Leftist Terrorism in New Zealand

35 Views

We can learn a lot from the terrorist attack that took place in New Zealand recently. The first and most important is that so-called White Nationalists or White Supremacists are Left-wing on the political spectrum.

The very fact that this Leftist states in his manifesto that he favors the Communist government of China is a beacon of this truth. It proves this without a doubt or even looking into it further. The only way to enforce the his ideology of racial superiority is to use governmental control. The loss of Liberty. These are all hallmarks of Leftist governments, be they socialist, communist, oligarchy, or a monarchy.

Additionally, this lunitic is no Conservative in the arena of politics. As the conservative movement is a Right-wing one on the political spectrum and we have already shown him to be a Leftist.

This man is also not Christian. No Christian would commit such an act. Muslims need the saving Grace of Christ Jesus, like all of mankind. Not to be executed before they can have a chance to hear the Good News, turn from sin and believe.

There is a time and place for a Christian to pick up the sword. But this is not it. This act was evil. And he should hang for it.

We should also talk about race, this was a motivating factor in his attack. There is no such thing. We are all one race. Human. This has been proven by the Science of Genetics. Let’s drop this notion of white race, black race, Asian, Hispanic, and “native” American. These are all falsehoods and lies as a racial designation.

The last thing to learn here is that a foreign national did this attack specifically to influence American politics, policy, and public opinion. This is not collusion but it is certainly an attempt to promote Leftist ideology in the United States. Something we must stamp out with all of our energies.

I’m back and a shout-out to Thomas

42 Views

I haven’t posted anything in a while. Not because there wasn’t anything to post about, as there is always something. But due to some personal reasons.

The death and memorial of a friend who passed away from a sudden illness.

The 2nd anniversary of my dad’s passing which also lands on my birthday.

And the Celebration of Life for my step-mom passed away suddenly last November.

All these things and others have contributed to my lack of writing. But I should be writing more in the future and I just wanted to give a shout-out to my friend Thomas.

His wit, humor, and writing has filled in the gaps that I missed during my absence. Thank you Thomas.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

32 Views

From the geniuses who gave us the Green New Deal comes a new proposal that is promised to save our democracy. (Even though we’re a constitutional republic and we don’t need it saved by people who can’t even get that basic fact right, but let’s move on.) The For the People Act of 2019 recently passed the House of Representatives and seeks to tackle a number of important election-related issues, like partisan gerrymandering, big and dark money in politics, expanding voters’ rights, and so on. On the surface, it sounds innocuous enough. I mean, the fact it’s for the people is literally in the name of the bill! How could something like that be bad?

Yep. That’s right, kids. I’m going to be the Leftist Buzzkill yet again with some analysis, a few jokes peppered in, and some thought experiments along the way. So, buckle up, Buttercup. This roller coaster car is on its way!

For the People Act of 2019

What the Left thinks it means – a vital bill that addresses many of the issues people have had with voting over the past several years

What it really means – a laundry list of Leftist squawking points as to why they keep losing elections and how they can ensure never to lose elections ever again

I won’t get too far into the weeds by going over the entire bill, but there are a few highlights that Leftists think are winning points.

– expanding voting rights to allow felons to vote
– requiring Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates to provide their previous decade’s worth of tax returns (Gee, I wonder why this provision is in here…)
– creating a national voter registration program
– creating non-partisan commissions to handle redistricting, thus taking it out of the hands of the states
– making Election Day a national holiday to encourage more voter participation
– eliminating dark money from elections
– supporting a Constitutional amendment overturning the Citizens United ruling by the US Supreme Court
– every day is Christmas, and every night is New Year’s Eve

Okay, so I made up that last one (with a little help from Sade), but you get the point. Although the ideas sound good, there is an alternate agenda at work here. Instead of making elections better for America, these ideas make elections better for Leftists.

Take the Citizens United piece of the bill, for example. Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, dark money was flowing into Democrat coffers through various means, including labor unions, and Republicans didn’t have an answer (mainly because they were following the laws on the books). Citizens United leveled the playing field, so the Right’s counterparts to labor unions could act in the same way labor unions did for decades. Supporting a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United would return the playing field back to when Leftists had the upper hand. Not to mention, it might not even be Constitutional. Usually, if you want to unravel a Supreme Court decision, it requires…a Supreme Court decision. (See Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education for just such an example.) But, hey, if the Left wants to try to have Congress usurp the power of the judicial branch, I say go for it. Just be prepared to lose heavily in the branch you wish to usurp.

And it’s not just the Citizens United part that helps the Left. From what I’ve seen, each and every portion of the For the People Act can be used to make our elections as fair and honest as the elections in the former Soviet Union, where the only candidates allowed to run were from the same party. Expanding voter rights to felons would give Leftists access to people who may already be dispositioned to vote for Democrats and Leftists (considering the latter is particularly anti-police). A national voter registration push would create an environment where voter registration fraud could thrive. Of course, that never happens, especially not with…say…a Leftist organization busted several times for falsifying voter registrations in several states. ACORN’t imagine that happening again…

Even the concept of a non-partisan council to draw Congressional districts has the potential for abuse.

The question this raises is why the Left is so concerned with our elections now. Two words: juggling monkeys. Actually, the two words are Donald Trump. He wasn’t supposed to win. Hillary Clinton and the Left had greased the skids so she could ascend to her final destination as President. However, they overlooked one pretty big thing: she sucked as a candidate. And since Leftists take defeat as well as a spoiled brat not getting the toy he or she wanted, they had to blame something and/or someone. And since collusion with Russia is turning out to be a Morgana the Kissing Bandit sized bust, they are blaming the American election system.

Which, by the way, includes those of us who vote. Way to piss off potential voters, Leftists.

Since they couldn’t win the White House through underhanded chicanery, the Left is going to try to do it through overt chicanery. Which is why I don’t give the For the People Act much credibility. It’s too convenient for Congressional Democrats to find so many problems with the American election system that need to be addressed immediately. But keep in mind, the same people pushing for this bill to become a law weren’t worried about the process when they won.

Here’s the thing, kids. The American election system still works for the most part, but it has been undermined repeatedly for decades, mostly by the politicians who support the For the People Act. These same people won’t even consider voter ID and curtailing the use of mail-in ballots, but will bend over backwards to ensure more people get registered, even if they shouldn’t legally vote in the first place. And they’re also the ones who deny voting fraud is occurring, even when evidence to the contrary is presented.

Until the Left shows they are serious about addressing the real issues surrounding our elections, we should take their suggestions with a salt lick of salt. Given the fact they think the For the People Act of 2019 is a serious solution, I’m not holding my breath.

In Defense of Mike Pence

48 Views

Recently, Democrat Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris made comments about Vice-President Mike Pence and his rule about not dining alone with a woman. From a Tweet by national DNC mouthpiece…I mean NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell:

@KamalaHarris on Pence: I disagree when he suggests it’s not possible to have meetings with women alone by himself. I think that’s ridiculous idea that you would deny a professional woman the opportunity to have a meeting with the VP is outrageous. #AMR

Given how Senator Harris is rumored to have risen in the ranks of Democrat politicians in California, I’m not sure I would make too many references to professional women, if you know what I mean. And if you don’t know what I mean, be glad you don’t.

My issue with Senator Harris’ comments isn’t about her background, but rather about how she distorted what Pence’s stated policy actually is. According to The Hill and as repeated in Vanity Fair, Pence doesn’t dine alone with a woman who isn’t his wife and he won’t attend events with alcohol if she isn’t present. This has been extended (though not verified to my knowledge) to mean if anyone needs to stay late with him at the office, it has to be a male aide.

And Leftists, being the serious-minded and mature people they are, have mocked Pence for this. Some say he’s old-fashioned and religiously fanatical. Others say he’s a sexual predator who can’t be trusted. Others have gone so far as to say it means he’s a closeted gay man. And all of them agree his behavior proves he can’t be trusted as Vice-President.

I disagree. If anything, it shows why Leftists can’t be trusted with pointy scissors, let alone the Vice Presidency.

Harris’ claim suggests Pence is sexist because he won’t meet with women alone. That’s a gross distortion of what he actually said, and it’s done to set up a straw man for Senator Harris to knock down with ease. There is a vast difference between not dining alone with a woman and not conducting meetings alone with women. Granted, some business can be conducted over dinner, but to conflate the two is dishonest at best. If we look at the breadth of Pence’s career in office, does he show sexist behavior?

Nope.

Oh, sure, the Left says he’s anti-woman because of what they say his religious beliefs are, but that doesn’t pan out once you take a look at what he’s done. Pence has consistently treated women with respect and honor, even when they haven’t extended him the same courtesy. (I’m looking right at you, Ellen Page.) I think it’s this respect for women and how easily they can be perceived negatively by being seen alone with a powerful man that drives his thinking more than any religious doctrine.

I will admit, however, I can’t discount his faith being part of the equation. By all accounts, Pence is a devout Christian. A little more personally restrictive for my tastes, but that’s his interpretation of the Bible and I accept that. Judging from the lack of sex scandals (or any scandals for that matter) connected to Pence, I’d say he’s living right.

And rent-free in Leftists’ heads, apparently.

The thing that sticks in their craws the most is the fact Pence really can’t be slimed the way they’ve been able to do it with other Republican leaders in the past. His personal standards keep him out of the fray, so the mud being slung just doesn’t stick to him. When dirty secrets don’t work, the Left comes up with even dirtier lies, like the one Senator Harris pushed. And that, boys and girls, shows you why Pence comes out ahead against Leftists like Harris.

If anything, Pence’s personal code is a good one to follow for men and women alike. Pence says he does it to “avoid misunderstandings,” and I agree. It also prevents him from being caught up in today’s ever-changing sexual landscape, muddied by guess who…Leftists. We have women marching in the streets to “reclaim” a derogatory term for a woman and march in next to nothing while complaining about being overly sexualized and supporting a practice that kills a significant number of female babies resulting from sexual activity, and all while calling on Leftist legislators to support said right using the slogan “Keep Your Laws Out of Our”… well, you know. And on the male side, we have the idea all men are potential rapists who can’t control our urges for even one microsecond when a woman is present, unless these same men reject what is perceived to be “the Patriarchy” and do whatever women want in the vain hope a woman will see them as potential mates.

If you think that’s confusing, don’t get me started on intersectionality, folks.

To give you the Reader’s Digest condensed version, gender relations in America today are more messed up than a 200 car accident on the 405. When men and women aren’t actively hating each other for, well, acting like men and women, they have to navigate a complex series of Choose Your Own Adventure type scenarios where there is only one right answer, you don’t get to cheat by skipping ahead, and nobody tells you what the right answer is. And then when we get someone like Mike Pence who has a simple, yet effective, way of dealing with the matter (i.e. not to even appear to be playing the game), he gets mocked, attacked, and slandered by people who can’t be bothered to learn the truth.

I think Vice-President Pence is capable enough of defending himself (or at least knowing people he can count on to defend him), so my lone voice may not matter much in the grand scheme of things. Even so, with Kamala Harris’ dirty swipe at him, I felt the need to add my voice to the chorus of those defending a man whose worst sin is being too clean for politics.

Guest Opinion – “College Admission Sweepstakes” by Ari Kaufman

162 Views

A friend recently told me to discontinue sending her e-mails because her son is “preparing to apply to colleges” and would thus need his mother’s constant attention and assistance.

I was miffed, recalling that the boy just turned 16. I’m aware of crafty college coaches recruiting players in eighth grade but I was unsure why my friend needed to devote so much time to this oft-overhyped decision.

When I applied to college about 25 years ago, my mom was helpful, but there were no online applications and, therefore, no opportunities for incessant e-mails to the high school guidance counselor or university administrator.

Unlike the homes I’ve recently visited, my family’s dining room table wasn’t  littered with brochures from a dozen schools. There was no calendar planning when we’d go on the “East Coast trip,” (Maryland, Virginia) the “West coast sojourn” (UCLA, Stanford) nor the “Big Ten trip,” centered around football schedules for the likes of Michigan and Wisconsin.

And after my school of choice didn’t accept me, we didn’t call on an esteemed alumnus to write a persuasive letter to the dean, requesting further consideration and review of my extracurriculars. (Yes, I know several upper-middle class people who’ve done exactly that, and it usually worked.)

The class of 2019 will decide on college — or work, as many intrepidly eschew college’s high costs for vocational schools and quicker paychecks — in the next few weeks, and it’s an overplayed decision, which becomes less essential each year.

As we recently witnessed via the massive university admissions bribery scandal, the playing field isn’t legitimate either, and disingenuous influence comes in a variety of ways if you’re well connected. In fact, insecure parents often care more than the children.

For many parents, it’s a mad dash of planning frivolity, all for an indefinite result, long-term debt and what some deem an overpriced participation certificate (I say this as someone with a graduate degree and PhD wife.)

Especially within the humanities (full disclosure: I majored in political science, and my current job has nothing to do with my field of study), colleges are not about teaching skill sets nor preparing students for real world careers; they’re about credentialing, social connections and, yes, status. Credentialing occurs the minute you get accepted to the university, while social connections are created by one’s mere presence at university. Status is via your diploma and often more important for the parents to boast about with bumper stickers and school sweatshirts. Education itself? Usually secondary.

Actress Lori Laughlin’s daughter, Olivia Jade, may have come across vacuous in her YouTube video saying she didn’t care about school, but she was mostly correct; she doesn’t need to go to college. She’s wise to drop out! At age 18, she was already a more successful entrepreneur than any of USC’s faculty who’ll teach her. Blame the rich parents for their insecurity and wasting hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.

A few decades ago, it mattered a bit where you attended college, and more importantly, what you learned. Some employers likely cared, professors were more objective, grades weren’t inflated, and fewer people attended graduate school.

Thirty years ago, a majority of students could probably identify Iraq on a map, the name of Germany’s chancellor or what the First Amendment entails.

Not so much anymore. The facts, polls and anecdotal evidence don’t lie.

Recent grads I know were unaware of who Robert F. Kennedy was, what socialism is, and when the Gulf War occurred. There was an economics graduate from a top school who had never been introduced to Milton Friedman’s brilliant theories (I’m certain he knew Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s warped theories, though.)

So, since where one attends college is becoming immaterial, why all the stress?

Unlike 1959 or 1979, now that delaying one’s entry into the workforce is common via grad school, the institute producing your bachelors’ diploma is truly less imperative.

Yes, succeeding at certain schools in certain majors holds weight in certain fields, but that’s a very narrow area. It mostly depends upon where your future boss puts value. In the various jobs and careers I’ve had, no supervisor cared one iota about my grades or where I went to college. None. My work ethic, integrity, experience and production mattered more.

Parents need to realize this, relax, and relay this information to their offspring. But, in my experience, and this week proves it again, they don’t.

There are paid “educational consultants” in high-achiever enclaves for parents looking to pick the proper preschool. And the pressure to get into the “right” college is being felt by parents of children not yet in high school.

When I taught a group of soon-to-be ninth-graders many summers ago at the University of Vermont, one precocious student’s parents picked him up the final day and whisked him on a weekend tour of New England campuses.

I’m afraid to guess what that kid’s next few years were like.

 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2019/03/13/college-admissions-scandal-mad-raise-better-humans/3155698002/

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a26812285/william-singer-college-admissions-scandal/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lveMkZc-NRE&feature=youtu.be

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/lori-loughlins-kid-olivia-jade-said-she-didnt-really-care-about-school-in-vid-amid-college-scam-charges

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/revisiting-the-value-of-elite-colleges/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lveMkZc-NRE

https://pagesix.com/2019/03/14/lori-loughlins-daughters-drop-out-of-usc-after-admissions-scandal/?utm_campaign=iosapp

A California native, former school teacher and military historian, Ari Kaufman has worked as a journalist for various publications around the country since 2004. He lives with his wife in Minnesota.

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

46 Views

In the aftermath of the Jussie Smollett fraud…I mean hoax…I mean story, there has been a renewed focus on hate crimes, especially by those who said Smollett was the victim of one. One of the more prominent voices during the time Smollett was believed was actor Ellen Page, who is a lesbian. During an appearance on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” she blamed Vice-President Mike Pence for the attack because…fee-fees. After the hate crime was exposed as a hoax, Page penned a piece for The Hollywood Reporter trying to gloss over her assumptions and continue the narrative that hate crimes are more frequent than the f-bomb in rap lyrics.

Page introduced me to a phrase I hadn’t heard before: hate violence. Although she kinda sorta maybe says Smollett was dishonest, the fact it started a conversation about hate violence towards minorities was important. Sounds more like setting a building on fire to raise awareness about arson to me, but I’m a different breed of cat.

With that being said, let’s delve into the latest entry to the Leftist Lexicon

hate violence

What the Left thinks it means – violence driven by hatred of minorities

What it really means – another meaningless term invented by Leftists

Being a word guy, the term “hate violence” is unusual, if not outright bizarre. Regular violence can be bad enough, but to add a qualifier to it means it’s worse? What about indifferent violence? Is that a thing? How about melancholy violence or happy violence or verklempt violence? Though, to be fair, I’ve always wanted to name a band Happy Violence…

If you’ve noticed a similar pattern forming with the use of “hate” before a particularly negative element, that’s by design. Leftists love to play with language to trigger certain emotions. If they want to portray something positively, it’s couched in terms like “pro” as in “pro choice” or by using variations of the word “positive” as in “body positivity” or “sex positive.” If they want to make something sound horrible, the descriptors are negative, like calling pro-lifers “anti-choice” or Republicans “anti-science.” By framing issues and people like that, Leftists manipulate our perceptions to suit their ends. Really, who would want to be against something so useful like science, right?

Once you strip away the emotional element, what you have are words that really don’t belong together in a phrase. Like “uproarious vasectomy.” (By the way, Uproarious Vasectomy is another band name I’ve been considering.) It leads to too many questions that we really can’t answer. What makes hate violence worse than general violence? And how do we know it’s one instead of the other. Could an act of violence be mistaken for hate violence under certain circumstances? And, here’s the big one: can white people, specifically white men, be the victims of hate violence?

Ahhhhh…now we’re getting to the juicy part! Invariably, the Leftist ideas come down to race and gender because they’ve cornered the market on appealing to people on those bases. Although I’ll admit I don’t know for certain, I get the feeling white men aren’t going to be allowed to be victims of hate violence anytime soon unless they happen to be gay. Straight white men like your humble correspondent are always the perpetrators and never the victims in the Left’s eyes. In fact, straight white men have been blamed for everything from war to starvation to the designated hitter rule, so there is no way we can be the target of hate violence.

Except when we are.

Ask anybody wearing a red MAGA hat how much they’ve been targeted for harassment and violence. Or just watch footage of Antifa rioting against police officers and others. Look for the video of the masked Antifa bozo who hit a white man with a bike lock. Wasn’t it Maxine Waters who said people need to get in the faces of people wearing MAGA hats and tell them they’re not welcome? And, last time I checked, that sort of behavior can lead to violence. But, please, let us non-Leftists how white men aren’t victims.

And while we’re here, is it just me, or does the fact the Left can’t see white men as potential victims of hate violence to be unfair treatment under the law? That’s the way hate crime laws have worked for a while now. Accuse someone of a hate crime and the penalties get more severe, as do the consequences of the accusations themselves even if there was no hate crime committed. Even if the accused is innocent of hate crimes, his or her reputation takes a hit because there will always be people who will believe the hype instead of the truth.

Like…oh, I don’t know…Vice President Pence?

Crime is bad enough as it is, but to add more punishment on the basis of hate doesn’t make the situation any better. If anything, the guilty wear it like a badge of honor for their peers to admire. The same goes with violence. Why cloud the issue further by tacking hate in front of it? The violence itself is a crime, but like it or not hate isn’t yet. Deal with the actual violence and punish it accordingly.

And while we’re here, Ms. Page, I believe you owe Vice President Pence an apology for blaming him for violence he didn’t inspire because it never happened. Wouldn’t want you to be seen as hateful, right?

Omar’s shameful, anti-Semitic rhetoric deserves unequivocal condemnation

31 Views

Guest Opinion by Ari Kaufman

I’ve sadly lost count of the anti-Semitic smears coming from Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) since she took her U.S. congressional seat just two months ago. This bigotry deserves broad condemnation with punitive actions behind it.

Ironically, Omar was easily elected with the support of many Jewish voters in the most heavily-Jewish area of Minnesota. Despite past examples to the contrary, I am certain many in the 5th congressional District — where she received nearly 80% of the vote last November —  had hopes for her to be a unifying and effective politician. To say she’s failed on that matter during her first two months in Washington would be a massive understatement.During her campaign, Omar apparently assured local Jewish groups, including the Minnesota Jewish Community Relations Council, that her past egregious comments on Israel and Judaism wouldn’t be an issue or arise again; yet here we are, with another insult and anti-Semitic statement seemingly occurring every week.

As a Jew happily residing in the Land of 10,000 Lakes, I put America first and surely do not have “dual loyalty” to Israel and the USA — as Omar and others like freshman representative and fellow Muslim Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) have accused some —  nor does my wife, nor do my Jewish family members and friends.

In her initial half-hearted apology on Feb. 11, Omar, at the tender age of 37, said she’s “listening and learning,” yet she’s since quickly doubled and tripled down on anti-Semitic canards and other insidious rhetoric.

Unsurprisingly, the congresswoman also has her facts completely wrong on Israel, which undermines the USA’s long-standing support toward our chief and only true Middle East ally.

Criticizing American support for the only Jewish country in a region, surrounded by substantially-larger Muslim nations (Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, et al.) sworn to Israel’s literal destruction for generations, makes such criticism suspect.

Christians, Jews, Americans and freedom lovers everywhere support Israel, Ms. Omar, because the nation is rooted in Judeo-Christian values; offers free and fair elections; vast contributions to defense, technology, medicine and science; and perhaps most importantly, as a military ally and the lone democracy in a region of autocratic regimes, enemies of Israel hate the United States as well.

While I was initially pleased to see Democrat leadership finally introduce an anti-Semitism resolution earlier this week, now I am dismayed.
First, the “resolution” was delayed, then, due to blowback from the increasingly anti-Semitic progressive wing, it was tweaked into a clumsy, Kindergarten-level “anti-hate Bill” to “confront the reality of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism and other forms of bigotry” with Omar’s name not even mentioned; though it passed easily, the bill became too broad, lost its teeth and overall purpose. This is all fatuous, to put it mildly.
Meanwhile, far left Democrats, many in the Congressional Black Caucus, and much of the media, along with dozens of Twin Cities politicians and national Muslim groups, are now staging fundraising events in support of Omar’s bigotry.

An easy and necessary step would be the removal of the unapologetic Omar — who has never visited Israel yet supports the viciously anti-Semitic BDS movement — from the powerful Foreign Affairs Committee, where she currently sits. More than a dozen Jewish groups of various political stripes, including the venerable and left-leaning Anti-Defamation League, recently asked Speaker Pelosi to do this. She has not and undoubtedly will not. The speaker continues to kowtow to young, naive radicals in her party, especially those “of color”.

Conversely, when Rep. Steve King (R-IA) made controversial racial remarks in January, he immediately offered an apology, while the Republican Party swiftly removed him from all committee assignments, yet no action has been taken by Democrats against Omar. Why not? Ilhan Omar is the quintessential definition of an anti Semite.

On a local level, I also hope for further condemnation of this bigotry from Minnesota’s Democrat Sens. Amy Klobuchar, Tina Smith, the rest of the state’s congressional delegation, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. I surely don’t expect to hear from Omar’s congressional predecessor and current Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who has his own troubling history of anti-Semitic associations and invective.

So far there is simple silence, or unfathomable agreement with such hate from fellow radical leftists like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and the execrable Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT.), a leading 2020 Democrat presidential candidate.

Concurrence with anti-Semitic bigotry is not an option; turning the American Democrat Party into Jeremy Corbyn’s British Labour Party of Jewish hatred is not either, I’d hope. Continuous denouncements of vile, ignorant statements, however, are vital to our free republic.

**

https://www.weeklystandard.com/scott-w-johnson/the-anti-israel-seat

https://www.twincities.com/2019/03/01/ilhan-omar-went-on-a-fence-mending-tour-with-local-jews-then-she-offended-them-again/

https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-morning-briefing-omar-antisemitism-resolution-put-on-hold-and-much-much-more/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/03/06/ilhan-omars-comments-were-anti-semitic-rhetoric-says-adl-talker/3078821002/

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/anti-semitism/dont-believe-ilhan-omar/

https://pjmedia.com/trending/facing-lawsuit-rep-ilhan-omar-deletes-tweet-smearing-covington-catholic-boys/

A California native, and former school teacher and military historian, Ari Kaufman has worked as a journalist for various publications around the country since 2004. He lives with his wife in Minnesota.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

16 Views

When former Trump attorney and insider Michael Cohen appeared before the House Oversight Committee, people just knew sparks would fly. And fly they did, although not in some expected ways. One controversy that came from the circus…I mean hearing involved Lynne Patton, an official from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and a friend of Cohen’s who appeared at the clown show…I mean hearing. Patton, who just happens to be black, caught the attention of Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and used Patton’s appearance to accuse Congressman Mark Meadows of being racist by using Patton as a “prop.” This accusation has evolved into Patton being called a “token” by Leftists.

“Token” is a racially-charged adjective, to put it mildly, because of the implications around it. Yet, it seems to only be used in one direction. To better understand the controversy (and to complete my weekly obligation to you), let’s delve deeper into this word

token

What the Left thinks it means – a minority who is dragged out by the Right to distract people from their racism, a minority denied agency by the Right

What it really means – a minority who doesn’t subscribe to Leftist ideology

And you thought it was just a character from South Park!

The Left is obsessed with identity politics, or as I call it bean-counting for votes. By targeting certain groups of people, the Left can energize those people into potential voters, which in turn translates into money and power for the Left. These tactics usually work, too, as the election for Congresswoman Tlaib suggests. It usually works to keep people within these minorities allied with the Left.

The operative word, however, is “usually.” Sometimes, members of a minority group (or perceived minority group as is the case with women) will deviate from the Left’s agenda and find their own way. Once you break away from the Leftist hivemind, you become an “other” to the Left, and all the surface courtesy you get while dancing to the Left’s tune gets replaced by a deep scorn that rivals that of the closest betrayed lovers.

That’s where using “token” comes into play. By suggesting those minorities who break away from the Left are only being used by the Right and are too dumb to see it, the Left not only reinforces its message that they care about minorities, but also shows what will happen to them if they don’t follow along. After all, a little negative reinforcement never hurt anybody, right? Not so much, as we’ll see in a moment.

The funny thing is the Left doesn’t give minorities agency in the first place. If anything, it’s white Leftists who are the ones who take up “the struggle” on behalf of minorities, even when said minorities don’t want them involved. Take Black Lives Matter, for example. Once white Leftists got it off the ground and helped it to gain prominence, BLM decided they no longer needed or wanted white assistance, or at the very least they wanted whites to get behind the black leaders. (Ms. Parks, Ms. Rosa Parks, call for you on the Black Irony Phone.) As Leftist movements gain momentum, the members tend to purge their roles of white supporters, thus discovering their own agency in a way. The thing is they already had all the agency they needed to speak up without white support or assistance. They’ve always had it; they were just convinced by white Leftists to not use it.

On the other hand, any minority who uses their agency to speak out against what the Left is doing isn’t even considered to be human, let alone a “real” member of that minority.

And it’s the Right who are the racists?

The fact the Left resorts to calling blacks “tokens” when confronted with the inconvenient fact that they have the ability to speak without using a white Leftist mouthpiece speaks volumes as to how backwards the Left is on race relations. They will give Black Lives Matter a platform while denying people like Patton even exist. That’s where I differ with the Left. (Well, that, and I like to bathe more than once a Bernie Sanders Presidential campaign.) I want both Black Lives Matter and Ms. Patton to speak their minds, even if I don’t agree, because I respect their rights to speak. I want them to speak, if for no other reason than it potentially gives me more material for blog posts, but ultimately it’s because I don’t have the power nor the authority to deny them the agency they already have.

As far as Ms. Patton is concerned, she is no more a token than I am eligible to be Pope. She is a human being with thoughts, feelings, and opinions, just like me. That to me makes her as much of a human being worth even basic respect as anyone. She was motivated to be at the Cohen hearing for reasons I will not begin to try to articulate, but the fact she was there presumably of her own free will (at least, that’s what she’s said after the Leftist smear job against her) means she is neither a token, nor a pawn. She is an American exercising her freedom of association, not some “other” who should be derided for no legitimate reason.

And that’s exactly what calling her a token is: deriding her for no legitimate reason.

But tell me again how you Leftists are more open to diversity…

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

13 Views

If you look around hard enough, eventually you will find someone who is a victim of some horrible situation or malady. Cancer, racism, AIDS, and so on. And then there are people who will claim to be a victim of something they claim is a horrible situation or malady. Being misgendered, the Patriarchy, eating meat, and so on. And guess who is getting the lion’s share of attention in today’s society? That’s right, it’s the Kardashians. But a close second is the people who claim to be victims.

Last century, we had young men and women fighting wars, living through an economic depression, and fighting against diseases that are now all but obsolete. Today, young men and women have it pretty easy, but they still find ways to make it seem more complicated than a Starbucks menu written in Pig Latin. And those numbers keep growing.

What is it about being a victim that makes so many people want to identify as one? Let’s take a closer look into the Leftist Lexicon and try to puzzle it out together. And remember, do not try this at home. I am a trained professional. Granted, it’s in an entirely different field, but I’m a trained professional nonetheless.

victimhood

What the Left thinks it means – the status of someone who has endured personal trauma as a result of a hardship

What it really means – the actual status of someone who has actually endured actual personal trauma as a result of actual hardship

That’s a lot of “actual” derivations there, kids. I did it to underscore an important idea: a lot of what passes for victimhood today is bullshit. Even the concept of wanting to be a victim defies logic. So, why are so many people lining up to be a pretend victim? Are they giving away free iPhones or something to the one billionth victim?

It’s not quite that simple. I’ll try to keep this next part short and not so techy to make sure you don’t fall asleep on me here.

The ego is essential to our mental health and our lives in general. It reflects how we see and feel about ourselves, how confident we are to the rest of the world, whether we convey competence on a particular subject or profession, and so on. A healthy ego is kept in check through recognizing those areas where we aren’t the best. An unhealthy ego has no such failsafes and can lead to physical, emotional, and psychological harm when faced with the possibility of failure.

Now what does this have to do with victimhood in its current state? Sympathy. When we are the victim of a tragic event, there is an outpouring of emotion and attention directed at us, which feeds our egos. It also provides a level of protection against criticism if we happen to screw up during that time. Say you just lost your beloved three toed sloth, Zippy. And let’s say you decide to knock over a 7-11 in…oh, I don’t know…Fort Knox. Not only do you have a built-in excuse (the grief over Zippy’s death made you temporarily insane), but there will be people who will come to your aid and defend you. They will even argue for a lighter sentence due to the circumstances.

Granted, most people today wouldn’t try to knock over any 7-11, but the principle is the same. If you can convince people you are a victim of anything, you will get an ego boost and have expectations lowered for you so you can’t lose. Good thing we don’t have a generation full of young people with unhealthy egoooooh, wait, we do. Millennials. And before you start the #NotAllMillennials hashtag, let me point out it’s your peers saying they’re egotistical. Survey after survey shows millennials have big egos, so it’s not just the crochety old blogger saying it. Even if you don’t believe the surveys, think about it for a moment. How many hours do millennials spend…taking selfies?

Congratulations. You’re egotistical.

And more than a little delusional, to be blunt. When you have an unhealthy ego, as many millennials do, you’re more susceptible to self-delusion because you either never get challenged on what you say or do or you wave off any advise as misguided, the result of jealousy and/or hatred, or just plain wrong. Then, when you find out you’re not as totally-super-awesome as you think you are, you crash and burn like the Hindenburg. So, how do you avoid ever having to deal with anything negative in your life? Blame everybody else for your baggage! Perpetual victimhood has become the new American pastime, replacing baseball, frivolous lawsuits, and plastic surgery. And it’s getting easier and more popular.

But here’s the thing that should keep you up at night. What happens to the people who really are victims who need help? Spoiler Alert: it makes people less likely to help them because they will be seen as scammers or attention whores. And all so you can feel special.

Kinda make you look like an ass, doesn’t it?

Fortunately for you, I can’t lay the blame for your pretend victimhood solely at your feet. Your parents/guardians/caretakers set you up to fail by protecting you from criticism, loss, want, and any number of other negative experiences that you need to survive in today’s world. Sure, you may have gotten a trophy at the end of the year, but was it because you earned it or because the adults in your life didn’t want you to feel bad? If it’s the former, you have something to be proud of, but not hang your fedora on later in life. If it’s the latter, you are a victim of bad parenting, but that doesn’t give you an excuse to continue to be a victim and milk it for all it’s worth.

That’s right, kids. You have to grow up and be an adult.

And you’ll suck at it at first. Everybody does. But you’ll figure it out through trial and error and learn how strong and capable you really are. Once you find that out, you’ll never want to be a victim ever again under any circumstances.

If you still want to be a victim afterwards, go nuts. Just be prepared to be mocked mercilessly by those who think you’re overreacting to minor stuff. You know, like me.

I’d Like an Apology…

10 Views

Leftists, we need to have a talk, and I think you know why.

When Jussie Smollett came out and said he was attacked by two white men in red Make America Great Again hats, you believed him. You went to Twitter to call it a hate crime, racist, homophobic, and what not. Now that his story has fallen apart like a leper in a tug of war, your words are coming back to bite you.

So far, few of you have come clean. Some have taken the coward’s way out and deleted the tweets in the hopes no one remembers what you said with such conviction. (Spoiler Alert: The Internet never forgets.) Some have acknowledged the situation, but then tried to excuse it by adding additional context designed to lessen the impact. Few of you have even stood firm with your sentiments, ignoring the additional information or the calls for you to reconsider your position.

Few, if any, of you have apologized to the people you turned into victims because of what you said: Donald Trump supporters.

Now, you may not think of Trump supporters as victims in this case, but your rush to judgment and your desire to make Smollett’s story truth turned them into villains based on a lie, a lie you have helped to perpetuate. Remember when Alyssa Milano said MAGA hats were “the new white hoods”? How many times have you said Trump supporters were racist and homophobic without looking deeper into the matter? How many lives have you endangered with your inflammatory rhetoric, the same type of rhetoric you chastise President Donald Trump for using?

Regardless of whether you mea culpa or memory hole what you said, one thing is crystal clear to me: you owe Trump supporters an apology. Regardless of how you feel about them, you allowed yourselves to be lied to because you wanted to believe the lie was the truth. After all, it confirmed what you already believed, so it had to be true, right? Wrong. You have succumb to a little thing the kids like to call confirmation bias, and it blinded you to all the red flags around the Smollett story. But that’s not the worst of it.

The worst of it is you have let that bias cloud your judgment and prevent you from seeing that those with different opinions than you aren’t monsters. The vast majority of Trump supporters would never consider attacking anyone else unless they were attacked first. They aren’t all racist, sexist, homophobic monsters, and to treat them all as such is wrong. I’m going to engage in a bit of whataboutism here, but I do it to make a point. Would you like to be branded as dishonest because of Smollett’s actions? I sincerely doubt it, but that’s exactly what you did to Trump supporters here.

And it’s not something that can be forgotten or glossed over.

So, I’m asking you to apologize to Trump supporters for calling them racist and homophobic and for not taking the time to find out the facts before coming out with a statement. No backhanded apologies or attempts to reframe the situation to make Smollett look sympathetic instead of just pathetic. Own what you said and did, and apologize.

Of course, I won’t be holding my breath waiting for that to happen. You’ve shown me what kind of people you are, but surprise me for once.