Double dose of irony

I POSTED A piece on June 20, Drowning in Irony, about the anger many Mexicans feel due to people from south of their border invading Mexico without permission, which is to say illegal aliens from (mostly) Central America.

The irony, of course, is that Mexicans feel they have every right to sneak into the United States illegally, but when other people from even farther south sneak into Mexico illegally, well, that’s another matter altogether.

This is irony involving Mexicans.

And now we have irony involving people who embrace Political Correctness, specifically England where PC maintains a steel grip these days. The British government enforces diversity, inclusion, tolerance and all that hooey on a daily basis. If you don’t toe the line, a prison term is a real possibility. Just ask Tommy Robinson.

Birmingham, England’s “second city,” is infested with Mohammedans due to England’s Politically Correct, open-arms approach to immigration, which Mohammedans have taken advantage of to a monumental degree. The cash benefits are great!

“Inclusion” is, of course, integral to Political Correctness. So we now have this school in Birmingham that is dead set on forcing a LGBT curriculum on pre–schoolers.* You can imagine how that sits with Mohammedans, none of whom embrace “inclusion.”

Especially with homosexuals whom they prefer to murder.

This is our second dose of irony. 

Many of Birmingham’s large Mohammedan population do not even speak English, and their womenfolk walk about covered in black sheets. Assimilation? Ha!

The woman doing the interview in the video is Katie Hopkins, an English, conservative, incendiary whom you either love or hate. I love her. Not normally a fan of Mohammedans, Katie keeps her cool here and makes excellent points.

When more loony leftist irony comes to my attention, count on me to post it here. Their core, fatal problem is they don’t understand human nature.

* * * *

* The mind reels, does it not?

Muslim beach bunny

Somewhere beyond absurd.

SCARCELY A DAY passes in which I fail to see a cringe-worthy photograph depicting the abysmal condition of women in the Mohammedan world.

This one, however, contains an extra poignancy.

When I saw the photo, my first reaction was that it must be a beached whale in Zihuatanejo. But it’s not.

It’s a Mohammedan woman or girl. Who can know her age, appearance, anything about her?

The poor creature is trying to enjoy a day at the beach.

The sheeting of women is not in the Koran. It’s a tradition begun later by sand-leaping, scimitar-swinging, bloodletting, towel-headed, camel jockeys who just want to keep their womenfolk to themselves, in their place.

Simple as that. Possessions of the highest order.

It’s no surprise that where actual slavery still exists in today’s world, it’s often in Mohammedan zones.

Mohammedan men’s attitude toward women make the most macho of swaggering, tequila-swilling Mexicans seem tailor-made for banner-wavers in a Gay Pride Parade.

* * * *

IRONY AND HYPOCRISY

And yet in the United States, dimwitted university students and nincompoop faculty stand ready to support Mohammedan cultures while mouthing anti-Semitism that would make Heinrich Himmler puff up with pride.

And 99 percent of them vote for the Democrat Party.

These are the same vacuous people who advocate freedom of choice and claim all cultures are of equal value.

Anyone who truly believes in women’s rights, freedom of choice and equality has to be a cheerleader for Israel, the sole Mideast nation that embraces democracy and religious freedom.

And then there’s the U.S. presidential race with a cackling crook in designer tents facing an arrogant tycoon* with a comb-over who can’t keep his hoof out of his mouth.

I weep for the future.

* * * *

* No matter. I’m still voting for the arrogant tycoon over the cackling crook. Ugly choices must be made. Meanwhile, I continue to mourn for Ted Cruz’s candidacy.

Transfer of wealth

TRANSFER OF WEALTH is the new hot term, popularized by the Left to explain why everyone is not prospering.

New ImageI am curious. Who is doing this “transfer”? Is it some individual, some cabal, who?

But it’s a great-sounding phrase that purports to explain why some people are more successful — sometimes flagrantly so — than others.

Wealthy people are rich because they stole money from the poor, or some pals “transferred” it to them.

First off, this notion is based on the false premise that a set amount of wealth exists, the “zero-sum” concept. If A gets richer, then B obviously grows poorer in the process.

This can be true. If Joe, with a NRA-approved Glock G21, pulls Moe into a dark alley and steals his wallet, then Joe has grown richer by transferring money from Moe.

But this is not how successful people get wealthy most of the time. Usually they do it because they are ambitious, intelligent, shrewd, patient, focused — and often lucky.

Poor people are usually poor because they lack one or more or all of those characteristics. Sometimes they are drunks and drug fiends too, none of which creates a good life.

Plus, do not discount just plain laziness.

(Note: I am referring to the Developed World, the traditional Land of Opportunity and Liberty. Other factors come into play in the Underdeveloped World.)

Okay, so you cannot name an individual or cabal that is doing this “transferring of wealth.” But that leaves one alternative, and it is the biggest wealth redistributor on the planet:

Government.

Democratic governments generally transfer wealth from the rich to the poor because there are more poor people, and they can vote. It is self-serving. Think Obama.

Non-democratic governments transfer wealth from the poor to the rich, which is to say the ne’er-do-wells grasping the reins of government. Think Somoza, Duvalier, Stroessner, etc.

People who decry “wealth transfer” these days ironically favor more government. They support guys like the old, wild-haired, irrational, openly socialist Bernie Sanders who wants up to a 90 percent tax rate on successful people.

Taxation is wealth transfer.

Since successful people are major job creators, taxing them into the soil is counterproductive. It slows economies and makes poor people even more poor. It is egregiously stupid.

People who support more government “transfer” of money are usually good-hearted folks. They mean well but are Utopians, out of touch with the reality of our flawed world.

If Americans are struggling financially these days — and many are — it’s due to bad government policies. It is no mysterious individual or group that’s “transferring” wealth.

So the Left actually supports “wealth transfer.” It just wants the transfer done according to its own rules. It wants to rob the successful to prop up the less-successful. It’s just “nice.”

The hard left of communism always fails (see Cuba, the Soviet Union, etc.) and the more moderate left of socialism, a softer touch, (see much of Europe) results in slogging economies.

Government can be good, but it must also be smart.

Wealth transfer belongs in the open marketplace where it’s a positive force. It’s called Capitalism.

Liberty and free markets make the best world, the best life for the most people. Sure, some will remain poor.

There’s no cure for that.

* * * *

(Note: The Left uses the term “transfer” because, to them, it is better than voicing the bald truth. Some people are far more successful at earning money than others. But this inequality of outcome doesn’t seem nice or “fair” to them.)

(Tip of the sombrero to Laurie La Gringa , who embraces “the Bern,” inspired this post.)

Who’s got diversity?

diversity
Republican hand prints.

WELL, AIN’T THIS a first-class hoot?

I’m talking about the declared presidential candidates. The Democrats have the old, white, filthy-rich One-Percenter, dinosaur Hillary Clinton and the socialist Bernie Sanders, an old white guy.

The Republicans, so far, have two Latinos (Cruz and Rubio), an actual black guy (Carson), a young, white guy (Paul) and a woman (Carley Fiorina). The GOP is the party of diversity.

The Democrats are so yesterday.

Oh, the irony.