Hear Democrats Under oath or not at all

Jedediah Tucker Ward: It’s not hypothetical to Dr. Pavel, he wrote it

Michael Grazier: So he says.

Jedediah Tucker Ward: So he says under oath

Class Action 1991

PM James Hacker: (On Phone): No, no, leave me out of it. A routine visit. (Listening) All right – a routine surprise visit. (Listening) Well, say they were invited earlier, but the NATO exercise got in the way. Now they’re not needed, they’re going anyway. (Listening) All right. Nobody knows it’s not true. Press statements aren’t delivered under oath.

Yes Prime Minister A Victory for Democracy 1986

One of the principles of Capitalism is the cost benefit analysis ie: Does the cost of a particular action or decision produce a sufficient benefit to make it worthwhile. It’s risk vs reward. It’s a principle that is older than the word “capitalism” itself

Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion?  Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him and say, ‘This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.’

Or what king marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king advancing upon him with twenty thousand troops?  But if not, while he is still far away, he will send a delegation to ask for peace terms.

Luke 14:28 -32

The revelations from the now declassified documents have taught us one thing about our Democrat friends. That while they might be big fans of socialism and even bigger fans of Feudalism (with them in the role of the Lords of the manor) when it comes to the whole “Trump conspired with Russia” business they are strictly capitalists fully in the cost benefit analysis business.

When there was the prospect of being featured on national news programs, thus increasing speaking fees, book sales or their prospects of profitable employment in various Democrat/Liberal institutions they were all in confidently declaring that there was plenty of evidence of the Trump administration colluding with Russia, that General Flynn was corrupt, and that the Obama Administration had no knowledge of FBI investigations into Flynn or Trump

But once it was a question of being under oath with the full penalty of law for perjury applicable, suddenly the story was very different. Like good capitalists they weighted the cost of lying under oath and told the truth instead

Of course since this testimony was classified and was not coming out except as leaks if at all, this did not affect the public statements given to the press or on cable networks. They figured the benefit of their lies outweighed the risk

And then, these documents were declassified.

Suddenly we discovered that these statements that the professional left were making were suddenly not the ones they were saying under oath or saying in classified meetings.

So what lesson should we take from this? What is our cost benefit capitalistic call? It’s this:

Unless a Democrat is under oath anything they say concerning Trump, or Flynn or anything else should be taken with a grain of salt.

Leave a Reply