blinded by his hatred of CNN and the ‘liberal MSM’ that he finds himself writing statements that are ridiculously unlikely even if every bad thing he thinks about CNN is true?
Roy:
Burt is just saying what everyone with half a brain already knows. Maybe you can find someone to share theirs with you.
Roy, you can use l/2 of what’s left of my brain…I’m retired so don’t need it as much as
you might (this is an example of a “good” lie).
The left are such bad liars because they don’t have to be good liars. Hell, any lie will do. The liberal media will cover up any boldface no matter how embarassing. Why work harder than you have to?
The right however have to be damn good liars to get away with it. The media look over everything the Republicans and conservatives do to see if there might be a lie hiding under it. In fact, they accuse righties of lying just to see if anyone blinks.
If Democrats and lefties experienced any negative consequence of lying, their form would improve greatly.
Burt Pretlusky said “CNN never uttered a negative word about Saddam Hussein’s regime.”
Is that true?
Is Burt’s nose the same length it was yesterday?
Ahem, Roy – is it false? Perhaps you would care to show an instance which refutes the author’s assertion?
Request:
Content in this article.
How is this pap making it onto PJM? There is nothing here. I hope it wasn’t paid for at least.
BP has a good theme but missed the execution by wandering off into hypocritical and pious behavior by limosene liberals. Yawn.
The interesting psychological phenomenon is the astonished indignation with which the Leftist liar reacts when caught. The statement, he or she says, is true because it faithfully illustrates a truth. A woman did not drive from Iowa to Boston in a beat up van for a presidential debate to beg Gore to save her health plan; she was a paid campaign worker. But she could have lost her coverage, and everyone knows Gore would reinstate it if he could and Bush wouldn’t. Hillary was not technically shot at by a sniper, but there are dangerous places,she knows it, and Barack doesn’t. Kerry may not have technically, or physically, been in Cambodia or earned his medals, but he was in Viet Nam and the other guy wasn’t. And soldiers there may not have raped and killed villagers like “Genghis Khan,” but stuff like that happened in Mylae and it’s bad.
This form of expression is called a parable. And only a dunce right wing blogger or — God forbid — radio host would dare to interrupt a righteous story with a bunch of jazz about “facts,” “dates,” and “public records.” Just like the wet balnket who shouted at Jesus, “hey, can you even give me the name of this rich kid you say slept in a pig sty!?”
And Bill didn’t have sex with “that Lewenski woman” because it’s none of your business. And besides, it was a hummer.
Darn, JZ beat me to it; the “Potemkin village” predates the Communists.
A “Celeb” who gives HER OWN money? That would be, reportedly, Angelina Jolie, who this week has given – or has promised, I’m not sure which – $1M to the cause of Iraqi children.
lol Roy caught you in a lie in the second post. Better luck next time.
Wouldnt it be interesting to ask Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer what they had to discuss with the Muslim Brotherhood or the optometirst Assad?
Don’t know what they disscussed with the Muslim Brotherhood.
You could ask the host of the meeting, Francis Ricciardone.
Francis Ricciardone was formerly Director of the State Departpartments Task Force on the Coalition Against Terrorism and Special Coordinator for the Transistion of Iraq.
He was appointed ambasdor to Egypt by president Bush two years prior to the meeting.
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black here, as if Prelutsky has much credibility himself. Typical PM feed for the masses, go download your Rush podcast and get the unvarnished truth!
Burt, nice essay…but, I suppose I would make a larger point.
Thw whole of leftist existence…is based upon a lie. All that leftism is…is a cluster of little lies, built upon a giant lie.
This is beyond pathological, the NY Times, LA Times, academia, Hollywood, the alphabet news rooms and the AP/Reuters/BBC are incapable of telling the truth. It does not fit the narrative and it most certainly is inconvenient.
However, they are not “bad at it”, but rather…it has become acceptable to lie blatantly and then not even muster the effort to “cover” the lie any longer with anything that is remotely clever …the coverups/alibis are naked and transparent. It’s as if the world isn’t worthy of much more than a passing wave of the hand…when the liars are caught red-handed.
This incessant drumbeat toward Socialism has taken on a new disguise…still based upon the same rotten, foul lie that “it’s not Socialism”…. In days gone by, the “hidden Socialists” would make every effort to conceal their plan, hoping to plant seed after seed after seed…then protest loudly that what you were seeing and hearing was not there…it was your own paranoia.
Today, they still hide the creeping Socialism from plain view…but when you point at it, they hiss that you are too stupid to “get with it” and the coverup lie is weak and lame as if to say….”it’s not there…and we’re going to shove it down your throat, anyway”.
For my purposes…I’m ready to rip the mask off and have the fight out in the open. I’m tired of the Socialists planting their seeds and their little games of hide and seek and Blind Man’s Bluff. I’m tired of their smug and pedantic attitudes and their vacuous homilies filled with hypocrisy and falsehoods. I’m tired fo their lies…I’m tired of their narrative, I’m tired of their distortions.
Let’s quit pussyfooting around about it all and pull their stupid little mask of their charade and get on with confronting them and their phony intentions. Because if we don’t do it before November…we might find out what it’s like to live under the grip of the Big Lie.
Here’s a hint to all you budding intellectuals and truth seekers: The more you generalize, the more you lie.
I am reminded of Newsweek Editor Evan Thomas’ remark explaining how and why “the press” hung on to the popular (Nifong) version of the Duke story until the bitter end.
Are you ready ? Hang on…
Mr. Thomas actually said…
“The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong.”
In other words, the story of a poor, black girl being abused by rich, white sports’ guys at a popular college was the correct narrative.
“The press” held out for a very long time, as did many (too many) professors at Duke. Did you see any chagrin or embarrassment when, eventually, even those people had to admit the facts didn’t fit their favored narrative ?
Here’s a generalization I’m working on:
Liberals are narcissists. Narcissists are liars.
It’s been very helpful in dealing with some very annoying people.
At the top of these posts is one that gives a view of Democrat campaigning which is based on, quoting actually, what Hitler said was the way that ‘the Jews’ undermined pre-nazi Germany.
Is that a general Conservative view or is this just one freak?
Do Conservatives REALLY think of liberals the same way Hitler thought of Jews?
I throw it open for debate.
“Roy M:
At the top of these posts is one that gives a view of Democrat campaigning which is based on, quoting actually, what Hitler said was the way that ‘the Jews’ undermined pre-nazi Germany.
Is that a general Conservative view or is this just one freak?
Do Conservatives REALLY think of liberals the same way Hitler thought of Jews?
I throw it open for debate.”
Wouldn’t it be the other way around…
1. Being hitler was left wing…
2. Being jews were capitalists and the left hates capitalists and blames them for all the worlds problems.
3. Hitler used any story to discredit the jews regardless the facts much like the current leftist with global warming or any of a host of issues.
4. Hitler used false science to justify his views just like current leftists do.
5. I could go on…
Roy M: I think you have it backwards.
Conservatives think of liberal politicians the same way Jews thought of Hitler.
-he was a great orator
-he promised ill-defined “change”
-he insisted Germans needed “hope”
-he openly declared hostility to lawful treaties
-he was for strict gun control
-he portrayed his detractors as malevolent conspirators
-he wrote a narcisistic autobiography at an early age
-he was a socialist and a statist
-he was thin-skinned
-he redefined what it meant to be “German”
-he had violent friends he could not explain
-he was underestimated
In other words, he was a scary, unknown quantity.
Before everyone gets his modem in a bunch, I do not think Obama is a fascist, or will put conservatives in gas chambers, or deems them inferior. By the same token, I would like to think PJ does not intend to “open debate” by suggesting conservatives have that attitude toward liberals — despite the incredibly offensive penchant liberals have for calling Republicans Nazis and depicting their President (whom they like to call “this President”) with swaztikas and jackboots.
Like Lyddea, ‘Where’s the content?’.
Where’s the beef? What, no potato?
Got milk, at least?
Don’t piss the PJM brand away!
My use of the phrase “the big lie” was intended as generic rather than specific to Hitler and Jews.
I was looking quickly for a description in citing that passage.
I have a rather strong impression these days, (every time I hear B. Obama open his mouth and unwind those pearly (and often fake sounding) tones of oration), that large numbers of (not particularly discerning) Americans are falling for some kind of big lie.
Of course, I was always put off by Lyndon Johnson’s touting of The Great Society. And I was even unresponsive to the soaring rhetoric of JFK.
Go figure.
Pretty much any comment from a liberal/Democrat just reminds me that they are people for whom lying, up to and including felony perjury, is not just acceptable; it’s actually something they publicly admire and celebrate.
As was comprehensively demonstrated during Bill Clinton’s impeacment trial for perjury and obstruction of justice.
tanstaafl
Well, we’ve all done it.
We are trying to think for a good way of summing up a political position, strugling to find the few words that best describe the truth of a matter, then, of course!
WWHS?: What Would Hitler Say?
According to Hitler the big lie was perpetrated by Jews and Marxists. The big lie was that Ludendorff (effectively the real power in Germany at end of WW1) was resposible for the defeat of Germany. Of course Hitler says it was the Jews and Marxists that stabbed Germany in the back.
When you accuse your political enemies of perpetrating the big lie are not condeming them as ‘like Hitler’ in some way. You are simply using the same description of your poltical enemies that Hitler used for his political enemies. And that is not a good look.
“When you accuse your political enemies of perpetrating the big lie”
Where do the accusations end and the actualities of the lie begin? Perhaps we take Senlin’s advice and discard silly notions of “dunce right wing bloggers” like myself. Who needs such trivialities as “facts” anyway? They’re just “a bunch of jazz”, right?
There is a succinct difference between accusation of a lie and identification of a lie. It’s those pesky facts that get in the way, no?
Regarding the suggestion that one conservative’s notion of a lie is another liberal’s notion of a “parable”: feeble at best and disingenuous at worst. To qualify as a parable, one understands that the story is a fictitious narrative. When presented as an actual occurrence which never happened, most folks tend to consider that a lie.
i may be an old fashioned academic, but this article — which could be a really valuable contribution to an important issue — is long on chitch and short on substance. how about some documented lies and analysis. why are so many pieces at pjmedia so short that they’re like that line in “The Big Chill” about People having articles long enuf to read during a visit to the john? how about some links! this is cyberspace, no?
It is not that the left lies so much as they reject the possibility of truth being fixed and absolute – it is relativism that infests their souls in direct opposition to “the truth shall set you free”
They deny God and His natural law – so that they may then deny sin – so that they may then become gods unto themselves and determine truth and like Adam, choose what is good and what is bad.
look no further for their source of corruption.
People who call the murder of innocent life a good “choice” and aversion to perversion being “homophobic” deserve not argumentation but pity and prayers.
…it is relativism…
You could call it the death of absolutes, also in vogue for a very long time in the not so hallowed halls of academia.
Relativism manifests also as an extension of what is called “politically correct” thinking that has been transferred, for a very long time, into the brains of captive audiences in public school settings.
Where it has been taught that right and wrong are not absolutes but, really, a function of your personal view and how you “feel” about something. Our overly indulgent, child-centered culture is not producing beings with grit and capacities for personal discernment. As mentioned in a “piece” in timesonline (UK) today, children are being raised as little emperors and empresses.
Anyway, many pundits and “newsies” absolutely must be products of this kind of education, else they’d be ashamed to write the crapola they write. Which crapola, if you glance at many websites, is staunchly defended by a (seemingly) large number of adherents.
All of which brings us back (does it ?:)) to susceptibility to The Big Lie, or (for a less politically charged term) A Big Lie.
Everything he says about NYT is true. Some of you have to be reminded once in a while.
TheBad: I was not intending to be complimenting by referring to “parables”. I was mocking the left’s rationalization of their outright lies as serving a truth greater than “mere” factual truth, and referring to their condescending and dismissive response to critics by referring to right wing dunces.
BRAVO!!!!
“The thing about those on the left that I personally find so infuriating is that they’re such hypocrites that they never call one another out for not telling the truth.”
That’s pretty much it. As for Gore, he’s only ‘green’ for the money, irregardless of any cost to the lower people of the world for any bad policies that may come of it. The entire “MMGW” community is also based on lies. Obama, with a Thomas the Steam Engine campaign, is already getting a taste of the ‘good life’ it offers and falling right in line, and his lemming constituency is eating it up. What do you expect when the MSM completely ignores the Pelosi administration’s approval rating.
I’m a former Marxist. I studied its ideology from the classical texts of Marx and Engels down through the Frankfurt School theoreticians and Antonio Gramsci. I’ve studied Liberation Theology too. I aspired to be a theologian/philosopher to try to find a “third way” socialism that was faithful to traditional ethics and also avoided the pitfalls of poor economic policy that plagues every socialist failure. Admittedly, I was more of the bookish type and was not very deeply anchored in the activist Left, but I did get involved as much as my studies in college and later the seminary would allow. So, I got to know the Left very, very well. Let me state that expediency trumps honesty among the movers and shakers of socialism, “progressivism,” and Marxism. For starters, they deceive people as to who they are. I was even told by activist leaders to avoid discussing anything intellectual about Marxism with new members of their organizations and with reporters. They did not want anyone to know WHO was really organizing their protests and who was networking and unifying the organizations. We were supposed to parrot the dumb talking points, slogans, and carry the signs with pre-approved messages full of cant about “peace” and ending U.S. imperialism in the Third World. Moreover, Marxists like me who retained their Christian heritage were looked down on and regarded with suspicion.
Over time I also took the conservatives’ critiques of socialism seriously and I looked into how things REALLY were in socialist countries. The evidence of lies just kept piling up to the point where my mental in box of cognitive dissonance was too much to ignore.
Lying and expediency are quite natural to the Left. I’m not saying that there is a complete absence of it on the Right. Clearly there isn’t. However, like Muslims and taqiyya, Leftists and expediency in the service of the revolution are inseparable.
Fred, please continue to speak out and share your story.
America needs to hear you. Your words carry weight ours never will.
They did not want anyone to know WHO was really organizing their protests and who was networking and unifying the organizations.
This is very typical of the modus operandi of George Soros and his tangle of organizations which operate just below the horizon of transparency.
If you see an ad (such as the recent (distortion) where the young mother tells John McCain he can’t have her young son Alex for 100 years of war in Iraq or last fall’s full page NYTimes ad demeaning General Petraeus), look around for Soros money and sponsorship.
When you see organized protests and acting out (e.g., the Code Pink protests in Congressional hearings), these people aren’t operating in a vacuum.
It is not far-fetched to view the liberal mind from the point of view of pathology.
This writer has been a board-certified clinical psychiatrist for over 35 years and he “…has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.”
The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness
tanstaafl,
Really good site you’ve linked above. Very interesting stuff. I hope others check it out as well, particularly those who are Left-of-center. The most amazing thing I encounter today, in everyday face to face meetings with people in the non-blog world as well in the blog world, is the fact that so many young people are not aware that socialism is a failure everywhere it has been tried. I certainly do not consider the kind of “third way” socialism of Western Europe to be a success: not with stubbornly high unemployment for years, stagnant living standards, and a state that is increasingly interfering in people’s lives. I’m not saying that everything in Europe is gloomy: they have their successes too. Yet, overall they are even hard-pressed to provide employment for the hordes of Muslim immigrants who are in Europe’s slums and ethnic ghettos.
Is this a model for us? I hardly think so. Yet, so much of our under-40 crowd is incredibly ill-informed about Marxist ideas seeping into our ways of seeing the role of government. I almost ended up being an academic who would quite possibly have been, when appropriate, pushing this agenda for at least part of my career. I think I would have evolved away from socialist thought eventually had I become an academic and a priest. For me the really significant fork in the road occurred when I began reading articles about neuroscience, as touching on human behavior and the presence of very complicated failures of integration in the human mind. The most extreme dysfunction leading to socio-pathology. Literally, this signifies the very material, organic presence of EVIL in our midst. I discovered that evil has an organic basis that is not always caused by poor parenting and trauma. Most of the time we can point towards family dysfunctionality as affecting the child’s development. But every now and then something hideous appears in our midst from generally very good parents. There is no explaining it. It has an organic basis and is a spiritual-cosmic drama which we are powerless before.
For me this was the destruction of my last attachment to utopian thought. There is no possibility that socialism will lead to the ever-increasing moral perfection of the human race. This life in this dimension will never be our home and is tragically flawed. That does not mean that there is not goodness, beauty, altruism, love, compassion, truth, and justice to be had here in this life. We certainly can eke it out of this existence. All socialism is premised on the moral quest for the perfection of society. That’s an illusion that can never happen in this life. As a Christian, I call it the effects of original sin. Others may find some other concept to explain it.
These kids today are not steeped enough in the intense intellectual quest for truth that drove me. For sure, I was also motivated by a sincere concern for those left out – the poor, the marginalized, the “undesirables.” Honestly, I was. What I lacked, however, was an abiding desire for control. I never wanted to control other people’s lives. Honestly, I never wanted anything for myself. Anyway… without a passion to explore ideas logically, rationally, and with an eye towards the legitimate critiques from the other side these kids do not go deeply enough and wide enough into the sweep of history and the conflicts of ideas down through over two thousand years of Western civilization. Nor are the educational venues they come out of honestly open and free about that larger discussion, since conservatives and their ideas have been banished from academia. I never would have agreed to collaborate in the latter effect. I always believed in academic freedom and, when I was a graduate assistant, never penalized students whose ideas differed from mine. Sadly, this is not happening today. It is to the detriment of our young people and their intellectual formation.
Duranty told the truth about what was happening in the USSR, when he was debriefed by British intelligence. Of course, they might have been in a position to know if he was lying. I’ve noticed that sometimes makes a startling difference.
In a morally relativistic world, how can lying be condemned any more than any other “sin?” After all, there is no sin.
With no basis for right and wrong, lying of any sort should not only be accepted as “normal” but actually praised if one’s personal goal is met.
So what if Bush lied? Who are you to condemn him? Who cares? What is Truth, anyway?
Honestly, I was. What I lacked, however, was an abiding desire for control. I never wanted to control other people’s lives. Honestly, I never wanted anything for myself.
That’s pretty much the bottom line, the difference between those who would orchestrate your existence and a person simply trying to figure “it” all out.
People today have become brainwashed into the notion that the nanny state “cares” about them and also will “care” for them.
It is a total lie propagated by power and control mongers. It has happened many times before in the brief interlude of life on Earth known as “human” history.
Thomas Jefferson (and all the individuals whose main intent in designing the Constitution was protection from “the state” itself) had no illusions…
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
~Thomas Jefferson
Wholesale Cheap Snapback Caps, New Era Hats, Wholesale fitted Hats Baseball Caps, The Best Cheap Discount Snapback Hats, Wholesale New Era Hats Free Shipping.