Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

With everything going on in Washington right now, it’s enough to make people shake their heads in disbelief. The FBI scandal (complete with dueling memos), continued and escalating partisan strife (complete with dueling Tweets), Robert Mueller’s investigation (complete with dueling dumbassery), and many more pain points have left people asking one question.

Is it too late to move to Canada?

But there’s another question that needs to be asked: do we need a large government? Maybe we should downsize our government just a bit (and by “a bit” I mean a lot). Those are words the Left hates worse than President Donald Trump, so it makes for a perfect entry to the Leftist Lexicon.

limited government

What the Left believes it means – a dangerous idea that will leave people dying, poisoned, and enslaved by unaccountable corporations

What it really means – a benign idea that will leave people freer, more secure, and free from being enslaved by unaccountable politicans

When the concept of limited government comes up, the Left spins all sorts of nightmare scenarios to argue against it. Food, air, and water would be poisoned. Airplanes and cars would be unsafe. There would be bodies piling up in the streets. They would bring back “Roseanne.” (Okay, so that last one was made up…or was it?) And, they’re all wrong.

In fact, big government has been at least partially to blame for bringing those nightmare scenarios to life. Remember Olestra? Approved by the Food and Drug Administration…and lead to a lot of people having to change their underwear due to what was called “anal leakage.” Dirty air? Ask Nancy Pelosi about her cross-country airplane trips as Speaker of the House. Poisonous water? Flint, Michigan, would like to have a talk with you big government fans. You know, something about poisonous water.

The Left needs to get people to reject the idea of smaller government by using fear because they can’t find a legitimate argument against it, given the multiple screw-ups created by big government. And they are afraid that people will realize smaller government makes sense and act on it by electing candidates who agree. So, the Left has a vested interest in keeping people distrustful of small government advocates.

Remember the TEA Party? The Left poisoned the well by painting them all as kooks who take from the government and want to deny everyone else. Oh, and they’re racists because reasons. Now, most people who would normally agree with the TEA Party’s message of lower taxes and smaller government shy away from the label. And those who were elected under the TEA Party mantle have either been marginalized by the GOP leadership or sucked up by them. Make no mistake, Leftists have found their way into both major parties, so it’s not a Democrat/Republican thing.

And Leftists in both parties lust after the prospect of bigger government.

One of my Undeniable Truths is the sole purpose of a bureaucracy is to grow so large as to become indispensable. Whether it’s the Department of Homeland Security (who hasn’t done all that great a job securing the homeland) or the Environmental Protection Agency (who hasn’t done all that great a job protecting the environment), Leftists in both major parties think they can run big government better than the other party. And they’re both wrong. Regardless of a Democrat or Republican President, the federal government will be filled with people who want to get paid for doing next to nothing. And the people outside of Congress are pretty bad, too!

Whenever there is a government shutdown, Leftists talk about how horrible things will become, but by and large it hasn’t affected us as a country. That should be a major red flag for anyone who believes big government is best. The fact we’re still able to function relatively well without Big Daddy Government holding our hands is a good thing and should be celebrated instead of denigrated. If you question this, answer me this. Why are we paying for non-essential government employees if they’re non-essential?

Here’s the thing that gets me the most. We are seeing multiple examples of government malfeasance in real time, but no one is putting 2 and 2 together. Maybe it’s because no one can do simple math anymore thanks to Common Core, but maybe it has more to do with the idea we need a big government when we really don’t. An easy way to cut down on the corruption in government is to give bad players fewer access points. Plus, with a smaller government, there will be fewer people willing or able to cover up the corruption.  A smaller government won’t completely eliminate the possibility of government corruption, but it will make it infinitely easier to locate and subsequently punish the guilty.

And think about how much money could be saved by cutting government! Take food safety, for example. There are multiple government agencies, departments, and sub-departments covering this one aspect of government. Why do we need more than one organization to take care of this? When a private company finds redundancies, the leadership tries to find ways to be more efficient because it saves them money in the long run. If there are 10 agencies doing the same job, that is 9 too many, and several millions of our tax dollars being wasted in the process. Let’s cut the fat and put that money back in the hands of the people or into infrastructure. You know, that thing the Left always says is worse than Harvey Weinstein’s dating habits, but never seems to spend money on?

The larger the government, the more it will find ways to work its way into our lives and deprive us of freedom. Yet, people are afraid to push for limited government out of fear of being seen as heartless or selfish. Yet, the people who try to make you believe you’re being heartless or selfish are the ones who want to take your money and spend it without any consideration of whether the spending is needed. Not that you need it, but you have my permission to be selfish and demand government be as small as possible to ensure it can be as effective as possible.

And let me know if any Leftists can come up with an answer to my question about non-essential government employees.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

It’s been a busy couple of weeks for the men and women of the FBI, namely because of the House Intelligence Committee and a little memo put together by Republican member Devin Nunes. The memo released this past Friday outlines a number of issues with a FISA warrant issued against the Donald Trump campaign, not the least of which being a little oopsie involving a questionable dossier that people like former FBI Director James Comey neglected to tell the FISA Court wasn’t fully vetted and was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. You know, like happens to us every day.

As a result, the Left has become a vocal proponent of the FBI. The fact the memo was even released was an affront to national security and would lead to everything from enemies getting our secrets to the New England Patriots winning the Super Bowl. But a day or so removed from Memo Day and nothing like that has happened.

However, what has happened is the FBI is undergoing scrutiny for what is perceived to be pretty shady dealings. That, and the latest entry into the Leftist Lexicon.

the FBI

What the Left believes it means – a group of devoted public servants who are being unfairly attacked by the Trump Administration and the Right to divert attention from the Trump/Russia investigation

What it really means – a group of public servants caught between duty and bad leadership

This is one point where I agree with the Left. The FBI rank and file are the backbone of our law enforcement community. They deserve to be held in high esteem, especially when they aren’t guilty of the things their leaders are being accused of doing.

Now, if you’re expecting a big “but” here, you’re right. There is a huge but here, and I cannot lie. The rank and file who are involved in the FISA court abuse are not the kind of people who should be in the FBI. However, they should be in Fort Leavenworth. One of the important decisions that any leader and his or her subordinates have to make is whether a particular decision is a worthy goal. The more honest you are, the tougher the decision becomes, and vice versa.

This is where members of the FBI’s leadership, including the aforementioned Mr. Comey, have a reason to be sweating more than Michael Moore running the first quarter mile of the Boston Marathon. Even if you are the top cop in the country, you are subject to our laws (Just ask all the Leftists who want Trump impeached.)

Which brings up a troubling point for Leftists. If they believe the President isn’t above the law, why would they believe the FBI (which is in the Executive Branch along with the President) should be? The Nunes memo lays out some pretty significant and damaging charges that even Lady Justice can see have some heft to them, contrary to the charges the Left have against Trump which are flimsier than a toilet paper negligee. If they want to hold the high ground on Trump, they can’t overlook the current issue with the FBI.

They can’t, but they will.

Another problem the Left has to contend with is their messaging related to the Nunes memo. In the past two weeks alone, it’s been portrayed as a bunch of lies, a “nothingburger”, a political hit job, and a threat to national security. And that’s just from Nancy Pelosi! To put it mildly, the Left has more faces on this issue than, well, Nancy Pelosi. So, when Leftists come out and say they support the FBI, one has to wonder if they’re telling the truth.

Consider just a year or so ago, these same Leftists voiced support for Black Lives Matter, a group with leaders and members whose attitudes towards law enforcement are less than favorable. In fact, some have even said they want to kill police officers.

Yeah, not exactly making a solid case today for backing law enforcement.

The Left is getting behind the FBI for political expediency and cover. As cynical as that sounds, it’s the only logical explanation. On the other hand, Republicans are staying consistent with their “Back the Blue” message. This may seem counter-intuitive given what appears to be happening, but the truth is they aren’t attacking the entire FBI, just the parts that have betrayed their duty to serve the country and its laws. No matter what these particular agents are alleged to have done, it doesn’t tarnish the entire FBI, just like a few bad police officers don’t tarnish the entire police force.

Of course, the Left doesn’t want you to remember that. They want you to ignore the misdeeds of the bad players and get caught up in the positive feelings we’re supposed to feel towards police officers. But without calling out the bad players, we can never get to a point where the good players are honored and held in high esteem.

Thank you to the men and women of the FBI. Just know some of us out here are rooting for you to have a brighter tomorrow once the rats within your ranks are brought to justice today.

Share This:

It’s been 5 years

 
image_pdfimage_print

Today marks the 5th anniversary of Dawson’s passing from this earth. I still think of my son often. There are many times that something comes up and I think “Dawson would like that.”

I smile at his memory and miss him. I am far from alone in my feelings. His mom, his birth father, his sister. Jen and his grandparents. His many friends and members of his Fairemly. And his wife Meaghan.

All of us deeply miss his simile, his humor, and his physical presence with us.

To me, he was and always shall be my oldest son. But he also was a fellow gamer, a co-worker, and my friend.

My greatest hope was he would be able to get his seizures under control. And then I always to teach him the basics of driving so he could eventually get his drivers licence. It would have been a highlight of my life.

Although Dawson’s life on this earth was short. It was meaningful in the way he toucheed all of our lives.

He was a good example to follow. In his kindness, his generosity, and his love and forgiveness.

So on this day, have a Macallan in honor of Dawson. If you don’t drink, that is fine, just toast him with your beverage of choice. He’ll understand.

Share This:

The First of Eight

 
image_pdfimage_print

The President’s first State of the Union speech was worthy of being called Presidential. It was well written and executed by our nation’s chief executive officer. If President Trump ad-libbed anything you couldn’t tell. Bravo Mr. President.

In typical fashion the President remarked on the successes of the past year. The concerns currently facing our great nation. And his hopes for our coming future.

After any State of the Union address many news organizations reach out to the public and ask them for a letter grade. My grade for the President is A-.
Far better than a grade of B but not quite good enough for a solid A or an A+.

With any State of the Union address it is important to watch the reactions of our Senators and Congressmen in attendance. No matter what party affiliation they express to have, as their true colors will come to light.

Most of the nights applause came from the Republican side of the chamber. This is expected during the speech of a Republican President. But it is worth noting what the Democrats did not applaud.

The Democratic Party did not applaud to any of the advances made under the Trump Administration to the economy.

They did not applaud the creation of new jobs or the lowest unemployment ratings across all segments of our nations population. Including the lowest figures on record for black and Hispanic minorities.

They did not applaud the boom in small businesses. The very backbone of the American economy.

They did not applaud the near total destruction and loss of territory once held by ISIS and Alqida.

They did not applaud the recent tax cuts that enable businesses to reinvest in America. That bring jobs and manufacturing back to our shores instead of leaving them overseas.

And they did not applaud those same tax cuts that put more money in the pockets of the hard working middle class Americans. More money that I have already seen on my paycheck. The Democrats don’t want me to have that income.

The Democrats also did not applaud the President’s plans for the future either.

They rejected his call to remove funding limits on military and defense spending imposed under the Obama Administration. With additional funds available our military can complete the work they started against ISIS and Alqida and eradicate them. And American can build up her defenses to the point that no one will dare threaten or attack our shores or interests abroad.

They rejected his call to improve infrastructure. To repair our crumbling roads, bridges, and waterways. Removing the needless governmental regulations and permits that take decades to get anything approved. We built the Empire State Building in just over a year but it takes decades to fix a road. This must come to an end.

The Democrats even rejected the President’s immigration reform package that includes one of their most expressed talking points.

A path to citizenship for the 1.8 million illegal immigrants that arrived as children, the so-called DREAMers.

All of these plans by President Trump were rejected by the Democratic Party in attendance by their actions of not standing, not applauding, and looking sour-faced at every opportunity when the cameras focused in on them.

Given the Democratic Party reaction to the President’s State of the Union address. They are against defeating ISIS and terrorists. They are against having a strong defense against foreign aggression. They are against a thriving and strong economy. They are against minorities from being employed and having good high paying jobs. They are against a path to citizenship for the DREAMers.

Be sure to remember come the mid term elections this fall. And again in 2020 when we decide who leads our nation for the next four years.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

Remember the story of Chicken Little? You know, the story where a conspiracy-minded fowl convinces other barnyard animals of impending doom due to suspected, yet unfounded, gravitational inversion? Wait, that’s the Art Bell Show. Either way, the story reminds us of the importance of getting all the facts before deciding on a course of action.

And if you’ve been paying attention, it seems the Left hired Chicken Little to write their talking points because everything is going to kill us. The latest threat to our lives is…tax cuts. If you think I’m exaggerating, I point you to most Leftist’s Twitter feeds. I have literally (and I’m not using it incorrectly) read people saying people will die because of President Donald Trump’s tax cut proposal, which has already passed Congress.

Admittedly, this is a more modern take on tax cuts, which Leftists love as much as getting an eye wash with a sandblaster, but the general disdain the Left has for tax cuts has been a constant for decades. Whether it was Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, or Donald Trump, no tax cuts are good enough for Leftists. But they are good enough for this week’s Leftist Lexicon.

tax cuts

What the Left believes it means – stealing money from the poor and middle class to fund unnecessary spending by the wealthy

What it really means – taking back money from the government to fund necessary spending by taxpayers and avoid unnecessary spending by wealthy politicians

The driving force behind the Left’s attitude about tax cuts is control. If the government keeps more of our money, it controls how the money is spent. By extension, it also gives the government control over us. Conversely, if the government gives back more of our money, it loses control over how that money can be spent. The Left believes we can’t be trusted with our money because we might spend it on stupid things like food, gas, and housing. They know how the money should be spent on important projects like…researching shrimp workout programs!

And that’s one of the main reasons I like tax cuts: our government makes worse fiscal decisions than a failed stock broker with a $10,000 a day cocaine habit. Come to think of it, that’s not fair. Some of our politicians spend way more than that on cocaine (which, incidentally, might explain how they can justify spending on the “Bridge to Nowhere.”) Contrary to Leftist beliefs, some of us have more on the ball than they realize. Why, some of us actually have to make a living by working at a real job instead of writing bad poetry at a Starbucks because we decided Albino Eskimo Midget Feminist Basket Weaving was a good major.

The Leftists’ fiscal failure doesn’t end there. During the 1990s, the Left became obsessed with the idea of a middle class tax cut, an idea Leftists still cling to today. They believe the key to a booming economy is to give the middle class a tax cut. On paper, it sounds good. The problem? These same people who believe the middle class tax cut is the cure to all of our economic woes simultaneously believe the middle class is shrinking due to a widening gap between the rich and poor. So, in order to create a booming economy, we have to give tax cuts to fewer people because reasons?

The Underpants Gnomes have nothing on Leftists.

A recent example of the Left’s attitude towards tax cuts came from our favorite former Speaker of the House, Nancy “If I Have Any More Facelifts, I’ll Have a Widow’s Peak” Pelosi. In her attempts to sour public opinion on the Trump tax cuts, she called $1000 “crumbs.” As you might have guessed, that went over as well as Ben Shapiro Week at UC Berkeley. The Left came to her rescue, citing the billions in tax cuts the wealthy and corporations are getting. Of course, that would be the case since they pay more in taxes than we do. And with corporations, they pass increases in production costs (like…oh, I don’t know…having to pay more taxes) to us, so we ultimately pay for their tax increases. And unless the rich decide to hold onto their money and not spend any of it, that money will get pumped back into the economy by purchasing goods and services. This, in turn, will create demand, which drives purchasing and hiring decisions, which creates a ripple effect for those companies who provide goods and services to the companies providing goods and services.

That, in a nutshell, is supply side economics. So simple, and yet way above Nancy Pelosi’s pay grade.

Without going too much further into the weeds with technical jargon, let’s just say tax cuts work pretty well for stimulating our economy, and the Left has no answer for it. I mean, how stupid is it to argue that people should be upset at higher pay, more jobs, and a booming economy? Then again, the people who argue that are the same ones who thought Hillary Clinton was the most qualified Presidential candidate in history because the least qualified President ever said so.

Oh, and the other reason I like tax cuts? It makes Leftists look dumb. (Hey, I didn’t say it was a good reason!)

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

The media obsess over the weirdest things these days. They can write and talk for days over whether President Donald Trump has one scoop of ice cream or two, how many Diet Cokes he drinks a day, whether a psychologist who hasn’t examined the President personally is credible enough to speak on his mental fitness, and other minutia with literally nothing to do with actual news.

Maybe the news business has changed since I decided journalism and I should spend a few decades away from each other to get our heads straight. And I can assure you one of us has (and for once it’s me).

Whether you think today’s news is hard-hitting and factual or a DNC public relations release, we should spend a little time delving into what news has become.

news

What Leftists believe it means – information that needs to get into the public’s hands no matter what

What it really means – political narratives with bylines

When we think back to how newscasters and reporters used to report the day’s events, it wasn’t remarkable. The stories they covered may have been, but they tended not to wear their ideologies on their sleeves. You got the facts and were left to make up your mind on how to think about them.

Today? Not so much. In fact, according to MSNBC’s Mika “I’m a Barbie Girl in a Newsie World” Brzezinski, the media’s job is to “control what people think.” And she’s not alone. During the Obama Administration, news figures said it was their jobs to help the President. Now that Trump’s in office, those same news figures are upset at how “soft” their coverage has become.

From watchdogs to lapdogs, kids.

The truth of the matter is news isn’t about helping or hurting a President or control what people think. News should only be about, well, news. There is a vast difference between a news show and an opinion show, just like there is a difference between a news article and an opinion piece. The difference is how facts are presented.

Let’s say you see a car accident outside your living room window. As a witness, the police may ask you to provide your account of what happened. They don’t care about your opinions on seatbelt laws or cracking down on distracted driving; they want details so they can investigate the matter further. In the days of Edward R. Murrow, reporters treated news like that. No fluff, no personal insights, just information.

So, how did we get from there to here? A change in culture and politics. During the 60s and 70s, the youth became more socially conscious (which isn’t a bad thing, necessarily) and believed they could change the world (also, not a bad thing in and of itself). Then, they discovered Leftist ideas (which is a bad thing), and the rest is history. By embracing ideas that work great on paper, but suck when implemented, the youth of the 60s and 70s became the adults of the 80s, 90s, and today, and they put their feelings ahead of facts. And that mindset infiltrated the media, which lead to seeing newspeople asking Hillary Clinton what kind of dessert she likes to have while delving into the “dark history” of Sarah Palin’s son’s girlfriend’s mother’s dog groomer’s cousin’s accountant’s pet sitter’s favorite teacher because if Palin associated with that kind of person, she’s utterly unfit to be a political leader!

And when they’re not trying to tear down any Right-leaning person for an overdue library book, these same serious news reporters fawn all over celebrities. What kind of pizza does Taylor Swift order? Find out in this multi-page article in the New York Times! Want to know the secret behind all things Kardashian? Watch this 6 minute news video! Do you absolutely need to know what is going through Nikki Minaj’s mind right now?

It’s air. I saved you from having to find out on your national newscasts. You’re welcome.

News organizations tell us the crap they’re serving us as news is what we ask for, and it’s not their fault we demand dreck. Although there are some people who do (I’m looking right at you, Jerry Springer fans), some of us want more. Let’s have a news report on global climate change where both sides are presented in a fair and balanced light and let us decide for ourselves what needs to be done. Ditto with racism, gay rights, Islam, and other controversial topics.

But the news people can’t do that. They feel anything that is outside of their ideological bubble isn’t worth discussing. There’s a reason these people call the land between the East and West Coasts “flyover country” and it’s not because they’re high when they travel through this part of the country. (Although, given what they choose to report, drug use isn’t completely off the table.) It’s because these serious news reporters don’t think anything happens here. In fact, if they had their druthers, they wouldn’t venture outside of Manhattan or Los Angeles to track down a story.

Which is part of the problem. The minute you start purposely excluding yourself from potential stories, the minute you cease being a good reporter and become a stenographer for whatever ideology you deny you have in public. But, then don’t call yourselves news people.

My rule of thumb when it comes to news is Ronald Reagan’s “Trust, but verify.” Seek out multiple sources of information, paying close attention to what is being said and how it’s being said. There are subtle clues in turns of a phrase that will reveal the leanings of a writer or reporter, but you have to be looking for them. And, yes, my Leftist friends, that includes Fox News, Breitbart, and other right-leaning sources.

In the meantime, maybe the news folks will get the hint if we start ignoring them. Or, if you can’t do that, do what I do and point and laugh at them. I hear Jim Acosta is particularly salty about being mocked.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

The Left has an interesting relationship with the truth. Sometimes, they deny there is any truth whatsoever (usually when it’s something that makes them look bad). Other times, they cloak themselves in the truth (usually when it’s something that makes the Right look bad).

Lately, they’ve found themselves trying to do both, thanks to a new book titled Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House by Michael Wolff. Leftists have been salivating over the book like Oprah salivates over an all-you-can-eat buffet. Upon further review, however, the book is riddled with factual, editing, and other errors that would cause most rational people to disregard the book as trash. Wolff, and many Leftists, disagree. Wolff himself said if you feel something is true, then it is.

Tell that to my bank account when I feel like a million bucks, but only have around $5 in it.

Prepare the aspirin, because this one’s gonna be painful.

truth

What the Left thinks it means – whatever you want it to be

What it really means – what is

You would think something so simple wouldn’t be so difficult for the Left to grasp. Ah, but the Left has to complicate everything so they can say things are “nuanced” and, thus, puff up their egos without doing anything to earn it.

The Left further complicates the idea of truth because of their belief truth is subjective. They believe everybody sees the same things differently, which is true to an extent, but they say personal experiences, life struggles, and the ever-present oppression creates a new framework through which truth is seen. Although those elements can add to a person’s perspective on truth, they don’t change truth itself. Just because an albino crossdressing little person who walks with a limp says the Earth is flat doesn’t make it so. There is such a thing as observable truth, no matter how much the Left wants to pretend it’s not a thing. For example, an observable truth is Carrot Top is an odd-looking dude. Try arguing against that, Leftists.

There is an underlying reason the Left treats the truth like Ike treated Tina: the truth makes it harder for them to lie. Once people know the facts, Leftists have to work that much harder to get people to disbelieve the truth and believe the lie. This can be done through a number of means, but usually it’s done by denying it until the story is “too old” to be discussed (at least in the Left’s view). Along the way, people who focus on the truth get called a litany of names, from the tried and true chestnuts of racist/sexist/homophobic/right wing nut job to the more popular crazy, obsessed, and bigot.

But nowhere during this process do Leftists acknowledge the truth. That would not only ruin their narrative, but it would damage their egos.

Ahhhh…methinks we’ve stumbled onto a deeper reason for the Left’s contempt for truth. If you are committed to the truth, you have to be committed to all of it, not just the good parts. I may think I’m good enough to be a starting point guard for the Chicago Bulls, but if I don’t have the skill set to be successful, I won’t even be good enough to ride the pine. The Left doesn’t let the negative aspects of truth get to them. They pick and choose what they want and ignore the rest. That’s how Rachel Dolezal and Shawn King can claim to be black when they’re make Edgar Winter look like George Hamilton. Heck, compared to them, I’m James Brown. (And for the record, I got soul and I’m super bad.)

It’s this kind of thinking that makes Leftists believe Wolff’s telling the truth. They want (or in some cases, need) it all to be true so they can justify their beliefs about Trump being an emotional toddler with access to the nuclear codes. If they can “prove” this, it opens up all sorts of other delusions, like being able to prove Trump is mentally unfit to be President, Trump getting impeached, even Hillary being named President (and, yes, they actually believe this will happen). And when none of it happens, the Left will find some other reason to deny the truth.

Which is good, since it gives me more to mock.

Although Leftists aren’t on speaking terms with the truth, it’s important we don’t follow suit. Whether you think the President is the next Hitler or better than two scoops of ice cream, the truth must always be defended against those who would seek to subvert it. If we lose the truth, everything else falls after it.

And no amount of feeling the truth will bring it back.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

You might not know it yet, but we’re totally going to die unless we change our energy sources. Don’t believe me? Ask former Vice President Al “I’m as Much of a Scientist as Bill Nye” Gore and current House Minority Leader Nancy “I Make Pennywise Look Like a Teddy Bear” Pelosi, both of whom came out against President Donald Trump’s decision to allow more offshore drilling. And we know just how much intellectual firepower they both have…

When asked for specifics on how to get the oil monkey off our country’s back, the Left always bring up green energy. Wind, solar, and other energy sources are the future! Oil is the past! We need to embrace the future or else we’re DOOMED, DOOMED I SAY!

Sorry. I channeled my former Leftist self there for a second.

Let’s take a closer look at the green energy phenomenon, shall we?

green energy

What the Left believes it means –  energy sources that are cleaner and better for our environment

What it really means – a source of money for Leftists under the illusion of protecting the environment

The self-professed “Party of Science” has a habit of using science to make it easier for them to line their pockets through a steady stream of misinformation, loaded language, and, oh yeah, ginning up more fear than Vincent Price. This toxic concoction has made actual discussion on the scientific merits (or lack thereof) of green energy hard to come by. Let me start the conversation.

Green energy is great in theory, but sucks in execution.

Your turn, Leftists.

Seriously, green energy has good intentions. When put in the simplest of terms, only the truly mad would want our natural resources to be depleted and our environment destroyed. Yes, my Leftist readers, that includes those allegedly evil corporations because if the environment gets destroyed, it tends to kill people. No people, no customers. Economics 101.

And that’s one element that the Left doesn’t consider when coming up with its green energy approaches. One of the problems with green energy so far is it’s not economical on a large enough scale. Leftists can point to large solar farms and wind farms as evidence to the contrary, but as awesome as they are, they run into a problem: storage. On days when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing, your need for power doesn’t go away. Unless you have a way to store energy from sunny or windy days, you’ll be more in the dark than Paris Hilton spelunking.

That’s where batteries come into the picture. Granted, battery technology has come a long way in the past decade or so, but it’s still a process that requires the use of chemicals that can be damaging to the environment. Hmmm…so in order for green energy to be effective, we have to use things that are…not green? Maybe it’s me, but I think that defeats the purpose of green energy. But I’m sure it’s just me. I mean, who would be dumb enough to support something so ignorant?

Oh, wait…

Until the battery technology catches up to the wishful thinking of the green energy movement, the Left will have to address the reality of the situation. And they do that by utterly ignoring reality. They have a lot invested in green energy, mainly because Leftists tend to be the ones running green energy companies. But since green energy isn’t taking off the way the Left thinks it should, green energy companies often request (and get) federal funds to keep afloat. Then, in order to keep the funds coming in, green energy companies have to keep sucking up to Leftist politicians, which might just involve financial donations, and the cycle continues as long as Leftists keep getting into office and have access to federal funds.

Good thing that never backfires. Say, how is Solyndra doing these days?

As with global climate change, the Left is operating from a position of scientific ignorance with green energy. They keep saying oil is obsolete, but they’re wrong. Biofuels, converting coal into oil, and as yet fully untapped oil reserves exist, and until we exhaust those sources, oil will have a place in the energy conversation. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to find alternatives, but to say green energy is the only source worth exploring is short-sighted. Besides, with people like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi pushing for green energy, I think it’s a safe bet it’s not nearly as good as they make it out to be.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

It’s been a while since Minnesota Senator Al Franken announced he would be resigning from the Senate in the light of multiple allegations of sexual assault. At this point, Cher’s farewell tour might wind up being shorter than Franken’s. Of course, Franken’s supporters are upset to see him leave because they feel he didn’t get a chance to address the allegations against him. In legal and Constitutional terms, this is called due process, and as you might expect, the Left sees it a little differently than the rest of us do.

due process

What the Left thinks it means – the steps necessary to obtain a fair and just ruling

What it really means – the steps necessary to obtain a fair and just ruling regardless of who is being accused

Although the Left and the rest of us see due process similarly, there is a vital difference: the Left demands due process for their side, but not for anyone else. I know this is shocking to think about, but Leftists are hypocrites in this area, among many others.

Remember the University of Virginia date rape case? I’m sure Rolling Stone does, considering they paid out for their bad reporting. But the Left used the case as proof of a rape culture on American campuses well before the first allegations were researched. In that particular situation, the narrative was more important than the facts, and they ran with it.

This came to a head again when Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos changed Title IX regulations to allow for more due process with college date rape investigations. The Left were angrier than Rosie O’Donnell on any day ending in a Y during the Trump Administration. How dare DeVos make it harder for the accused to be disregarded! How dare she try to make the investigation process fair for everyone involved instead of just the victim! Women are to be believed because they simply don’t lie about sexual assault!

Then came Al Franken. All of the sudden, the Left cared about the process and making sure the allegations were valid. Wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact Franken is a proud Leftist in a position of power, would it? Nahhhhhhh!

The thing about the Franken situation is he wasn’t denied due process. He chose not to go to court to address the matter and instead tried to weasel out of it by asking for an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. (Senate Ethics? Isn’t that a paradox?) The Senate Ethics Committee is not known for dishing out tough punishments for ethics violations. In recent history, there have been a number of violations brought before them, and only one has resulted in any significant form of punishment (that is, if you consider a light slap on the wrist to be significant).

If the Left were truly concerned about due process, they would have demanded Franken face his accusers in court. Very few did. The majority of them decided the Senate Ethics Committee was the end all and be all of due process when it’s not even close to it.

Due process is vital for two reasons. First, it gives both sides equal footing to make their cases. Second, it allows for an appropriate punishment or lack of punishment depending on what is found. As shocking as this may sound, the Senate Judiciary Committee doesn’t act in the same way as a court of law and has completely different standards. As such, it’s more of a diversion or perversion of due process for Franken to accept that route in lieu of having a day in court.

And it certainly doesn’t make it easier for the Left to demand due process be ignored on college campuses.

Look, if you want due process, you have to want it for everyone across the board, not just for the people you agree with. That ensures everyone has a chance to get it.

Think of it this way. What if Ted Cruz accused you of violently beating an elderly nun in a Whole Foods in Austin? Due process gives you the chance to refute those allegations with a jury of your peers. Partisan due process gives Cruz the chance to railroad you to jail without so much as a peep out of you.

Or if you prefer, talk to Rolling Stone about the importance of due process.

Share This:

Time to Go

 
image_pdfimage_print

It is high time that the United States withdraws its membership, funding, support, and manpower from the socialist-leaning United Nations. And remove them from US soil.

This does come up for a vote every couple of years or so in Congress. Someone drafts the bill but it either doesn’t get voted on or it doesn’t get enough votes to pass. This time it needs to pass and come to the President’s desk to become law.

The recent UN attacks against the sovereignty of the United States is that organizations 1st step before sending in “peace-keeping” troops. And when that happens our Rights that come from God and spelled out in the first 10 Amendments in the Constitution will become void. And our Rights will come from the UN, where they are privileges that can be taken away at a whim. And we will no longer be a free people.

This is no conspiracy. The UN is UN-American, a pro one-world government sponsor that promotes Leftist ideals, discrimination against Christians and true freedom. And these people need to be sent packing.

American servicemen did not shed their blood and die to have America controlled by other men and nations who do not believe in the freedoms that our nation was built upon. Our membership is this corrupt organization needs to end now. And the blessed memory of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice will not be in vain.

Vote US out of the UN.

Share This: