Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

165 Views

There are times when a topic for a blog post is harder to find than the point of an Elizabeth Warren Presidential run, but there are other times when the perfect topic drops into your lap. Ladies and gentlemen, the latter occurred, thanks to the Mueller Report.

Whether you were hoping Robert Mueller’s report would exonerate or condemn President Donald Trump, the world waited with bated breath for a 400+ page report with redactions. It was almost like watching fans waiting for the next Harry Potter book Harry Potter and the Quest to Buy J. K. Rowling a 43rd House. And what we found was…well, let’s just go to the definition and analysis.

the Mueller Report

What the Left thinks it means – a report that proves Donald Trump obstructed justice and worked with the Russians to steal the 2016 Presidential election

What it really means – one of the most expensive door jams in American political history

I’m not usually cynical, but when it comes to politics and the theater of the magnitude of the Mueller Report, it’s hard not to be. From the beginning, I felt it was going to be an inconclusive waste of time (and taxpayer money) because no one was going to be happy with the outcome. If the report proved beyond a reasonable doubt Donald Trump worked with the Russians to win the 2016 Presidential election, a good chunk of the country would say it was fake news, no matter how well sourced it was. If the report showed Trump was as innocent as a newborn, a good chunk of the country would claim the report was a sham and that Trump used his power and influence to affect the outcome.

And what we got was firmly between these two extremes. A redacted report (as required by law after the Starr Report) made the Left mad because they know there’s good stuff that proves Trump is guilty. And even if there isn’t, they claim there’s enough there to warrant impeachment. The report also made Trump supporters ecstatic because it showed (even with the redactions) that the President wasn’t guilty and the investigation was a sham from the word go. To me, however, the Mueller Report doesn’t prove Trump’s guilt or innocence because it wasn’t meant to do either.

At its core, the Mueller Report was a mutli-million dollar job project for people who want to keep our eyes off the real issues in this country, not the least of which being the federal government spying on a private citizen in the hopes of getting some dirt to help a severely flawed candidate limp into the White House because it was “her turn.”

But I’m totally not cynical.

Yes, there were a number of Trump associates who plead guilty to crimes…that were unrelated to the campaign itself. Yes, the funds seized from the aforementioned guilty parties was more than the cost of the investigation…which ultimately didn’t turn up anything concrete about the actual subject matter of the investigation, Donald Trump. Yes, the report uncovered suggestions that Trump may have possibly broken the law…but leaves that open to interpretation to the point of being irrelevant. Yes, the report did leave the job of holding the President accountable to the crimes (real or imagined) to Congress…which is what they are supposed to do anyway. In other words, we’re pretty much back where we started, but now we have a report.

Yay for us?

The real kicker here is the Mueller Report might be worthless at the jump because it may not be used as grounds for impeachment. Under that little document the kids today call the Constitution, a President can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. But what if the crimes are committed before the President is sworn in? That’s a question the Left hasn’t thought to ask before now in their rush to impeach Trump, and it’s a question the Right hasn’t thought to ask before now in their rush to defend Trump. And it’s a pretty big question to be overlooked.

Put simply, the Mueller Report is a lot like making hot dogs: you’ll enjoy it better if you don’t think about what went into making it. The problem (among several I could rattle off here) is the reason we have the report in the first place is fundamentally flawed and politically motivated, which makes any result questionable at best. I’m not a fan of the President, but I have to call bullshit when I see it, and basing an entire impeachment case off the Mueller Report and what lead up to it is USDA Grade A all-American bullshit. Expecting good results from bad faith is foolish.

It’s important that we separate the report from the man, however. Robert Mueller may be a choirboy or a criminal, but until we know the man, we should not judge him. From where I sit, he has kept his mouth shut for the most part while investigating the allegations, so that speaks well of his commitment to justice. Let’s not malign him until he acts or says something that warrants it.

In the meantime, let’s direct our ire towards the Mueller Report and make sure we’re not getting caught up in the debate over minutia coming from it. There are serious legal, Constitutional, and ethical concerns that need to be addressed before any action can and should be taken.

But knowing politicians, they can’t be bothered with said concerns because they ruin the political narrative.

But, still totally not cynical.

See Something, Say Some Things

133 Views

It’s been about 2 weeks since Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) said the following:

CAIR was founded after 9/11, because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.

Since those words were uttered, Rep. Omar has gotten death threats (according to her) and more than a little push-back from people from all sides of the political spectrum. Rep. Omar’s defenders say her comments were taken out of context and actually meant something completely different. Her detractors say her comments downplayed the events of 9/11 and the feelings over those lost and left to carry on after the attacks.

I’ve waited a while to write about this because I wanted to dig a bit deeper and make sure I wasn’t doing what both sides of this controversy were doing: taking a side and ignoring any facts that contradict that side. After reading Rep. Omar’s comments in context, I have a few things to say.

Death threats are not cool, period. I don’t care if you’re so conservative you make Ronald Reagan look like a hippie or if you’re further left than an outfielder playing the third base line, threatening to harm or kill anyone is not the way to make your point, win friends, and influence people. And that goes double for anyone who acts on those threats. There’s a reason we’re on top of the food chain, and it’s not because we look snazzy in dress clothes. It’s because we’re supposed to be able to think. Rep. Omar doesn’t deserve death threats from any person, period. Instead, vote her out of office.

What Rep. Omar said wasn’t hate speech. I’m sorry, my Right-leaning brethren and sisthren (I may have made that last word up, but hey.). What she said wasn’t hate speech; it was stupid speech. Any time there’s miscommunication, the message and/or the messenger may be to blame. Given the sensitive nature of 9/11, it is vital to show careful consideration to the words chosen as to avoid unintentional misinterpretation. Rep. Omar and/or her speechwriter failed miserably here. Even if her intent wasn’t to downplay the events or the perpetrators of 9/11, her wording made it seem like she did. Thus, the backlash. Which brings us to…

Context matters, and not just in the moment. Rep. Omar’s defenders say her words were taken out of context, which is all too common an excuse for when Leftists make incredibly stupid comments that can be interpreted in a bad light. In context, it’s unclear who Rep. Omar was referring to by the “some people did something” line, and people adding context only muddies the water. Could it be she was referring to people attacking Muslims and non-Muslims alike in the aftermath of 9/11? Sure. Could she be playing defense for her religion? Absolutely. Could she be hinting at an oft-repeated, but utterly discredited myth that Israel was behind 9/11? Possibly. In the larger context of previous comments she’s made, one could make the argument Rep. Omar had a hidden motive like the ones I mentioned and others I didn’t. But to say Rep. Omar’s comments could only be taken in one context (that, surprise surprise, makes her seem either like a martyr or a monster) is ignoring the totality of her statements, ideas, and attitudes. And speaking of context…

Donald Trump and the New York Post didn’t take Rep. Omar out of context. Regardless of what the defenders of Rep. Omar say, her words were not taken out of context. They may not have been a full quotation, but that doesn’t negate the fact there is a legitimate interpretation of her words that she may not have intended, but is there. Claiming it was is a little intellectually dishonest and more than a little hypocritical, given Rep. Omar said President Trump was “not human” not that long ago. Live by the “otherizing” of an opponent, politically die by the “otherizing” of an opponent. And furthermore…

Donald Trump and the New York Post didn’t incite violence. If claiming Rep. Omar’s comments were taken out of context was intellectually dishonest (which it was), claiming President Trump and the New York Post incited violence is the Big Kahuna of intellectual dishonesty in 2019. The worst you can say is the Post cover was provocative to the point of exploitation, but nowhere in Trump’s tweets or in the Post’s reporting of the controversy is there a call for violent action. And don’t give me that “it was subtle” crap because it’s a double standard. If we have to be generous in giving Rep. Omar the benefit of the doubt with her 9/11 comment, the same standard should apply to Trump and the Post. But, it doesn’t because it ruins the narrative that Rep. Omar is being picked on by the mean ole Trumpmonster!

Silence isn’t golden, and neither is race and gender baiting. Since the controversy blew up (if you’ll pardon the bad turn of a phrase), Rep. Omar hasn’t retracted her statements or offered additional clarification. I’m sure she’ll get around to it once she’s done blaming the backlash on her gender and race. Yeah, not a smart move. Although I’m sure there is a lot of pushback due to her race and gender (and even her religion), there is a lot of it that has nothing to do with any of that, but rather the content of her words combined with the lack of a plausible explanation. When even Leftists are telling you what you said was troubling, Rep. Omar, you might need to take a step back and look at it from their perspective. The more she relies on the race and gender card instead of the “I screwed up and I’m sorry” card, the harder it will be for her to be forgiven.

Not all Muslims are like Rep. Omar. With all of the controversy, you may not have heard some of Rep. Omar’s critics…are fellow Muslims. And, no, it’s not because they think she didn’t go far enough. They actually don’t think she’s a good representative of their faith, and I tend to agree. Muslims attacked us on 9/11, but they’re not the representation of all Muslims, nor should they be. When they sympathize with the 9/11 attackers and those who share their interpretation of the Quran, then they cross that line, but not before. I don’t want Tom Arnold to be representative of all Iowans because we also have Brandon Routh and Jason Momoa, and those two were Superman and Aquaman. Instead, treat every Muslim like we would like to be treated, and nobody gets hurt.

I feel really sorry for Nancy Pelosi. Rep. Omar and her cohorts, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and the Socialist Socialite (D-UH), have given Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi a lot of headaches since becoming members of the House of Representatives in January. From making absurd and hateful statements to the rollout of the Edsel of the green movement called the Green New Deal to taking up all the oxygen that other freshmen Democrats could be using to advance ideas, Pelosi has her hands full. Part of me says, “You got what you wished for” and leave it at that, but a part of me feels sorry for her because I don’t think she could have ever imagined three freshmen Democrats making such a mess out of what should be an easy time of making a cogent argument in favor of their policies. Instead, she’s having to put out fires like Squad 51 of “Emergency!” while spinning more then Enrico Fermi on the Silly Silo out at Adventureland and trying to keep the various factions within the House Democrats from creating a rift so vicious it makes the Hatfields and McCoys look like an Amish pillow fight. If the Democrats lose the White House and one or both branches of Congress in 2020, a good chunk of the blame will lie at the feet of Pelosi not being able to draw attention away from the 3 Stoogettes long enough to formulate actual policy.

That’s all I have to say for now, but if I don’t stop now, I’ll get off on tangents that nobody wants me to visit.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

156 Views

There have been some major news stories breaking over the past week, but none has been bigger than WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being arrested in London at the behest of the United States. Assange is a polarizing figure to many. To some, he’s an unsung hero who kept governments’ feet to the fire. To others, he is a dangerous individual who should have been arrested and jailed a long time ago.

And, as you might expect, the Left has been conflicted over his work. When it was George W. Bush getting skewered, Leftists loved Assange. When it was Hillary Clinton catching his ire, he was a Russian asset. And when President Donald Trump said he liked WikiLeaks and asked them jokingly to get her emails, Assange became persona non grata to the Left. (Persona non grata is Latin for “person without cheese.” Or something like that.)

Time to delve into the wonderful world of WikiLeaks and Assange.

Julian Assange

What the Left thinks it means – a dangerous individual who is a threat to international security

What it really means – a 21st Century version of a hired gun

The Left’s attitude towards Assange is no surprise to me because they’ve played this game before. Remember Cindy Sheehan? The Left loved her when she would protest against George W. Bush, but when she decided to run against Nancy Pelosi, Sheehan was painted as an unstable grieving mother who couldn’t find her way out of a ditch with a map, a ladder, and a sign. The Left will use whomever they want in whatever fashion they want until that person becomes a liability to them.

And Julian Assange fits that bill perfectly.

I’ve been following his efforts to shine light into the cockroach infested halls of government for years, and it’s clear he has no allegiance to any one ideology or movement. He is truly a merc with a modem. That can lead to some interesting discussions about the morality and legality of what he does. On the one hand, he is revealing information the powerful don’t want you to know (or in Hillary’s case relying on the stupidity of her campaign staffers to openly give out the information inadvertently). Knowledge is power, especially in the Information Age. Yet, what if that information results in an innocent party getting hurt? Some could argue people like Bradley “Chelsea” Manning were damaged by working with Assange. And he/she may not be the only one, just one of the more visible victims.

This raises a question that hits at both the legal and moral parts of this discussion: is disobeying a bad law for good ends justifiable? Not an easy one to puzzle out, is it? Once you factor in such elements as severity of the crime (stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family versus stealing a loaf of bread to kill your family), the frequency of the crime (a first-time offender versus a serial killer who uses baked goods to kill his victims), circumstances (a poor child versus a rich white man who washed out of culinary school and wants to take revenge on the world), and so on, the hard and fast solution we want becomes murkier and harder to obtain. Yes, Assange broke the law in at least 2 countries, and the reasons behind that lawlessness may be the result of a lawless process, but it’s hard to get past the fact the law was broken.

Of course, none of that means jack squat to the Left. They will justify lawlessness in pursuit of their own ends without fail. How do you think Al Sharpton keeps getting sweet gigs in spite of his criminal behavior? The minute Sharpton flips the script and sounds like Rush Limbaugh with a tan, the Left will turn on him faster than you can say Tawana Brawley.

But this relationship isn’t one way. Seems the Left had no problems wanting Assange taken out. I seem to remember someone from a recent previous administration who wondered out loud whether Assange could be taken out with a drone strike, but I can’t remember who that was…I’m sure it was nobody important. After all, the previous President would never let someone make a joke like that or make a similar joke about his daughters and the Jonas Brothers.

Anyway, even a joke like that would be enough to motivate him to counterattack in the only way he knew how: by releasing damning information about Hillary Clinton. Personally, I’m surprised he had the bandwidth, storage capacity, and patience to limit it to just her emails, but bully for him all the same.

Here’s where I part company with Assange. Although he’s shown he has no allegiance to the Left or the Right, I can’t quite trust him. Call it the David Brock Effect. Brock was a Republican (or so the self-professed liar said in his book Blinded By the Right), but then shifted hard Left. Whenever someone shifts that drastically, even if I agree with the outcome, I can’t completely trust that person. People with integrity can change their minds without it affecting their core convictions. I don’t get that from Assange, just like I don’t get it from Brock because I’m not convinced they have core convictions beyond the here and now. That tells me their convictions can be bought and sold depending on who’s cutting the check. What’s to say Assange doesn’t goes after Trump tomorrow if George Soros drops a few million dollars in his lap?

Granted, this is speculation on my part because I don’t know Assange well enough to say definitively. He may be as consistent and dogged as I am to get to the truth. We will see in the coming weeks and years whether he is an opportunist or a soothsayer. In the meantime, I will enjoy the Leftist meltdowns.

Popcorn, anyone?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

131 Views

On April 2nd, people in America celebrated Equal Pay Day. I didn’t, of course, because I was too busy working. Although Hallmark hasn’t figure out a way to capitalize on this event, it’s significant to Leftists because it helps them bring up the gender wage gap, a hot button issue over the past couple of decades. According to Leftist studies, women make 78% as much as men for doing the same work, hence the wage gap.

And hence Equal Pay Day.

And hence the reason I’m adding this to the Leftist Lexicon.

Equal Pay Day

What the Left thinks it means – a date symbolizing the amount of time women have to work into the current year to match what their male counterparts made in the previous year

What it really means – Kwanzaa, but with more gender politics and less economic theory

The idea of Equal Pay Day comes from the National Committee on Pay Equity, a conglomeration of women’s and civil rights groups, professional associations, labor unions, and such committed to ending gender and race-based pay discrimination. In other words, they’re Leftists, which means their grasp on economics is as tenuous as the plugs in Joe Biden’s hair during a CAT 5 hurricane. And they’re the ones who keep putting out reports showing how unfair the gender pay gap is towards women.

Of course, that’s assuming their numbers are accurate and account for all factors instead of cherry-picking the data that proves their point. Since I made the previous statement, you can assume the numbers aren’t right, and you’d be right. Mark Twain once said there are lies, damnable lies, and statistics, but the National Committee on Pay Equity use all three to advance their agenda.

Many economists, social scientists, and generally learned people have all but destroyed the idea of the wage gap, and they have done it far better than I ever could. However, I will give you an idea of why the gender pay gap, and Equal Pay Day in general, is bollox. Men and women are wired differently, so they make different choices. Whether to stay home and raise children or be a working mother. Whether to pursue a major in hard or soft science. Whether getting that degree in post-modern albino lesbian feminist comedy writing will be in demand once you get out of college. (That last one is easy to answer. There is no future in post-modern albino lesbian feminist comedy writing because they lack a sense of humor.)

These choices affect a woman’s future earning capability, which isn’t necessarily reflected in the rhetoric of the Equal Pay Day crowd. Additionally, there are cases where women are paid more than men for the same job. Just ask Google, who did their own internal study and found the gender pay gap was in favor of women instead of against them. Wait a second…isn’t Google known for being Left leaning? Why…yes! Yes it is! But I’m sure the cases of women being paid more than men are reflected in the Equal Pay Day calculations, right?

Not so much.

The problem with the gender pay gap is the statistics don’t hold up under closer examination, which puts the need for Equal Pay Day in jeopardy. In fact, once you take all the factors I mentioned (and several more I didn’t for the sake of brevity) into the equation, the gender pay gap evaporates to pennies on the dollar. In some fields, women make more than men when all of the factors are taken into account, but you don’t see men asking for an Equal Pay Day in those fields, and you won’t find any Equal Pay Day advocates pushing for it because it destroys the narrative.

It should also be pointed out the National Committee on Pay Equity also breaks down how much different minorities make as compared to whites. (Remember, they have civil rights groups as committee members.) And their methodology with these is just as bogus as their statistics about women’s pay.

Underneath the calls for equal pay for equal work, there is a base assumption: The White Man is keeping women down. So, in order to get back power and money, the Equal Pay Day folks have to take down The White Man. It’s fiscal revenge porn with a touch of blaxploitation films mixed in!

However, taking this path not only shows how racist and sexist these folks are, it underscores their lack of economic knowledge. I’ve mentioned this before, so please forgive the duplication. Leftists believe all of economics is a zero-sum game where if someone succeeds, it means that person is stealing from the less fortunate (in Leftists’ minds). However, that’s not the case most of the time. Our economy is elastic in nature, meaning it expands and contracts due to market forces and conditions. One person’s success doesn’t prevent someone else from being successful. In other words, the only zeroes in the economy are those who believe in the zero sum game.

Here’s one last tidbit for you to consider. It’s already illegal to pay people differently for the same work, and it was a law passed well before the National Committee on Pay Equity was even a thing. Of course, their response is that businesses find ways around the law to continue the practice. Well, if anyone from the National Committee on Pay Equity is reading this, let me ask a couple of simple questions.

Who is doing it, and why haven’t you brought them to justice?

It’s far easier to complain than it is to do something, and with Leftists, any problem can be turned into a money-maker. When the National Committee on Pay Equity gets around to filing suit against any of the companies they say make Equal Pay Day a necessity, then I’ll give them a second look. Until then, to quote the great philosopher Tallahassee from “Zombieland”, it’s time to nut up or shut up.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

135 Views

It’s been about a week since Robert Mueller released his report noting there would be no new indictments coming from it and generally giving media pundits plenty of material to work with for the next several weeks. Although President Donald Trump and his supporters are happier than Bill Clinton at a stripper convention a day after Hillary’s wake. But, not everyone is happy, and surprise surprise, it’s Leftists who are trying to be buzzkills.

Since the Mueller report didn’t seem to connect the dots the Left were hoping would be there between Trump and Russia, the Left is demanding Mueller’s full report be released to the public so they can see for themselves (not that it would change their minds at all). They’ve even come up with an imaginative hashtag to use on Twitter, #ReleaseTheReport (or any of the numerous variations on that theme), to do try to get people to demand it.

Of course, you can probably guess I have an opinion or 50 about it, so let’s start by defining the terminology.

#ReleaseTheReport

What the Left thinks it means – a call for the government to release the full unredacted Mueller Report

What it really means – the continuation of an already-too-long fishing expedition

From the beginning of the Mueller investigation, I had a feeling it was an investigation in search of a crime, not as a result of a crime. The accusations of collusion with Russia to affect the 2016 Presidential election were always presented with an air of certitude by Leftists, but they always seemed to lack a certain something…what is it…it’s on the tip of my tongue…oh, yeah, evidence! The best the Left has been able to provide is circumstantial evidence that hints at a connection without actually nailing down any of the concrete specifics that would establish it definitively.

Now that we have a report, we need to figure out the endgame. Leftists say the reason we don’t have a full report yet is because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refuses to make it public because it would damage Trump. As sinister as this sounds, it may be only part of the story. Right now, we can only speculate as to what the report says, but since it’s been handed off to the Southern District of New York Court as well as to Congress and the Department of Justice, there may be more at work here than just an unwillingness to release the report.

You know, tiny stuff like ongoing investigations and national security concerns.

The former is currently being done by the aforementioned SDNY court, where there are already sealed indictments. Releasing the full report now may jeopardize those indictments and prevent the accused from having a fair trial, thus creating the grounds for a mistrial. If that happened, whatever short-term pleasure could be derived from releasing the full report would backfire on the Left and leave them looking even more foolish than they already do.

Then, there’s the national security risk element. There may be parts of the Mueller Report that aren’t meant for citizens’ eyes, such as top secret intelligence, that need to be redacted before we get to see the report. That takes time and deliberation, neither of which can be rushed in matters of national security. Yet, Leftists want the full report released now with no regard to either the legal process or national security, all to try to own the President? Brilliant!

The motivation behind Leftists’ demands for the full report is pretty simple: since the Russia collusion angle has gone the way of Louis Farrakhan’s chances of getting invited to a bar mitzvah, they need to find something else to justify going after Trump and his family. If they find so much as a jaywalking ticket or an overdue library book, they are going to pounce on it. (Yes, I know, conservatives are the ones who pounce according to the media, but they consider Jim Acosta to be a valued member of their profession when he’s barely qualified to report on anything more complex than the lunch menu at the CNN commissary.) They are going to try to recreate Whitewater, but put Donald Trump in the Bill Clinton role.

And it will wind up like Whitewater did: a lot of money getting spent for very little actual punishment, no matter how deserved the punishment is.

There is another possible and even more delusional reason to consider. There are Leftists who believe if they can prove Trump broke the law that it would invalidate the 2016 election and Hillary Clinton would become President. Ummm…that’s not how this works. Unless you can prove there was voter fraud (which, by the way, wasn’t even the scope of the Mueller investigation), you have no way to claim the 2016 Presidential election was fraudulent. And since we don’t have anything in place currently to address a fraudulent Presidential election, it would take a while to fix. Put another way, by the time you could get a plan in place, it would be too late for the 2020 election, and possibly into 2024. If it gets bogged down, however, we would be running into the Socialist Socialite’s claim we have 12 years to live due to global climate change. And given all the people who died due to Trump’s tax cuts, the lack of Net Neutrality, and the US pulling out of the Paris Accords…

Look, I know Leftists want to impeach and remove Donald Trump, but it’s a fool’s errand because it falls into the same category Whitewater did: stuff that happened before the President was President and, thus, has little to no bearing on his current job title. And remember, kids, the “it was a long time ago” defense was perfected by the Left during the Commander in Briefs’ tenure to deflect attention away from his crimes. Ah, history repeats itself once again, and the Left still can’t catch on. If they weren’t too busy trying to rewrite it to suit their needs, maybe they would.

Here’s the kicker. Even if they get the full Mueller Report, it won’t satisfy the Left. They’ve already turned Robert Mueller from a superhuman to a Russian asset just in the few days since the report was submitted to the DOJ. And no matter what exoneration exists in the report, no matter how well-sourced it is, no matter how many people on both sides of the aisle agree on the content and conclusions, the Left will dismiss it like they dismiss actual science when talking about global climate change.

In the meantime, we should see #ReleaseTheRecord as a last-ditch effort to preserve the Left’s narrative at the expense of what little credibility they have on the subject of Russian collusion. Given the fact they didn’t have, well…any, to start with, it’s going to be a long slog ahead.

So, grab some popcorn and drinks of your choice. It’s gonna be fuuuuuuun!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

144 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

373 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!

A Tale of Two Muslims

146 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 Lexicon Word of the Week

98 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

104 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.