The complete quote by Sir Walter Scott (an Eighteenth Century Scottish author) is, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”.

Doesn't that quote sort of describe the present-day politicians who are now running our country? No matter what party you are affiliated with or support, you'll have to admit that deception (and obfuscation) are endemic as to how they operate in the pursuit of their political
goals.

It seems that all politicians are not in favor of excess government spending, but how come we have excess government spending? It seems that all politicians are against poverty and for the poor people, so why do we have more poverty and poor people today than in the past? It seems that all politicians are against excess taxation, but why do they continue to raise our taxes (at least the Democrats want to do that), especially against the the job-producing entrepreneur class, the “doer's not the takers”? Many politicians (mainly all Democrats) say they are in favor of border security, but why are they against the wall that would cut down on illegal immigration, human trafficking, and drug smuggling? Most all the politicians seem to be against all the excesses of government, but we seem to have more excesses than ever before. Is that the “tangled web” Sir Walter Scott was referring to?

In this, one of the best stock market and economy in years, we have a group of politicians ( mostly liberal Democrats) who are continually bad-mouthing the economy and its present architect, President Donald Trump. What could be up is down (food stamps usage, unemployment rates (especially black and Hispanic), and poverty is the lowest in years. And, what could be down is up (wages, the stock market, consumer confidence etc.), yet all you hear from the Democrats and the “fake news” media is nothing but “doom and gloom”. It's like they are living in a fantasy world all their own.

Compare these results with the mediocre economic results of the Obama years, where we never averaged more than a 2% GDP in any of his 8 years. Today our GDP is averaging around 3% and 3.5%. Doesn't that demand some praise, especially for President Donald Trump?

Look at the most recent election where the Democrats wrested control of the House of Representatives from the Republicans. Most all their candidates, with a few “socialist” oriented candidate exceptions, ran a campaign that was basically moderate in tone (many distancing themselves from Nancy Pelosi and the extreme leftward tilt of the established Democrat Party). So now after the election, these “moderates” fell into line and backed Pelosi for Speaker of the House and many have reverted back to bashing President Trump, 24/7. They
are claiming that they will have one investigation after another in order to possibly tarnish the president enough so that he will not run for re-election or that he will lose in 2020, if he runs, as a result of the constant negativity being heaped upon him by the Democrats and their cohorts in the main stream media. I wonder if this is what the voters who voted to turn the Congress over to the Democrats, really wanted? Many of these successful “moderates” won in districts in 2018 that was won by Trump in 2016, but in 2020 Trump will be heading the ticket so many of them might just get the boot for their anti-Trump rhetoric and actions.

Do we really need anymore verification as to what Sir Walter Scott opined in the Eighteenth Century when he said, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”? I think that many of today's elected politicians will find out that the electorate has finally figured out that they have been deceived by the people they elected to represent them, and come the next election they will meet the same fate as the candidates they beat in the last election due to this “tangled web of deception”.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Upon reading that headline you might say, of course, it was the "evil" wicked "whites" that owned the slaves and became rich on the backs of the black workers they owned. But, not so fast, all the slave owners during our history were not all white, there were over 3,775 free black people who owned 12,740 black slaves. Should the ancestors of those black slave owners be part of the proposed reparations reimbursement?

Here are some facts the "reparations" promoters never tell you. The first legal slave owner in American history was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson. He was descended from West Africa where most of the slaves originally came from. The "white" slave traders didn't go to West Africa and capture black people, they bought the slaves from other blacks who owned their own black slaves from other tribes. Should those relatives of black slave sellers be also a part of the reparations reimbursement?

In North Carolina, the largest slave holder in 1860 (right before the Civil War) was a black plantation owner named William Ellison. Another unknown fact is that American Indians owned thousands of black slaves. How ironic is that? In fact, during those pre-Civil War days, many black slaves were allowed to hold jobs, own businesses, and own real estate. These facts somehow never reached our history textbooks in our schools.

Even today, slavery exists in Africa and in some Muslim countries. As stated above, black on black slavery was common in Africa for thousands of years. And most slaves brought to America were purchased from black slave owners.

With those facts in mind and how this "reparations" discussion is being conducted, you think that the only "evil" people involved in slavery were white people, mainly in the South. It is estimated that only 1 in 5 people in the South owned slaves (20% of the population). So, that charge that only white people participated in the business of slavery is absurd.

No one in their right mind would condone slavery, regardless who is being enslaved, whether black, yellow, red, or white. By the way, the word "slave" comes from the Slavic people from Europe who were enslaved by the Muslim hordes, who overran their countries in years past. The Muslims have a long history of capturing and using slaves in their culture, and still do today.

Today, the reparations movement is being mainly pushed by militant black groups and by certain members of the Congressional Black Caucus (including some Democrat candidates for president). It seems that their major interest in reparations is political and not really financial, as they know that most people are not in favor of it and that the whole discussion is ridiculous as slavery was abolished over 156 years ago. Their major goal is to shame the white Americans into thinking that slavery was all their ancestors fault and that reparations would be justification for giving money for descendants of slaves. Over the years we have given the black
community a form or reparations, it was called "affirmative action".

So in answer to our headline, the answer is "NO", reparations is not required to assuage the "white guilt" the promoters of reparations are falsely using to promote this unrealistic idea. The one positive thing of the wrongful practice of slavery is that the descendants of slavery now live in the greatest free country in the world where black people can become anything they want to be, including president of the United States, and not be in one of those oppressive countries from which their ancestors were sold into slavery. God bless America!

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

P.S.- Check on the facts presented here by Googling up "Blacks Who Owned Slaves Prior to the Civil War"

​The push is on by the Democrat Party to have the government mandate a $15 per hour minimum wage. If there ever was a job killer proposed by our feckless politicians, this would be right at the top.

Everyone wants to make as much money as possible working at a job, but it should be determined by the free market not by a government mandate. Remember, a worker really does not get paid by the hour, he/she gets paid for the value they bring to the hour. If an employer wants to pay $10, $15, $20 or more per hour to their employees, fine, but it should not be dictated by the government it should be determined by the employer as to what he can afford and what he/she needs to attract new employees. The free market shall determine what an employer needs to pay.

This proposed increase in the minimum wage really hurts the people the promoters of the mandated minimum wage are trying to help. The minimum wage is not supposed to be a wage that will sustain a family. It is a wage used as a stepping stone for unskilled, inexperienced workers starting out in their working career. It also is geared for the senior citizens who are looking to supplement their retirement income. Most workers, who today work for the minimum wage, are teenagers starting out their working careers. Most find employment in fast food restaurants, service companies and clerks in retail stores. If the employer is forced to pay someone more than what the job is worth to the employer, then the employer most likely will not hire a worker, he may lay off workers, he may cut the hours worked by the employees, he may have to raise his prices to meet the added cost of doing business, or he may just have to go out of business, thereby creating more unemployment, especially among the young people needing to get experience by working at a job.

It seems that most all the Democrats missed that class in Economics 101 in school because of the damaging consequences of pushing to pass a $15 government mandated minimum wage. Is that showing empathy to the low skilled, inexperienced worker who will be unable to get a job and who will join the rolls of the unemployed? Many of the teenagers who cannot find a job are prone to get involved anti-social behavior or possibly turn to crime as a result.

One of the consequences of raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour for a beginner worker, is that the worker now earning $15 per hour per hour will now want a raise to $20 per hour, and the worker making $20 per hour will now want $25 per hour, on up the line. It's like a case of tipping over standing dominoes in a row. Besides the pressure to increase the employers payroll, it will mean that he will have to pay more in Social Security taxes which is an additional cost of doing business. So it is not just the worker getting paid the new minimum wage, it affects all the employees now earning above the minimum wage, and of course, the employer who will be saddled with the extra cost of doing business.

In New York City with the minimum wage raised to $15 per hour, we have 4,000 restaurant workers laid off and a few restaurants who have since went out of business, and ironically, the bar/restaurant that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez worked, before she became a Congresswoman, has closed its doors as a result. The same thing has happened in Seattle, Washington after they raised their minimum wage. You could say that the old adage of “Those that don't remember the past are bound to repeat it” certainly applies in the case of a government mandated minimum wage.

So again I ask the question, “is it better to be employed at $8.00 per hour or unemployed at $15.00 per hour”? Only an ignorant politician would not agree with that obvious answer.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann