Consistently Inconsistent

Since honesty is apparently too much to ask for in America these days (*cough*Hillary ClintonandBarack Obama*cough*...), I thought we’d lower the bar a bit and just ask for a bit of consistency.

Bernie Sanders’ Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

Sanders: “Hillary Clinton understands that we must fix an economy in America that is rigged and that sends almost all new wealth and income to the top one percent.”

“She believes that we should raise the minimum wage to a living wage.”

“This election is about the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality that currently exists, the worst it has been since 1928. Hillary Clinton knows that something is very wrong when the very rich become richer while many others are working longer hours for lower wages.”

Sanders ran an “inspiring campaign” that was based on “real principles”. If he truly believed those principles, one might assume that he would consistently stick to them. Let’s find out if that’s the case.

Hillary Clinton’s net worth is about $45 million. Add that with her husband’s net worth and you get $125 million. I don’t know about you, but that’s a bit more than I have in my piggy bank. Most would tend to think that this would place Hillary Clinton up near that “top one percent” that Bernie Sanders despises so vehemently.

Over the last three years, Clinton has made about $15 million...a year. For years prior to that, she did not make less than $190,000 (and usually more) in a given year. Therefore, if we’re truly going for income equality as Sanders and Clinton claim, why would we #FightFor15 measly dollars an hour when we could shoot straight for $15 million a year? That’s apparently Clinton’s “living wage”. It’s only fair!

Sanders further believes that Clinton “...will nominate Supreme Court justices who are prepared to overturn the disastrous Citizens United decision which allows billionaires to buy elections and undermine our democracy...”

Speaking of donors buying elections, Fabian socialist and long time, generous Democrat donor George Soros has given $6 million to Hillary Clinton’s super PAC just this year. This doesn’t account for the $7 billion he donated to Democrats campaigns and causes from 2001 to 2010.

So if “billionaires are buying elections”, does that include George Soros? And if so, someone needs to tell him Hillary Clinton was a poor purchase.

Then there’s the Steyer brothers, Tom and Jim. These generous gentlemen have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrat campaigns and causes. But that’s ok because (1) they’re giving to Democrats and (2) they are “good guys”, not “evil executives” or fat-cat hedge fund managers.

Except...they are. And not only that, brother Tom Steyer was an executive at Goldman Sachs, one of the groups that has received a gigantic amount of hate from both Sanders and Clinton.

According to one political analysis, in one election, the Democrats top 100 largest donors gave $174 million, while the Republicans got $40 million from their largest 100 donors.

So perhaps, as Sanders says, elections are bought. However, it certainly seems that Democrats come with a higher price tag than Republicans.

But maybe Sanders just didn’t know that.

Terror Attack in Nice, France

“We will not give in to the terrorist threat...The times have changed, and France is going to have to live with terrorism.”

This statement from Prime Minister Manuel Valls, came hours after France was once again rocked by a horrible, senseless, despicable terrorist attack where 84 innocent people were killed and 202 were wounded by a truck driven by Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel.

If we’ve given up on looking for truth and are merely looking for a little consistency, perhaps we can use our imagination to project what Barack Obama’s response might be:

“The one thing we do know is that we have a pattern now of mass [truck killings] in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world. And there are some steps we could take not to eliminate every one of these mass [truck killings], but to improve the odds that they don't happen as frequently: common-sense [truck] safety laws, stronger background checks.

And for those who are concerned about terrorism, some may be aware of the fact that we have a no-fly list where people can't get on planes, but those same people who we don't allow to fly could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a [truck] and there's nothing that we can do to stop them. That's a law that needs to be changed.” *

A statement like this would be consistent: “It is obviously far too easy for people to obtain trucks. There is no background check, there are no common sense safety laws regarding how to buy or operate a truck. It’s a little known fact, but in some neighborhoods, trucks are actually easier to obtain than books or computers.”

Strangely, we have not heard anything of the sort coming from our president’s lips. Why? The most obvious reason is because it would absolutely ludicrous to make such a statement! Because, as with guns, it is never the inanimate object (the truck) that murders other humans. Rather it is the human who uses that inanimate object in order to carry out murder.

Liberal “logic”, used consistently, consistently falls apart.

Black Lives Matter and Dallas

When Obama began facing some opposition from the TEA Party early on, he dismissed it, saying that those “bitter clingers” were "just waving tea bags around”.

While Obama denied it at the time, it has since come out that his IRS did in fact target conservative groups associated with the TEA Party. We can only speculate whether Obama had any actual involvement. But the fact remains that he did nothing to decry the lawless treatment of these groups nor attempt in any serious way to right the wrong done by Lois Lerner and the IRS.

That’s how he treated the TEA Party, a legitimate, completely non-violent, non-law breaking, protest group that presented real grievances with Constitutional solutions.

Perhaps it was because the TEA Party was protesting the president himself that made the difference, but when Obama spoke of a different protest organization, he sang a vastly different tune. In fact, he invited one of the Black Lives Matter leaders to the White House.

After the lives of 5 brave police officers were snuffed out by a deranged gunman in Dallas last week, Obama had nothing but glowing praise to offer the Black Lives Matter movement that, oddly enough has received a large amount of funding from George Soros (remember him? He’s the guy who gave millions to Clinton’s super PAC).

This is how Obama has treated Black Lives Matter, a billionaire funded, often violent, often law breaking, protest group that has presented often less than factual grievances with little in the way of actual solutions.

Consistently Inconsistent

When it comes to income “equality”, we find inconsistency and untruthfulness. When it comes to money in politics, we find inconsistency and untruthfulness. When it comes to gun control, we find inconsistency and untruthfulness. When it comes to how groups are treated, we find inconsistency and untruthfulness.

If they aren’t going to tell the truth, the least we can ask for is to just hear the same lie. A little consistency?  

Sadly, even that seems to be too much to ask.

Jonathan Paine

Follow on Twitter: @painefultruth76

Let us know what you think: painefultruth1776@gmail.com

*This is actually an edited version of Barack Obama’s statement after San Bernardino.