Apparently Kylie Jenner gave her one year old kid a diamond ring for Christmas. This has some people upset saying she could have used the money in a more responsible way. After all, what would a one year old want with a diamond.

What is it that causes people to think they should have a say in the way other people spend their money or make other personal choices? If you have enough time on your hands to try to live other people’s lives for them, maybe it’s time to get a life of your own.

The big question is why anyone cares what Jenner does in the first place.

If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were a member of a symphony orchestra playing  “The Star Spangled Banner”, she’d be running across the stage playing the Mickey Mouse Club theme song on the kazoo.

I was recently caused to think about how women might be insulted or irritated with regard to how their roles in society are perceived by men. The stirring point came with a female being questioned by a male about whether she would be the one to reposition a utility trailer as opposed to a male handling the task.

First, I think one must decide whether the female was being questioned as to her abilities. In such a case, assuming the female was capable of the task (and there is no reason to believe otherwise), there would be good reason for her to feel offended. Or, was this a case of the male reacting to what he perceived to be more common.

The ratio between male and female airline pilots, as far as I’m able to determine at this moment, is 19:1. If I was told by a female that she worked for an airline; and I asked her what her job was; would I be out-of-line being more surprised learning she was a pilot rather than a flight attendant? If so, I would be wrong in being surprised that a man is a kindergarten or preschool teacher, when over 97% are female? Surprise occurs with the uncommon.

Since the  1960s-1970’s feminist movement, women have taken on more and more jobs which had been historically held by males. This is not to say that females didn’t do so before, but it was less common. There was an upsurge in the late 60s when folks like Gloria Steinem discounted the value of women’s lives who chose the June Cleaver life (from the TV show “Leave it to Beaver”) of stay-at-home moms. This led to two income families and the marketplace took notice by raising prices to compensate. The traditional family and its values began an accelerated erosion at the same time. There are up-sides and down-sides to almost everything.

Certainly during world wars women assumed the jobs males traditionally performed as the men went off to war. But times change. Now, women fly fighter jets and go into combat as ground troops.  The homogenization of male and female roles can take some getting used to. It makes no sense to take offense at innocent comments made by those who simply aren’t keeping up with the times. One can take heart in the fact they are generally older men whose attitudes will die with them.

The New York Times’ article written by Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman, listed on the MSN homepage as: “Analysis: How Trump took over the GOP” and entitled “Fear and Loyalty: How Donald Trump Took Over the Republican Party”, dated 12/21/2019, questions how Donald Trump became leader of the Republican party. That question is clearly posed and a long list of personal and sinister forms of bullying on Trump’s part, as well as damage to Republican politicians who opposed Trump’s tactics and/or decisions are examined. Sadly, the article doesn’t answer its own question. The factual answer follows.

Trump was duly elected to the office of President. Presidents are the leaders of their parties. How sinister is that? I know. It isn’t.

What you see in Martin’s and Haberman’s article is the simple, but devious, sowing of bovine fertilizer to fertilize bovine fertilizer. Somewhat redundant, it seems an odd endeavor for anyone attempting to write something useful. Who knows? Maybe writing something useful wasn’t their goal. What could their goal have been?

PROLOGUE: The United States was never supposed to be a democracy. No such thing is mentioned in the Constitution. This country was designed to be a representative republic.

The difference between the two forms of government is profound. In a republic, a constitution is the law. The rights and freedoms recognized (not afforded) are unchangeable and inviolate. Note: The U.S. Constitution has a Bill of Rights, (Amendments to The Constitution) which, with the exception of administrative rules and one denial of a freedom, have recognized even more freedoms. The 18th Amendment, commonly known a Prohibition, denying citizens the right to the use of alcoholic beverages was passed, just to be struck down shortly thereafter.)

In a democracy, a constitution and the rights and freedoms afforded within are more of a guideline and are able to be changed, adjusted and denied according to the wishes of the majority in power at the time. This is mob rule. Note: Rowe vs. Wade gave women the right to terminate their pregnancies in violation of the “right to life”. This remains a point of contention among citizens. Generally, democratic laws attempt to deny personal freedoms in favor of group freedoms. This is problematic because the purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to protect individuals from groups infringing upon individuals’ rights.

It is the purpose of the Democrats’ agenda to change our nation from a republic to a democracy… and eventually into a communistic society.  In order to do this, votes must be taken which weaken and eventually destroy the U.S. Constitution as it was written.

The Democrats’ chosen demographics are of two categories. First, the poor and disabled and then, of course, the young. In order for liberals to secure votes on their policies, they promise financial relief through public charity provided via taxation. Both major parties agree that there are those who need assistance. Republicans favor private charities wherein the needy and disabled beneficiaries are grateful. Democrats prefer the aforementioned public charity in which all beneficiaries feel shortchanged.

Democrats policies of welfare introduced by F.D.R. have had the result of creating a multigenerational welfare culture in which families have become accustomed to living without the need to provide for themselves. The lack of the need to work has allowed free time to invest in criminal and gang activities to supplement their financial public entitlement incomes.

In many cases honor rises to the surface and people on welfare find the ambition to legally fend for themselves. As these folks succeed, they accumulate wealth and, lo and behold, decide they are entitled to what they’ve earned and want to keep it. That’s when they change political affiliations. Democrats don’t like this type of attrition. They think the desire to keep what one earns is “greed”.  Money earned should belong to everyone, or at least accessible by the state. To combat these problems, Democrats are required to continuously renew their supply of needy folks. We see this most prominently now in their proposed policies on illegal immigration, sanctuary cities and states and the use of tax dollars to reduce incomes of earners toward the advancement of non-earners.

The adage of “you can give a man a fish and he will feed himself for a day” ends there, in the minds of Liberals.

Republicans and other conservatives see the folly in these policies and recognize they fly in the face of basic human nature. The more success the liberals see in advancement of their agenda, the more the conservatives will and do push back. It has now reached the predictable point at which Americans have become more politically polarized than in any time other than the 1860s Civil War era.

What will happen next? It’ s easy to predict… the violent conflict which has already begun.

Lots of people hate Trump. On both sides of the political aisle, people find Trump to be rude, narcissistic, ineloquent and something of a bully. Washington politicians, of both major parties, are fearful he will upset the apple cart of power, corruption and malfeasance they enjoy with his “drain the swamp” policy.

Democrats have a much bigger concern specific to their agenda. Trump is attempting to destroy the momentum they’ve gained toward creating a citizenry reliant upon government to fulfill individual’s personal needs and responsibilities. This is the elephant in the room no one talks about; and it is the basis for the Liberals’ hatred of Trump.

UP NEXT: The Domocrats’ agenda and what to expect as they gain success.