Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

34 Views

America’s slave trade was one of the most disgusting and disturbing parts of our history, and we are still feeling the effects of that period today. In recent decades, blacks have been asking for/demanding reparations for slavery. For the most part, these conversations have been left at that without much political action.

That is, until recently.

A 2020 Democrat Presidential hopeful recently stated we need to create a government panel to discuss reparations and determine a course of action on how to resolve the issue at hand. Was it Kamala Harris or Corey Booker, both of whom have black roots? Nope! It was Ms. 1/1024th herself, Elizabeth Warren. Sometimes the jokes just write themselves, folks…

Let’s take a look at the issue from a slightly different perspective.

reparations

What the Left thinks it means – money due to blacks for the maltreatment of their ancestors because of slavery

What it really means – punishing today’s whites by forcing them to pay today’s blacks for something that we no longer do in today’s America

The idea of reparations is easy enough to understand and support, but there is a lot more to the idea than just handing out checks, or in today’s culture, gift cards. The Left is counting on whites feeling guilty about slavery, even though most of those whites never had any connection to slavery whatsoever. And if I know Leftist guilt-shaming like I think I do, it works pretty well.

The key to this tactic is a desire not to be called a racist by Leftists. After all, if you’re branded a racist, people will start shunning you like Lindsey Lohan at an Amish barn raising. Or any place with a dress code, for that matter. Guilt can be a powerful motivator, but when misused, it can lead to people being taken advantage of regularly and continuously.

After slavery ended, the federal government promised former slaves 40 acres and a mule, but somehow I don’t think that’s going to be enough for today’s reparations advocates. If anything, it would open the door for more and greater demands, not because they’re black and I’m an evil racist doodie-head, but because it’s human nature. When somebody offers us a great deal with no real strings attached, we will take it and then ask for more. After all, if they’re willing to give us X with no problem, why not ask for the rest of the alphabet and see if they accept?

And if Leftists’ guilt-tripping is any indication, a lot of people will accept.

As simple as the idea sounds, it opens the door for many more questions than the pro-reparations crowd can answer. So, let me ask them.

– Considering whites were brought over as indentured servants, which were slightly above slaves in historical context, would whites be eligible for reparations?

– Millions of people came to America after we ended the slave trade. Would they be exempt from having to pay reparations? Would they be able to request reparations?

– The Chinese, Irish, Hispanics, and other cultures were poorly treated after slavery ended here. Shouldn’t they be allowed to get a share of the reparations money? If not, wouldn’t that be racist?

– Would families with family members who fought and died for the Union in the Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression be exempt from having to pay towards reparations? What about those families who had ancestors who just fought for the Union?

– Would families whose ancestors fought for the Confederacy and no longer believe as they did be exempt?

– Can blacks who don’t want or need reparations opt out?

– Would people who make false claims about their heritage (i.e. Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King) be eligible for reparations or would they have to pay?

– Who would determine if someone requesting reparations is eligible? By what means would that lineage be proven?

– At what point would you consider the debt to be paid in full? Would such a point require the mistreatment of whites and/or other races to achieve the end?

– Why now?

Those last couple of questions are the real deal-breakers for me when it comes to reparations because there are no clear answers to be given to them. It’s a great soundbite, but soundbites don’t create sound policy. Then again, we’re dealing with Leftists here. They think sound policy involve the iTunes terms of service.

In any case, the lack of details should be a huge red flag to people paying attention. Just like with Green New Scam…I mean Deal, the lack of details means the Left has an open sandbox in which to devise the means to an end, and that spells trouble for people like me who kinda get stuck on those little details they want you to overlook.

I’m sure there will be more questions to come, but I have one more for the reparations crowd to chew on: Who thought it was a good idea to let Elizabeth Warren be the one to start this conversation now? Call me old-fashioned, but a woman so white she makes Edgar Winter look like George Hamilton shouldn’t be the one leading the charge.

Especially when she has 1/1024th% chance of winning.

Crafty Conservative Comebacks for Loony Leftist Lines – The Electoral College

33 Views

Without fail, after Leftists lose a Presidential election, they start talking about abolishing the Electoral College. (Funny how this isn’t a topic of discussion after a Democrat wins the White House, but that’s neither here nor there.) And this time around, the Left is bringing up the Founding Fathers as a means to try to justify their position. But fear not. I have some information you can use to turn back the arguments they present.

As with my previous attempts in this vein, I will separate the Leftist arguments with bold italics like so. My responses will be in normal type face. Granted, this is about as normal as I get, so be warned. And with that out of the way, let’s get started!

We should get rid of the Electoral College because it doesn’t work anymore.

Why do you think it doesn’t work anymore?

We’re a totally different country now. The Electoral College is outdated.

Just because something is outdated by modern standards doesn’t mean it lacks use in today’s world. We still use trains to transport goods across the country even though we have other and faster means to do it. Rotary and push-button phones work as well at making phone calls as an iPhone does. Even basic farming techniques haven’t changed in spite of the advances in farm technology.

Yeah, well, we should still change the way we elect the President. We should adopt a national popular vote so everyone’s voice gets heard.

If you voted in the last Presidential election and your ballot wasn’t removed due to legal or illegal activities, your voice got heard. You just didn’t win.

But shouldn’t the people get to elect the President?

They already do, just not in the way they think. When you vote in a Presidential election, you are actually voting for a slate of electors chosen by the state political parties. That is a feature of our constitutional republic, not a flaw.

More to your point, though, if you want to have a direct election of Presidents going forward, propose a Constitutional Amendment and see if you can get a convention of the states to go along with it.

Why do we have to do that? We should always elect the President by the popular vote.

At one time during our nation’s history, people went ga-ga over pet rocks. Then a little later, people went ga-ga over electronic pets. Both were popular, but eventually lost favor and are now the source of a lot of “what were we thinking” comments. Choosing a President is a bit more important than the fad of the month and has greater consequences. The Electoral College helps us not make rash decisions based on popularity. It doesn’t always guarantee a good President, but it certainly helps weed out bad ones who are popular, but not suitable for the job.

But we have so much better technology now than we did back when the Electoral College was put in place. We need to change with the times.

Better technology doesn’t guarantee smarter people. Our system of government relies on an informed electorate, but these days we use technology to numb our brains and keep us isolated from all but those we choose to associate with. That’s not a good model for governing because leaders don’t always have the option to block or ban people we don’t like. Good governance comes through honest compromise, and you can’t get that on Twitter.

Okay, but shouldn’t we get rid of the Electoral College because of its ties to slavery?

Not once you look at the context. At the time the Founding Fathers were discussing how to choose a President, they toyed with the idea of the Electoral College being based on population like the House of Representatives. The slave states loved this idea because they would have more votes to elect the President. Eventually, this idea was scrapped with the end goal being to end slavery, not to maintain it.

But it was created by racist white males who kept slaves!

Again, you need to look at the context. Yes, they owned slaves, while at the same time trying to end the practice altogether. The Electoral College shouldn’t be abolished because of its ties to slave owners, especially considering the institution itself literally has no other job than to elect a President. Even if it had any opinions on slavery, the power vested within it makes it a moot point.

Okay. Let’s say you’re right about the past, but what about the present? Electors in Wyoming have more say in a Presidential election than California does, but California has more people.

You are correct about California having more people. Which is why they have more Electoral College votes in the first place. The number of Electors is based on the number of Representatives and Senators a state has. Since the House is based on population, California has vastly more votes towards the Presidency than Wyoming does. And since California is a winner-take-all state, all the Electors go to the Presidential candidate who wins the popular vote. If we’re using population to representation as a measuring stick, Wyoming’s Electoral votes have more weight. If we’re using sheer number of representatives as the measuring stick, though, California runs away with it easily.

But here’s the twist. An Electoral vote from Wyoming counts exactly the same as an Electoral vote from California: precisely…one. When viewed from this perspective, the concept of one vote holding more weight than another gets blown out the water.

Perhaps the fix to the Electoral College issue is to do away with winner-take-all states and apportion the Electors by the percentage of votes each candidate gets. That addresses your concerns and mine simultaneously, and no one gets left out.

We have to abolish the Electoral College! We don’t want another President to win the Electoral vote and lose the popular vote!

Although this very scenario has happened twice in 20 years, it’s still a pretty rare occurrence. Prior to 2000, it had only occurred 3 other times, and twice within 12 years, for a grand total of 8.6% of the time the Electoral College winner doesn’t coincide with the popular vote winner. That equates to 91.4% of the two votes going for the same candidate. And in 0% of the elections did the country fall apart when it didn’t happen. No system is going to be perfect, but I think a 91% success rating is still pretty good.

If we had a direct popular vote for President, it would be 100%.

But only because we would eliminate the need for an Electoral College, and it wouldn’t guarantee the winning candidate would step foot outside of population centers on the East and West Coasts where the majority of people live. Although you would achieve your “one person, one vote” goal, it would be at the expense of the entire country. Cities can be pretty isolated places when it comes to ideology and life experience. It would be like trying to compose a Tweet using only the most used letters. You might be able to get your point across, but it’s harder than it needs to be.

And let’s not forget the possibility of voter fraud.

Those instances are rare and wouldn’t impact a national election.

We know about the people who get caught, but that may be only a fraction of the times voter fraud has been committed successfully. And, yes, it’s being done by both sides. However, the problem is even when the number of fraudulent votes is small, it only takes 1 over 50% for a candidate to win. The 2000 Presidential election was won by a few hundred votes. If even 1 vote out of 1000 was fraudulent, that can be enough to swing the results. Not every election is going to be a blowout, so we need to be able to account for each and every vote tallied and why it was accepted or rejected.

With the current dismal state of our election security, a national popular vote would open up the possibility of greater and more diverse forms of voter fraud, ranging from fraudulent registrations to multiple votes for a candidate from the same person to even counting votes from people who shouldn’t be voting in the first place, such as illegal immigrants and the deceased. A national popular vote would overwhelm the current process to the point of breaking. Then, one person, one vote might turn out to be one person, many votes.

We wouldn’t be in this mess if it weren’t for Republicans gerrymandering states for votes.

Gerrymandering doesn’t affect the Electoral College vote, only the number of votes a state has. And even if one party or the other reconfigures Congressional districts to its advantage, the vote for the slate of Electors is still based on the popular vote.

I agree gerrymandering is a problem and should be abolished, but it’s no reason to get rid of the Electoral College. It’s like saying we should get rid of the designated hitter rule because hockey’s too violent.

By this time, the Leftist might be getting upset and willing to punch you, so I’d better stop here. If you have any suggestions to add to this list or ideas for future Crafty Conservative Comebacks for Loony Leftist Lines topics, let me know!

Lowering the Voting Age

36 Views

The Democratic Party idea about lowering the voting age is insane. Even if this was just for national level elections. Most 16 year olds lack maturity and haven’t been through any kind of course in government or civics. They are very ignorant when it comes to the hows and whys of the political systems of the United States and the world.

Truth be told here, if any change to the voting age was to be made. It should be raised, not lowered. I would be for raising it up to 21 for all citizens. With exceptions given to any active duty personal in our armed forces. If you sign that paper and take that oath. You can vote, drink, rent a car, and do a lot of other age restricted activities.

But the real truth on this subject isn’t that the Democratic Party believes that 16 year olds are mature and educated enough to intelligently vote. No, they are hoping for just the opposite.

With the strong Leftist control over our educational system, the Democratic Party is hoping for an increase in their voter rolls. Since they haven’t figured out a way to have foreign national non-citizens vote in our elections, they are turning to manipulable children to vote for Democratic and socialist candidates.

That is the plan. And it must not be allowed to happen.

A Tale of Two Muslims

49 Views

After 9/11, Americans had to do a hard reset on our perceptions of Islam and the people who practice it. Although most Muslims aren’t looking to blow up a shopping mall or drive into a crowd of people, there are some who will. As a result, we’ve gotten jittery because the latter Muslims typically don’t walk up and introduce themselves to you as radicals before they kill you.

We keep asking for the “good Muslims” to stand up and be counted because they typically don’t. One has, but his story has gotten very little attention in favor of another Muslim. The former, Abdul Aziz, is a man who risked his life by confronting the mosque shooter in Christchurch, New Zealand recently. The latter is a woman, Rep. Ilhan Omar, who has been able to parlay an election to the House of Representatives into a lucrative soapbox to advance anti-Semitic ideas while claiming to be a victim of Islamophobia when she gets called out.

Why the difference in approaches? Bad news sells better than good news. It’s easier to make a woman of color a sympathetic figure than it is to make a man, of color or otherwise, into one because we are trained to see women as weaker. Although this is no longer the case by and large, it’s the way we’re “programmed” as it were. And before you Leftists start screaming about The Patriarchy, it’s not solely the work of The Man. It’s genetic and has been for a loooooooong time.

There is something else at work here, one that should make Leftists’ heads explode. Rep. Omar isn’t a poor victim here. She is a woman with a degree of power currently that most American will never have. And how is she using that power? To deceive people about her personal feelings towards Israel and Jewish people in general while pushing a narrative about hate crimes that isn’t backed up by facts from reputable sources (i.e. entities not named the Southern Poverty Law Center).

In contrast, Aziz has no power to speak of, save for the power of his resolve and bravery in confronting an active shooter and getting him to stand down. Going back to the genetic programming I mentioned earlier, men are expected to protect the weak, so there really is no story there, at least in the eyes of the media fawning over Omar. Just a little sexist there, don’t you think?

Adding to the context is American media’s attitude towards foreign news. The short version is they’re only concerned about foreign countries when there’s a tragedy, which the Christchurch shooting certainly was. Good news coming out of a tragedy isn’t always the news we hear, however, because it goes against our media’s predisposition to ignore foreign news until there’s unrest. In the media’s eyes, Omar is closer to home, so any stories about her are immediately “interesting.”

Then, there’s the narrative, or in this case narratives. Our media are Leftist stenographers, so anything they cover is done so to advance an agenda. With the Omar situation, there was an opportunity to promote the idea of rising white supremacist and anti-woman sentiments in America. With the Christchurch shooting, there was an opportunity to push a pro-gun control message. However, the fly in the ointment in the latter situation is the fact Aziz used a gun to repel the shooter, which means his story has to get buried in favor of pushing the notion guns are only used for killing. As a result, our media decided to ignore Aziz’s actions because they ruin the Left’s narrative.

It also doesn’t help matters that Aziz has been silent about President Donald Trump, while Omar has been attacking the President for a while.

At this point, the media aren’t going to stop giving Omar a platform to spew, spin, and ask forgiveness when she get called out, but the fact they aren’t giving Aziz any platform should be troubling to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The Left really doesn’t care about the plight of Muslims, just about the optics and what supporting them can do for the Left’s brand. That’s right, kids. Leftists are perfectly fine with bigotry as long as they get what they want out of it. That’s why you won’t see them condemn Rep. Omar. She is a useful tool. Aziz isn’t because he doesn’t help the Left advance anything. Yet, these same Leftists will go after any conservative who even slightly criticizes Omar as Islamophobic.

Spoiler Alert: the denial of the good Muslims do is Islamophobia. Even by the Left’s definition.

I’m not denying there are still Muslims out there who want America and Israel brought down, but I don’t have any evidence that Abdul Aziz is one of them. But I do have evidence Ilham Omar is. Instead of focusing and whitewashing every single hateful “gaffe” the latter makes, we should be elevating the former and calling out when anyone deserves a pat on the back.

You may never read this, Mr. Aziz, but know there are plenty like me who say thank you for your bravery in the face of death. You have earned my respect. May others like you come forward and show the world Islam isn’t the violent religion some have made it out to be.

Leftist Terrorism in New Zealand

44 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

49 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

36 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

53 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

168 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

50 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?