Heather Cox richardson Again

 Now I want to make an effort to respond to Heather Cox richardson again, to her coments on the ideo I linked in the post below, about four posts down I 6think.  I just listened again to the first part of it and I'll start with some quick broad comments:

She says among the rights our founding documents guarantee to us is "equal access to resources>'"  that struck me as wrong right off the bat but I wasn't sure  what she meant by it.  then she is soon saying that vry rich men like dale Carnegie came along and more or less took that right away from us by obviously having more access than anyone else to the resources that made him rich.  So I figure she's talking about sources of wswealth such as oil deposits or mineral deposits or any other natural resources tht can be the source of gret wealth for the nation.     

I say wealth for the nation because thats how I thik of it.  She seems to think it's only welath for those who have the means to gain acess directly to those resources.  The Carnegies and rockefellers and so on.  She thinks the rise of those very wealthy men threw a wrench into our doctrine of equal rights to all.  \\ 

Again this just hits me as so wrong it's hard to know where to begin to unravel it.   But then later in the talk she says she doesn't mean by equal access to resources only to jobsw and that sort of thing, which is already idifferent from what she's said about the rich having more acessess than the rest of us, but goes on to say that she means also access to aeducation and health care and all that.   

So heare she's done a job of mind rape on us.  Switching her definitions, changing th etopic without warning.  Does she mean the rise of the mega welathy is the cause of depriving us of our rights or what?  Who knows?  Sometimes I don't think she's interested in communicating at all but in hypnotizing us into passivility or osmethihng like that.

then she says that starting in the fifties we got this idea meaning some people got it tht they, white men in particular it seems, that they were being deprived of their rights by blacks and other minorities.  I think I got that right.  I'll have to go back and listen to it again.  In oanother video she already pretty much called us al racists who are not livberals so it would fit with that.     Fifties?  I'll have to come bacck to this.

then she says that although DOGE is supposedly intended to root waste out of govetfnment this is in fact a lie.  She says they claim that some money was going to go to a drag performance of some sort in some country or other, which is one of the thihngs I've also been hearing, but that this is a lie.  

No, it's not a lie, the money was clearly adressed to that purpose, there is no doubt, that's why Musk and his team earmarked it for elimination.  She's said that he's just getting ricdd of thinkgs he doesn't like but  that others like.  Do others like this kind of expense to come out of our taxpayer money?  Well, turns out no, that wehn it's deribed she says it isn'[t reallyh where the money was going, that's a lie.   Sigh.  No, that's where it was going and that's why they pulled it.  If you want to argue that you think that's a legitimate expense then argue that, don't argue that it's a lie because it's not a lie.

then she says Musk is just tring to get his hanadns on oall ourmoney ecaus ehe considers himself to be part of a special class of people and doesn't care about all the rest of the citizens of the country.  He's doing his program to gt a colony established on Mars for instance jut to benefit this little class of people at the expense of everybody else, and doesn't care a bit about the rest of us.  Now THAT is the lie.   I think this Mars project is nuts because I'm a Christain who believes Jesus is coming back pretty soon and we're never going to need to move to anyother planet, even though kjoowing Musks's special intelligence it could very well be possible.  But I think his heart is in the right plsae and he does what he does because he wants to promote the general welfare of humanity however he thi nks he is able to bring it about.   He supplied thousands of his starlink gizmos to the people of NWest North Caronlina wsho couldn'[t use their phones after Hurrican Helene, brought them in on a moment's notice to help them out and probably samved manyh many lives.    from everything I've heard him say on manyh interviews he is reallyh genuinely concerned to be of help to humanity and to America, and I am appalled at this attack on him as if he's acting from selfish interets.  As if he needs our taxpayer money when he's already the richest man in the world.  what on earth are these peopel thinking?    they are looking for waste, fraud and corruption in our various departments of government and trying to do away with it.   That's all.  they are finding quite a bitg, but I guess with people like richarcdson telling lies about it people are getting all enraged as if he's ut  hurting things rather than helping.    She is the liar, they are the liars, and it's too bad that their lies are going to affet these honest attempts to improve America.

then the lie about how they want to do away with Mdicaid and Medicare and So cial Security.  never ever ever ahas that wbeen said, but of  courfse it deoesn't matter what anyone says, they are going to make it mean that anyway.   They say they want to do away with great waste, fraud and corruptinon within these programs, NOT THE PROGRAMS THEMSLEVES.    zGood Grief.  Now is thshe liying about thisa?  Is she the progpagandist while she accuses her opponents of oing that?  I rather think so.

And the department of education is to be done away with according to her because they want to destroy the country.  No, dear, the Department of education has been destroying ducation ever since it was formed in nineteen eighty one.  that's why they want to get rid of it.  Our ranking in the world on education was very high becfore that edepartment was formed and it's gbeen going down ever since.   It's become just a tool of the so called Progressives to indoctrinate an propagandize, and they are the ones destroying education and destroying the country, not us MAGA people.  We are the ones who want to restore true education so that we can have a well informed citizenry instea dof a bunch of indotrinated leftist zombies.

She is calling Elon Musk "that death panel" that the right hung on obamacare.  But as with everything else that's true of the Left it always gets blamed on the Right because that is their main strategy to undermine us.  Whatever is true of them is denied but laid on us instead.  diabolical.   S Richardson is telling her listeners ot to believe what we are saying about how it is really wsaste and fraud that Musk and DOGE are trying to cut out of goverment at all, but things that really keep the government of the US and its people alive and functioning.  this is a diabolical accusation and dangerous if believed, which of course is the case since liberals usually follow their own spokespeaple and never bother to check anything against the other side's facts.  

According to HCR Musk is ""liberally defunding cancer esearch."  She wants to be shown the waste which she sayhs isn't really there at al andnot what he is going after.  I don't know what waste he has found in NIH, Ihaven't heard about that one, ut it is she who should be giving the evidence of her malicious accusations that instead she just asserts the way lbefitists always do.  never evidence, never a fact to be seen, just assertions.  We're liying they are right.  Musk has identified where the money is going according to where it is marked to go, he has that evidence, he knows it is actually going there and he has judged it waste if it is going to something like a drag propaganda film in outer mongolia.   She's welcome to diagree that that is waste, but she has offered nothing to prove that it is not going where he says it is going.  And she is now claiming that he wants to cut out legitimate research by NIH.  hHe does not and that is a diabolical lie.  If he's found watsere there then it is waste becaus that is what he is looking for.  He is not at all intereted, meaning that trump is n't because Musk is working for Trump, not interested at all in harming any legitimate work the moneyh is being used for.  and again she has proved none of her wild nasty assertions.

then she goes on to talk about the Constitutional frameword for how maw making is to be done and as usual gives the Executive branch just about no power at all, which is what the liberals always do.  Biden of course whroe hundreds of executive orders that none on her side objected to although they were in fact the true destrucive power we are dealing with now, wnot what trummp is doing which is an attempt to recover the nation from that destruction.  biden can write Executive orders all he wants but according to this leftist mentality trump can't.  All partisan politics with these people.    

then she makes that ridiculous remakr the Ledft has been screaming for days, weeks now, Musk was not elected.  No he was not elected, he was appointed, or employed, by trump, and that is what is supposed to ha-ppen.  He is a delegate to do the work he is assigned by trump.   Nojne of the Cabinet appointees are elected either.  they are all appointees, all chosen by the Presicxdent.  That is the way the Exuecutive branch is uspposed to operate.  the President cfhoses people who will carry out his campaign promises , that'[s how they get done.   He wants people who understand his goals and are committed to carrying them out and this time around he seems to have chosen a good bunch of people to do just that.  And elon Musk is one of his choices to carrying out a task he wants to see done, the identification and elimination of waste, fraud and corruption in the government.  

And since richardson thinks that is not what is happening it is her respohnsbility to prove ti instead of just slinging dangerous accusations as she is doing.

Galloping on hrough this madness and skipping a lot of stuff for the moment I just awant to comment on her saying thta they want to go back to the time vbefore MAGA acording to her when you couldn't discriminate against anyone in hiring and education and so on.  i forget all ther words but thta's the gist.  Which has me picking my jaw up off the floor and trying to find my eyebolls that rolled so hard they rolled under the furniture yeah yeah yeah.  Anyway.  THEY were doing a lot of discriminationg before MAGA came along with the intent to get ride of it.  Good grief these lefties are diabolical, just turn everything on its head.  THEY put affirmiative action into place which discriminated in favor of blacks.  That's discrimination.  THEY support discrimination against the best qualified applicatnts to universities if they are white or Asian.  THEY are doing that discrimination.  This is discrimination that needs to end and with MAGA should end.   God grief .   And as I said I've skipped over a lot of enormities to arrive at this one, but I'm going to try to et ack through this evil sludge ventually.

Again skipping ove many other enormities in her commentary I have to mention what she said about Trump's deals with Mexico and canada with the tarifs that were put on hold when each country offered troops to guard our mutual borders with them.  Trump thinks of himself as a deal maker, that's his business way of thinking that he usues to good effect in politics it seems to me.   I don't have a clear idea what the tarifs were supposed to acomplish except that apparently both Mexico and canada were taking advantage of us in some way or other with our trade agreements.  but it's also possible that what Trump really wantsed was their commitments to help protect the borders which is one his biggest campaign promises and high on his list to get accompolished as soon as possible.  With ten thousand troops coming from Maxico to help on the southern border, and ten thousand from Canada to help on the honorthern border he's making a lot of headway on the problem of illegal immigration and getting our neighbors infolved di is a big plus is seems to me.  But Richardson doesn't even mention the agreement to give their trroops to the border problem.  She just seems to enjoy making it sound like Trump has wrecked our relations with Maexico and canada.  Not so sure about that.  Bother off them moved very rapidly to offer troops when he slammed down on the tarifs.  SLooks to me like we're getting a better relatioship with each of them than we had.  

Back to the beginning for a vey brief comment I hope.  She's talking about how we supposedly don'[t have the voter fraud voter ID is intended to fix.  Well from what I've heard we have a lot of it, lots of illegal aliens being given voter registration.  Lots.  She says flatly not true.  Well, I say flatly sorry your're wrong.    She says that there is election fraud however, such as laws that make fraud easier and voter suppression and all that.  Here again what we have is a case of what the leftg has been doing imputed to the right by a leftist, standard tactic.   Laws were changed very rapidly to favor the left in a number of astates right before the election that Trump supposedly lost to Biden.   That subject is way too much for this little post but  let's just say there a ton of evidence of all kinds of fraud against Trump that isn't all that hard to track down.

So she's describing this voter ID bill and mentions that passports are one of the ways identifcation can be verified for the purpose.  And goes on about how hard it is to get a passport as if a passport were required which of course it is not.  All they say is that it can be used oif you happen to have one but like a good leftie she has to confuse things and imply something false as long as it will make the right look bad.  Then she says there is a big prolem for women whose names were changed upon marriage because you can't use a birth certificate which has our birth name and not your married name.  Well then add yoru marriage certificate.  But actually if your first name and middle name are the same and it's on your other forms of ID such as your driver's license that you are the age and have the birth date on the certificate, I doubt there is much of a problem but of course she'd like to come up with a problem if she can.  Well, if there is a problem I'm sure because I know Trump and Musk and all his team to be honest people who only want to do what's betst for the country, that they would be very happy to make whatever accommocatesion s can be made to make it all easier.    I think she just loves to make up problems though.  It's fun for lefties to make things up and truth is just not fun for them.

Again at the part of her talk where she is saying tht democracy is built onh equal access to resources, and this is jyust plain wrong.  I can see how you might be able to use the idea to merge into a communist mentality at some point, but for now she's making it a pillar of democracy for some reason and that it most ertainly is not.  What does it even mean.  her first example are about people monopolizing resources, having more access to resources than others do which she says threatens democracy.  No, there is nothing in our founding documents that even hints at such a thing as equal access to resources.  It's simply impossible.  there are many ways that some people will always rise above others in any form of government due to circumstances or different abilities.  You simply cannot form a govfverment on the idea of equality in those areaas because it is impossible.  People are different.  Those with a talent to earn great ewealth by kowing how to find and produce some resources are naturally going to have greater access that others don't have and it's ridiculous to think tht the Constitution or anyh law in the land could forbid such a thinkg.  Yes retstraints and regulation are are needsed to contain monopolies that put others at a disadvantage, that's always going to be the case in a fallen world, but that isn't going to change the basic differences between opportunities and abilities that is just polain natural to humanity.  You can't make a [laying field even on this particular ground.  Justice for sure ,, equal justice for all,  equal opportities for educatiohn and jobs and all that but it still is a matter of having to compete for some positioins.  Education should be available to all, sure, but not jobs.  Jobs are defined by parituclar skills and some people have them and others don't.    You simply cannot talk the way Richardson talks about these things.  She's wrong wrong awrong and she just goes on blitheley asserting it without any discussion of its realities, just assertion as usual.  Utter nonsense.  Pernicious nonsense.

We are promised a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and several enumerated freedoms, or speech, assembly, nd so on, we are not promised any sort of equality that depends on qualities that are different in each person.If you are talking about things like water, food , fuel and so on  the government is definitely supposed to provide for such needs, provide for the beneral welfare, make such things accessible in some general sort of way, but they can't promkise you steak if all you can afford is hamburger.  

I may have to take some of that back I realize.   Government can't promise us access to food, that's something the people themselves have to do.  I'm falling for some kind of big government idea here I think.  Oh well.  The govefnment is there to keep the paths open to what we need, maybe that's the way to say it.   

Then she goes on to claim that people on the Right are propagandists and bringing down the country as a result.  This is another case of imputing to the Right what is true of the Left.  They are the propagandists and she's certainly one of them.   Mostly badmouthing the Right as usual too, that's the biggest propaganda the Left does.  

That's certainly the case with the big fat false accusation of racism.  it's the Left, the Democrats, who have always been the racists, and the Right has been on the other side.  It was the Democrats who started the Civil war and defendied slavery.  it was the democrats who established the Jim Crow laws.  It was the Democrats who fought efforts at breaking up segregation and extending civil rights to blacks.  It was Republicans who put forward the civil rights law, not Democrats who in fact fought it, and were those who interfered with chidlren in the South being allowed to integrate in the schools.   republicnas have lsways held to Licoln's antislavery and anti racist policies.  

 Politics Chat: February 11, 2025 - YouTube