Bernie Sanders on Trump: It's Sanders Who Shouldn't Be Believed

By Eddie Howell

Michael Walsh of Yahoo News reported on Bernie Sanders' remarks during a discussion at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C., on June 22.

Is Senator Bernie Sanders correct that President Donald Trump's “authoritarianism” is a threat to American democracy? Hardly. American democracy, in terms of people saying and doing what they like, voting as they like with honest results, and worshiping as they like, indeed the whole Bill of Rights appears to be in quite good shape. Of course the Tenth Amendment hasn't been respected by government in the last century, and more, with few exceptions. But Trump has had little influence on that.

Sanders obviously prefers the policies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to those of Donald Trump.

Sanders says no president has told as many “outrageous and blatant lies” as Trump. Really? It would take quite a few misstatements of fact to equal Obama's blatant lie, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period.” He used that one to sell a destructive health care power grab that a majority of Americans never wanted. Plenty of other lies came from Obama, enough to make Trump look like a faithful Boy Scout.

A few more of Obama's many lies, as listed by Western Journalism in an article by Derrick Hollenbeck, dated September 4, 2012, are the following:

Obama said there has never been a better friend of Israel in the White House, and also “In May 2011, Obama asked G8 member nations to fund the Arab Spring counties who are clearly on their way to planning an all-out attack on Israel.”

“Obama lied and said that there would not be public funding of abortions under Obamacare.” Further,

Remember Obama telling us there would be no earmarks in his 2009 stimulus package? He lied. The bill had over 9,000 earmarks in it; and of course, it failed to deliver even a small improvement for our economy.

And those are just in his first term.

Authoritarianism? When a president uses his legitimate authority, which is considerable, that is not authoritarianism. If you want examples of authoritarianism, consider Democrat presidents. Woodrow Wilson made it illegal to criticize the government or the World War I effort. Barack Obama legislated immigration policies contrary to statute, after previously stating, correctly, that he lacked the authority to do so. His pen and phone were used to usurp congressional authority, but Congress made no real attempt to stop him. They simply criticized him, and filed a few lawsuits.

Trump's efforts with executive orders are mostly aimed at undoing Obama's abuses and keeping his own campaign promises, within existing law, in the fields of immigration, regulations and others.

Largely by his own authoritarian policies, Obama had America set up to suffer his “third term” in the presidency of Hillary Clinton, had she been elected as expected. Fortunately, the election of Trump has, in my opinion, saved America from globalism and a calamitous collapse, at least temporarily.

Also, contrary to Mr. Sanders' statement, President Trump's statement that the “mainstream media” is “fake news,” not to be believed, is quite true in the realm of political news, especially in “reporting” on Donald Trump. It is blatantly obvious that much political “journalism” from the MSM these days is actually anti-Trump propaganda. Also,

[Sanders] said Trump’s outbursts at judges are not simply “temper tantrums” but a blatant disregard for the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution — attempts to delegitimize a coequal branch of government so it cannot constrain his power.

But the courts brought criticism upon themselves by playing politics and ignoring the president's constitutional power to limit immigration. If the president wanted to, he could legally stop any and all immigration, which has been done for long periods in previous years. If the president believes limiting immigration is necessary, he can do it, no matter what he might have said during his election campaign.

Sanders thinks Trump's criticism of judges is a danger to constitutional separation of powers, but Democrats have a poor record in that regard. Sanders thinks Trump is trying to “delegitimize a coequal branch of government.” But he's simply expressing reasonable opinions. And the courts have constrained his power, though not, in my opinion, legitimately. Meanwhile, Democrats and leftists are trying to delegitimize the Trump presidency, i.e., that of the Chief Executive of the coequal Executive Branch of government, which to Sanders is apparently OK.

Further, it must be noted that, while socialist Sanders complains of authoritarianism, socialism is the very acme of authoritarianism, which it has to be, in order to make its anti-freedom, paternalistic system work (for a while). Socialism leads to things like we see in Venezuela, as a relatively mild example. Lenin said, “The goal of socialism is communism.” Ludwig von Mises, libertarian economist said, “The goal of socialism is socialism.” It is not individual freedom or economic prosperity, and even if it were, socialists know no way of producing either.

Barack Obama: Traitor, Liar, Murderer, etc.

By Eddie Howell

 Andrew McCarthy discusses Obama's lawlessness and the seriousness of the danger of the Iran deal.

My comments:

The Iran nuclear deal negotiated (if you can call it that) by the Obama Administration is about the worst kind of international agreement ever made for our country. In short, the Iranian mullahs got everything they wanted and we got nothing. No real inspections, no assurances, nothing. All we got was Iranian officials saying “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” Obama pretends this is not harmful. The claim that the deal will prevent war is ridiculous on its face.

This is an agreement that gives aid and comfort to our sworn enemy, and is therefore an act of treason by Mr. Obama. Not only will Iran be able to proceed with their nuclear weapons development and conventional arms build up virtually unhindered (supposedly with the agreement of our “allies”), but Iran will also be generously provided with about $150 billion in released funds, which they can and will use to ramp up terrorist operations in areas where they are already very active, as well as new places. They will acquire long-range missiles capable of reaching the U.S. They already have missiles that can reach Israel. Ignoring their death threats is such an obviously ill-advised choice as to seem deliberately placing America and Israel in terrible danger.

It can hardly be otherwise than that Obama and his minions know that they have seriously harmed the national security interests of America and Israel. Apparently these interests are far different from their own. If this is not the case, then we have the most careless, inept, and stupid foreign policy negotiators in history.

Obama has often shown his disdain for America as we have known her. His “fundamental transformation” is an attempt to destroy the foundations of our nation and create a socialist society that soon ends up as a third world dictatorship. There must be resistance by states, citizens, and elected representative at all levels to the lawlessness and betrayal we are witnessing. Only Republicans, for all their weaknesses, timidity, and political laziness, represent any kind of political hope to halt this destruction. Hillary, like Obama, is an Alynskyite (only more dedicated) and Bernie Sanders not only wouldn't help, but would soon bring America to absolute bankruptcy through endless spending.

This kind of betrayal is in line with Obama's demonstrated character. He has no problem with the murders of babies in the womb. He promotes and champions abortion as do almost all Democrat politicians. He lies about practically every important issue that gets his attention. There is not enough space for this article to list all or even most of the ways Obama's policies and actions have done a grave disservice to the United States of America. From things as petty as punishing the Washington Redskins organization for their nickname, to encouraging the killing of thousands of birds with windmills, to the multi-billion-dollar boondoggle of Obamacare, to turning against Israel, and placing their and our lives in danger through deliberately America-weakening foreign policy and massively cutting the military, the Obama presidency is already disastrous, with the threat of much more destruction to come.

There must and will be resistance. We must pray that it will be enough.

Not Ready for Prime News Coverage? Gosnell’s Drug and Death Center

Obama’s beloved policy, abortion on demand, is getting some (but amazingly little up to now) bad press in the wake of the trial of Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, which a substantial percentage of Americans haven’t even yet heard of. If Dr. Gosnell’s lawyer is to be believed, Gosnell operated only a typical neighborhood clinic, and if you walk into an abortion clinic, abortion being the messy business that it is, you should expect to see blood on the walls, urine, etc. on the floor, fetal remains in the fridge, bodies of babies killed by “snipping” their spinal cords, and jars of severed fetal body parts in jars, not to mention heavily drugged women, many bleeding, some possibly dying. Gosnell’s alleged practice of using dirty instruments from one woman to the next, without cleaning, then, would seem to be a typical abortion-clinic matter. Gosnell claims that the prosecutors are trying to hold his clinic to a Mayo Clinic standard, when it is merely a neighborhood clinic. Of course, that’s because the prosecutors are, in his view, elitist and racist.

Here's one report by a Fox News affiliate (with added comments by the uploader of the video):

 

 

The charges and history of Gosnell’s gruesome but profitable butcher shop was surveyed in Fox News Channel's documentary “See No Evil,” hosted by Bret Baier, which details accounts of murders of viable babies by severing of their spinal cords, babies which exhibited the normal signs of being born alive, according to former Gosnell staffers. Some of those Gosnell employees pleaded guilty to murder and other charges. Based on Fox’s presentation and the Grand Jury report, it would appear that everything connected with the Gosnell establishment was tainted by murder, illegal abortions, illegal drug trafficking, filth, and generally, a horror show of blood.

If the Grand Jury report is to be believed, Gosnell is the worst mass killer or serial killer in American history. But he claims he is not guilty of anything illegal, just maybe a mistake here and there. It appears that in later times, Gosnell specialized in illegal late-term abortions (anesthesia optional at extra cost), which allegedly sometimes ended up in the murder of viable babies after their birth, and sometimes infection and death of the mother due to ill treatment in unsanitary conditions by unqualified staff members.

Not as bad as the crimes Gosnell is charged with, but, I believe, highly offensive and worthy of serious attention, are (1) the fact that Pennsylvania state authorities completely failed to investigate the clinic for decades, apparently due to political reasons, despite numerous complaints and lots of word-of-mouth evidence, patient deaths, etc., and (2) the mainstream media’s ridiculous lack of coverage, which, Fox reports, a poll found that people believe is mainly due to media bias. But of course, we don’t have media bias, right? It’s beyond bias, to the point of willful manipulation. What we have is a lapdog media that instead of “speaking truth to power,” instead distorts, neglects, and hides the truth on behalf of the powerful. Any way you look at it, it’s disgraceful. Of the major national news media outlets, it looks like only Fox News was willing to give the story anything like the coverage it warranted (see video below).

   

Like it or not, this episode is a serious test of America’s character, and highlights the political manipulation of law enforcement and media reporting. And it is a condemning indictment of public apathy and acquiescence to the unconscionable reality of the money-hungry, decency-be-damned death culture of the abortion industry. Gosnell’s shop is simply one of the most horrifying examples.

The Culture of Death Marches On: What’s Next?

Photo: Dreamstime.com

An article by Jonah Goldberg (“The Pro-life, Pro-Infanticide Consensus”)* at National Review Online alerted me to an article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics (“After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”) that claims that killing newborn babies, whatever their condition, can be justified, since newborns are “morally irrelevant” and “have no moral right to life.” He cites an article (“Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say”) in the Telegraph (U.K.) that quotes and links to the journal article. The so-called “ethicists” who wrote the article are Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

The journal article abstract reads as follows:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

The authors call this kind of murder “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide.”

They “show” the moral irrelevance of newborns mainly by stating it. You can read the article to see that they do not support it with any argument that would convince anyone other than the most hardened abortion advocates. Yet to get this kind of drivel out there in a supposedly respected journal opens the door to wider consideration by people of borderline morality.

Goldberg says, “Now, my hunch is that for the vast majority of the civilized — and, frankly, uncivilized — world, the only thing these authors have demonstrated is their own ‘moral irrelevance.’”

This kind of thing could find a ready audience among Nazi war criminals, but if it achieves any level of acceptance in the “civilized” world, it is a disturbing and frightening development. Yet in the culture of death preferred by leftists, it should be shocking even if not surprising. Most people would object to killing a puppy, let alone a newborn baby.

The “slippery slope” of abortion which Goldberg mentions, indeed leads to infanticide as anti-abortion advocates warned, and as liberals said it wouldn’t.

We are on that slippery slope, and the sliding is starting to accelerate. Infanticide is a fact of life in many hospitals today, generally passive, and with attempted justification by some terrible condition of the infant.  This paper recommends a further step by not considering the health of the infant.

It might be claimed that someone is harmed because she is prevented from becoming a person capable of appreciating her own being alive. Thus, for example, one might say that we would have been harmed if our mothers had chosen to have an abortion while they were pregnant with us or if they had killed us as soon as we were born. However, whereas you can benefit someone by bringing her into existence (if her life is worth living), it makes no sense to say that someone is harmed by being prevented from becoming an actual person. The reason is that, by virtue of our definition of the concept of ‘harm’ in the previous section, in order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm.

If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. So, if you ask one of us if we would have been harmed, had our parents decided to kill us when we were fetuses or newborns, our answer is ‘no’, because they would have harmed someone who does not exist (the ‘us’ whom you are asking the question), which means no one. And if no one is harmed, then no harm occurred.  [Emphasis added]

This so-called argument assumes that killing a newborn (or a fetus) does them no harm, nor does it do anyone else any harm. It is hard to imagine a more false argument. Fetuses and newborns definitely feel pain. They are harmed by their loss of life, as any murder victim would be. They are persons, like it or not. The parent who authorizes such a murder then incurs serious guilt which is not easily dealt with. All this, not to mention the horrifying spiritual consequences. But in one’s ivory-tower office, perhaps it’s easy to imagine oneself playing God.

Leftism in the West has become a secular religion, one that demands human sacrifices. Many millions of abortions, of which a very small percentage involved rape, incest, or life of the mother, have been performed, depriving the world of people we’ll never know.

Abortion is the cultural cancer eating away at civilization and spreading into other forms of death: “voluntary” euthanasia that soon progresses to murder, devaluation of little life that leads in due course to child abuse, sexualization of children and other evils. What next? “Ethicists” recommending cannibalism?

In ancient days, the Israelites had as neighbors some tribes that sacrificed their children by fire to the idol Molech. The Israelites were sternly warned to have nothing to do with those people, but some got involved with this evil practice.

Leftism involves the strong denunciation of Judeo-Christian morality, which we see happening increasingly in American society. As G. K. Chesterton pointed out, when people give up believing in God, they won’t simply believe in nothing; far worse, they’ll believe in anything.

If a newborn’s life (or a fetus’s) is so inconsequential that it may be destroyed at will, where is the boundary? Wherever it is, it is soon to fall if these “ethicists’” thinking is given acceptance. May God help us to restore sanity and order to our civilization.

* * *

*Goldberg notes that while pro-life and pro-infanticide views are polar opposites, they agree that killing a fetus is morally like killing a baby.

Related articles

• Oxford Academic Promotes Killing Newborn Babies (danellacampbell.wordpress.com)
• Legalize Infanticide? Another Reason To End Abortion (littlebytesnews.blogspot.com)
• In Other News: Ethicists' Babies are Surprisingly Well-Behaved (thecynicalchristian.blogspot.com)
• Medical Ethics and The Broken Window Fallacy (thepatriotperspective.wordpress.com)

America Doesn’t Want This. Obama Does.

“Americans do not want a trillion-dollar government takeover of health care stuffed with tax hikes, Medicare cuts and giveaways to Washington special interests. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.” – House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio) [1]

As days roll on and election time draws nearer, some Democrats are increasingly concerned about supporting President Barack Obama’s health care plan, and still hoping to be reelected. Several, like Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) are raising objections about federal spending for abortion. Leftist House members don’t like the Senate bill because it contains no public option.

Democratic House members from conservative districts are beginning to see the handwriting on the wall that signifies forced retirement for those who support Obamacare. Not only do most Americans reject the proposed legislation itself, they also reject the unethical manner in which it has reached its current stage, and the heavy-handed method proposed for enacting it, reconciliation. This is strictly a partisan bill affecting virtually all Americans and a very large chunk of our economy. There is no public consensus for this type of legislation.

Obama said, “At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law.” [2] (Emphasis added by me). To me this is a very telling remark. First, this bill creates, rather than solves, problems. Second, Obama is preparing us, it seems, for future failures if he can’t get this item passed. Obama’s leadership ability is not strong enough to get a lot of his agenda enacted, largely because he’s trying to lead in a direction people rightly don’t want to go.

He is trying to pass laws that the people of America don’t want. This message has been sent unmistakably. Obama doesn’t care.


Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) wrote the following:

Today you heard the President – who promised transparency – embrace the product of backroom deals and political payoffs. This from the same President who said previously – on numerous occasions – that health care reform shouldn’t be passed with just 51 votes.

The American people have made it abundantly clear they do not want a job-killing, one-size-fits-all, $2.3 trillion dollar, Washington takeover of our health care system. No matter how he tries to spin it, he can’t fool the American people.
– Sen. John Cornyn following the President’s health care speech [3]

Also, his priorities are much out of line with those of the American public. We want to see jobs created and the economy improved, rather than endless spending down this rathole and others. If he thinks that Obamacare will be good for the economy, he needs to hire better economists. Just about anyone with a nodding acquaintance with Economics 101 knows that massive new taxes won’t help, either with unemployment or the deficit. It’s hard for me to believe that Obama is interested in improving the economy. Socialism is the opposite of prosperity and freedom.

Further, the arrogance of this man is breathtaking. When he should have been corrected somewhat by the recent elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts, he has only stiffened his determination to not entertain any opposing views, except on minor points, or major points in a minor way (tort reform, for instance), none of which ameliorates the socialist oppressive nature of the “reform.”

The fate of the “health care reform” bill is still in doubt. The president surrounds himself with medical people in lab coats (their own this time?), but he’s probably not changing more than a very few minds. He appears to have learned little from his “bipartisan summit,” which should have taught him what the true shortcomings of this proposal are.

Whether any government officials will admit it or not, the whole area of retail health care is outside the government’s constitutional authority, except for narrow interstate commerce concerns. All other aspects belong to the states and to the people.

If the Administration succeeds in getting this bill passed, they will find resistance by the states. The states do not welcome the unfunded mandates (or even simply mandates) that go with it. If the “reform” does pass, I predict that in a few years, it will go the way of Prohibition. But it truly should never see the light of day.


[1] “Dem Dozen Threatens to Bail on Health Care Over Abortion Language,” Fox News.com, 03/04/2010. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/04/dems-wary-obamas-final-health-push/

[2] Ibid.

[3] Senator Cornyn’s newsletter email of 03/03/2010

Photo:  Official White House photo by Pete Souza, 03/03/2010. Found at WhiteHouse.gov.

Reasserting Conservative Principles

When I say “conservatives,” I mean fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and national defense conservatives, all of whom have traditionally allied with the GOP, and conservatism is best represented by people who belong to all three types of conservatism.

Conservatives generally are, and should be, pro-life. Millions of babies, including whites and minorities, have been put to death in the womb, and some after they were born. This is a horrendous moral evil, and is disastrous in many ways. It desensitizes people to the kind of concern we should have for human life, and especially little life. When the president has opposed legislation that would require medical help for babies born after a failed abortion, we have an abominable example before us.

But beyond the profound moral failure that is abortion, it is also a costly economic fact. The generations that were supposed to pay for social security and medicare, etc. are largely not there because of abortion. And who knows what great discoveries and accomplishments are missing because the ones who would have made them are gone because of abortion. And how many mothers have suffered from having abortions?
Isn’t it a denial of the “right to life” the Declaration of Independence asserts?

Conservatives stand for individual liberty. They are not willing to sacrifice their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to the great government (fascist, socialist) program of the left, which calls for renouncing self interest, cheerfully “volunteering” and “sacrificing” as the government may direct, and giving up rights that have been enjoyed for over two centuries in America.

These include (1) the right to be born once conceived, (2) the right to choose one’s own medical care and insurance, (3) the right to have the benefit of one’s earnings without confiscatory taxation, and (4) the right to choose not to support any labor union, political party, “community organizer” group or other group outside the proper realm of government. Also, (5) the right to speak, publish, broadcast, or otherwise promote one’s own point of view, political or otherwise and to read, view, and hear whatever one desires, without any government interference or harassment.

And (6) the right to believe and practice religion or not, as one’s conscience dictates, and one’s preferences and convictions guide, while respecting the same rights of others. The (7) right of self defense, and the individual right to keep and bear arms must also be maintained and protected. And all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, literally and definitely, not interpreted away by some collectivist authority. Conservatives insist upon, and are willing to defend these rights, confronting as necessary any who threaten them. These rights are not granted by government, but by God, and are not to be infringed.

As part of our liberty and constitutional rights, conservatives support free markets. We all know that free markets cannot mean perfect competition in many industries, but real competition and economic activity free from government control is the ideal. Government has the task of preventing and dealing with crime and abuse, and maintaining an environment which promotes free competition and trade. Government is not to take over or operate businesses in competition with the private sector.

Government ought to promote commerce and free trade by minimizing taxes and regulation. The free market has been shown consistently and in numerous examples to be the best economic form for general prosperity and freedom. No other system this side of the pearly gates comes close.

As suggested above, conservatives support limited government. Over the last seventy years or so, especially since the establishment of the Federal Reserve, then the New Deal, Great Society, etc., government has abandoned its constitutional limitations in many areas. American Progressivism promoted the idea of an activist government taking to itself the privileges of overbearing control of many things previously off limits. This peaked with World War I, but the activists tried to extend these controls beyond the war years. Warren G. Harding was elected largely because he opposed this, and the people were weary of Woodrow Wilson’s dictatorial control.

Wilson succeeded in making it a federal crime to criticize the government or the war effort. Harding’s first official act was to pardon Eugene V. Debs, who had been jailed for opposing a wartime draft.

In wartime, the government, with some justification, has sought to limit some freedoms, but usually went overboard, as in price controls during World War II. Some said that these controls worked well, but they worked well when the controlled price was in fact near the market price. Otherwise, there were unnecessary shortages. The gasoline shortages of the 1970’s were caused primarily by government price controls.

Conservatives believe in low taxes and responsible spending. It was said by someone that Republicans lost popularity when they “didn’t do what God put them on earth to do, that is, cut taxes.”

The Reagan tax cuts and later Bush tax cuts demonstrated their value, encouraging the 25-year economic recovery and leading to record tax revenues. Liberals pretend they can’t connect lower taxes to higher revenues, but the link is undeniable. Low taxes encourage economic activity, leading to higher employment, and more people paying taxes. Opposition to high taxes has two aspects, (1) the right of earners to keep their earnings, except for a reasonable amount to support legitimate government functions, and (2) the demonstrated value to the economy. Everyone prospers more when taxes are low.
Liberals can’t stomach the idea of very wealthy people not paying extremely high taxes. But it’s not poor people who provide the jobs or take risks that move the economy.

If taxes get too high, people have a disincentive to invest and hire. People and businesses begin to close down or leave the country. Many people and businesses are leaving California these days due to overwhelming taxes and government control. Yet the state government seems unable to believe this. And they themselves are responsible, and also the people who keep electing the tax and spend officials. The United States, under Obama’s agenda, is heading down a very similar path. The difference is that the U.S. can print money and California can’t. But even the printing press can’t supply the need because it all has to be repaid somehow. Or not, if it isn’t possible. What happens then?

Conservatives support a strong national defense, knowing that all our rights and prosperity are subject to suppression if we can’t maintain our sovereignty and protect our people. “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!” Perhaps you have an opinion about the Obama Administration wanting to gut defense in terms of new weapon systems, and give up some missiles to hopefully impress Russia. And what about missile defense?
I would much rather spend on military systems and war costs than socialized medicine.

I believe most Americans support these conservative principles to a significant degree. To defeat the leftists in elections, the ideas of conservatism must be articulated, and there must not be a presentation of a simply watered-down liberalism, i.e., “we can run this socialized leftist government better than the liberals can.” That’s the formula for assured defeat.

Conservative principles, if followed, would greatly improve our economy and restore trust in our government and financial system. Also, it would help us to at least appreciate what has made America a great nation.

The Obama Administration now owns this awful economy. The President’s popularity is sagging. That’s why he wants to rush through his health care and cap and trade plans, allowing no time for scrutiny or debate. Again, we’re likely to see thousand-plus-page bills voted on without having been read (and maybe not even made available), much less posted on the web for the public to see. That’s the game plan. Will they succeed? If so, much more is on the way, and these two things alone are enough to sink our economy for years to come. But they’ll get even with those rich people.