Closing Time on Mueller Time?

9 Views

If you heard the distinct sound of popping in your area, it’s not fireworks. It’s Leftists losing their minds over a news report from NBC that the Senate Intelligence Committee found no direct proof of collusion between President Donald Trump and Russia. And Leftists took this news with their usual maturity and introspection.

That’s right. They pretended the report didn’t exist.

Normally, I might pass this off as partisan wishful thinking on the Trump supporters’ parts, but other news reports prior to the NBC report adds weight to the notion Robert Mueller’s investigation is going to come up emptier than a Sandra Fluke campaign rally.

“But what about all the indictments of Trump campaign personnel?” Leftists scream. The indictments by themselves lead to the conclusion the President surrounds himself with bad actors, and it should be pointed out the indictments were for matters not related to Trump’s 2016 campaign. Put another way, it’s like trying to throw out a murder trial because the prosecutor had an overdue library book in the 3rd grade.

To any Leftists reading this (or having this read to you), we need to have a serious talk about this whole situation. All the fantasies you have about undoing the 2016 Presidential Election aren’t healthy, and they’re hurting you on several fronts. Just because you can point your fingers at some of Trump’s inner circle as being corrupt doesn’t mean Trump is corrupt. That’s call guilt by association, and it really doesn’t fly in criminal, civil, or even political court, i.e. impeachment. It means he’s a lousy judge of character, which isn’t an impeachable offense, nor is it illegal. It’s the deeds that make one guilty.

Obstruction of justice? Sorry, but that one won’t stick because of the fact Mueller still has an investigation pending. Not to mention, Trump could fire Mueller at any time for any reason, but has stayed his hand. If he wanted to, he could have appointed any pro-Trump stooge to head up the investigation and gotten further in less time.

Treason? Last time I checked (and according to the President before Trump) Russia was an ally of ours. Not a good one, I grant you, but an ally nonetheless. Sharing intel with allies isn’t uncommon, kids. On top of that, sharing polling data that the Russians could have gotten from, say, anywhere on the Internet simply by typing in a few keywords isn’t illegal, nor is it all that troubling.

Destruction of evidence? That one has the outside chance of sticking, but the key will be whether it can be proven Trump did it or ordered it done. And you might want to tread lightly if you want to go with this charge, considering his 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton is accused (and probably guilty) of destroying evidence using the same legal framework you want to use against Trump.

Once you get beyond these three arguments, there isn’t much there to justify impeachment, let alone continuing the Mueller investigation, and it doesn’t look like there are going to be any more bombshells to come out of anything. It’s time to face what I had to face back in the 1990s with Kenneth Starr: you pinned your hopes on a man who was destined to fail. In Starr’s case, it was because he was dealing with some of the most dishonest politicians ever to sully the White House. In Mueller’s case, it is because there isn’t enough evidence to even fabricate anything that looks even remotely like criminal conspiracy. And no amount of repeating squawking points from either side will change the outcome.

You Leftists are going to be angry at Mueller for failing to topple Trump, but he doesn’t deserve your wrath and scorn. Who does? The FBI, James Comey, the mainstream media who has pushed this narrative, those who decided to run with the Steele Dossier that has been discredited to the point of being useless, just to name a few. But you also need to take a little responsibility for the situation getting to where it is today. There are plenty of reasons not to like Donald Trump, but investing so much on so little evidence is folly at best. You were duped by your own ideological biases, so it’s best to own up to them now instead of writing another poorly-sourced tweet or angry blog post about how Mueller was in Trump’s back pocket all along.

Or maybe you can go back to protesting. That seems to have worked well, right?

Worst. Tour. Ever.

7 Views

In case you haven’t been keeping track of the flaming bag of dog doo that is the Green New Deal, there’s been a new development! Since the worst rollout since the Obamacare website, there will now be a 15-city tour and 50-state campaign to promote it. And you thought there wasn’t live entertainment anymore…

Although people have caught onto the easy hypocrisy of the tour (as in how they GNDers are going to travel to said cities), I want to focus on a slightly different aspect of it. We’re told the Left loves facts and science and they’re all in when it comes to global climate change. Of course, their actions don’t reflect it, but they talk a good green game.

One of the Leftists heading up this Green New Deal tour is the Socialist Socialite, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. As a Millennial, she connects with a lot of people. Her Twitter game, in particular, is quite effective in getting out her messages. Although people are rightly asking her how she plans to travel to the sites of this tour, but they’re missing out on the biggest question.

Why does the Green New Deal need a tour?

I can see the political (and, let’s face it, financial) aspects to holding GND rallies, but the optics are bound to be bad either way. If they show up in fleet of big busses, they look like hypocrites. If they show up in eco-friendly vehicles, they look stupid. It’s a Kobayashi Maru that is hopefully biodegradable or at least can be used as compost. (Kinda like the GND itself if you think about it.)

So, why bring up social media? Because it’s more cost and energy efficient than a tour while reaching a wider group of people. Set up a Google Hangout, do a Facebook Live video, post a video to Twitter or Instagram, and spread your message that way. Granted, in these forums anyone can join (and judging from some of Hillary Clinton’s town hall meetings with carefully chosen “completely random” average people that just so happen to agree with her, this concern might be unfounded), but it would be a smaller carbon footprint and, frankly, more convenient for the target audience and the people who want the Green New Deal to be a thing.

And if it saves just one child from dying due to global climate change, isn’t it worth it?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

4 Views

There are some stories that grab our attention because they have a compelling human interest element to them. There are others that grab our attention because of the circumstances behind them. Then, there are others that appear to be complete dumpster fires.

Recently, I’ve been following a story about Jussie Smollett, an actor on the television show “Empire.” Smollett also happens to be black and gay. Smollett alleges he was attacked physically and verbally early one morning in Chicago for being black and gay. The reason I’m interested in this story is because it keeps changing as new details emerge. Some accounts say he was attacked by two white men wearing Make America Great Again hats who screamed “This is MAGA Country.” Other accounts included a noose and a bottle of bleach. Other accounts have removed the MAGA hats and included ski masks and hoods. I wouldn’t be surprised if there will be an account that it was a pissed off leprechaun riding on a drunk unicorn farting rainbows who attacked Smollett.

As we are sifting through the uncertain facts of this case, one fact has emerged among Leftists: this was a hate crime. The Left’s definition of a hate crime is slipperier than Jello wrestling in oil with a greased pig. (Hey, I only did it the one time and it was because I was drunk, single, and lonely, okay?) Yet, it’s in this imprecise definition that we can find a definition of our own.

hate crime

What the Left thinks it means – a crime against a marginalized group/groups motivated by hatred of said group/groups

What it really means – an area of criminal activity that isn’t enforced equally and is based on speculation of motive

Remember the movie “Minority Report”? If you do, great. If you don’t, consider yourself lucky. Anyway, the movie’s premise revolves around a concept called pre-crime, which can only be uncovered using psychics/oracles who can see into the future. However, someone figures out how to game the system to hide his pre-crime. Hate crimes revolve around a similar concept, only instead of having psychics look into the future to see a crime, people without psychic powers are adding additional punishment for crimes based on…well, gut instinct, really.

Granted, some hate crimes are easy to figure out. A burning cross in a black family’s front yard is pretty obvious, but others aren’t. A black child getting beaten up by a gang of white thugs yelling racial epithets is a hate crime, but a white child getting beaten up by a gang of black thugs yelling racial epithets isn’t. The crime (assault) is the same. The hate (racism) is the same. But the punishment isn’t. The former is treated like a hate crime, which is should be, but the latter isn’t.

And that’s where things get interesting. And by interesting, I mean stupid.

The Left believes only whites, and white men in particular, can never be victims of hate crimes because they have all the power and privilege. And guess who has been writing and promoting hate crime laws? You guessed it. Leftists. For the record, I would have also accepted monkeys flinging poo because when it comes to hate crime laws, the two aren’t that far apart.

This is my major problem with hate crimes in general. We are supposed to have equal protection under the law regardless of our race and/or gender. To increase the legal penalties for a crime based on a lopsided interpretation of society runs counter to that notion. And it’s not like drunk driving punishments because we can measure a person’s blood alcohol level at the time of an accident. We can’t delve into a person’s heart and mind at the point of a crime with any degree of accuracy.

Granted, there are white males who are hateful scumbags, like Tom Arnold. But that fact shouldn’t overshadow the rule of law just because of the race of the perpetrator or the victim, especially when the crimes are handled and punished differently on those same bases. If that isn’t a clear violation of the 14th Amendment, I’m not sure what is.

The problem is hate crimes laws are hard to fight because of the emotional element of the crimes themselves. We hate to see people hurt for something they cannot control, and we don’t want to be seen as bigots by voicing legitimate concerns, so most people either stay quiet or support hate crime laws. This gives the Left all the power they need to continue pushing these types of laws.

That’s why it’s important to fight back. The only way the Left gets away with passing these types of laws for certain types of crimes is by relying on people to be silenced by the prospect of being seen as a bigot. That requires you to be afraid. If you don’t give in to that fear, the power goes away. Apathy is the greatest weapon against the Left you can muster.

There’s another problem the Left hasn’t figured out how to combat: fake hate crimes. I know it may shock you, but there are some dishonest people who lie about being victims of hate crimes for various reasons. And just like with false claims of sexual assault, false claims of hate crimes damage the real claims because it makes them easier to dismiss. And guess what’s been occurring more and more in recent years? That’s right: Tyler Perry movies. Oh, and fake hate crimes. And just like with false allegations of sexual assault, Leftists want us to ignore the bad actors and believe everyone, while excusing those who are guilty. Remember Mattress Girl? Leftists still defend her in spite of the lies she spewed.

Is Jussie Smollett guilty of fabricating his attack? I don’t know, but I do know there are a few facts that make me question what happened, and the facts that have changed since the news of the attack first hit lead me to believe it’s a false hate crime. Until there is a definite resolution, though, I will withhold judgment. If he did make it up, anyone who suggests it was a hate crime had better be ready to not just apologize and eat a murder of crow, but demand Smollett pay the price for his deeds.

Who am I kidding? They’ll excuse him like they excused Mattress Girl.

My State of the Union Address

8 Views

President Donald Trump gave his State of the Union Address last night, after all the ballyhoo and macho posturing. Although I appreciated the topics the President covered, I don’t think he went far enough. The following is the State of the Union Address I wish he had given instead.

My fellow Americans, Representatives, Senators, Supreme Court Justices, Cabinet members, and most welcome guests…

I’m sure you all expect me to talk about how strong our country is, how well we’re doing economically and internationally, and a bunch of other happy talk, but we need to have a serious talk.

Our country is at a crossroads on several fronts. Economically, we have a debate over whether to keep the mostly capitalist society we have now or scrap it in favor of socialism of one form or another. Internationally, we are struggling to have, let alone maintain, a consistent foreign policy that both assists countries who need our help while protecting our national interests. Politically, actors on all sides of the ideological divide are treating each other poorly, even to the point of committing violent crimes against them. Racially, tensions have reached heights we haven’t seen since the 1960s. Morally, we have lost our way and given in to our baser instincts.

Put simply, America as a country, as a union, isn’t as strong as we need it to be. And I, as your President, admit to being part of the problem. I haven’t always acted in the best interests of this country and its founding principles, and for that I am sorry. I have been party to actions and words that have damaged the societal fabric and coarsened the discourse among people. For that, too, I am sorry.

What I am not sorry for is upholding a belief in this country and what greatness it can still achieve, both under my leadership and after I’ve left office. America is broken, but I cling to the idea it can and should be fixed. That is where you come into the picture.

My slogan since 2016 has been “Make America Great Again.” That can’t happen without you. America is great when its citizens rise to the challenges laid before us. In our relatively short time as the United States, we have fought in numerous wars that challenged the mettle of our men and women, been at the forefront of technological and social change, and been the innovators, inventors, and investors that turned 13 British colonies into a beacon of freedom and prosperity seen and dreamed of around the world for centuries.

Now, we are struggling to maintain our position in the world. New threats are replacing old ones. Our economic strength is on shaky ground due to short-sighted decisions by companies and government alike. That’s not your fault, but you are expected to live with the consequences because we keep changing what “normal” looks like. We need to turn our economic focus inward to shore up what we have and build up from there. This goes well beyond unemployment numbers the government puts out. This is a renewed focus on reestablishing America as a nation of doers.

Along those lines, I will ask educators and administrators to meet with me to not only promote trade schools and apprenticeships to rebuild our infrastructure, but to dig into the public and private schools to make sure every student feels he or she can be successful in a skilled trade, a professional capacity, or wherever their dreams may take them. I will also help promote STEM in public and private schools for boys and girls alike because the future requires big and bold thinkers who will constantly ask the question “Why not?”

This one educational step will have a ripple effect that will elevate many areas. With our military being the most advanced on the planet, having our military personnel know about the science and mechanics behind our technology will make them more effective. It will also provide useful vocations for after they leave the service or when there is peace. With more skilled labor, we can rebuild the manufacturing industry we used to have and start making quality products again, products we can be proud to sell each other and to the world. Also, this focus on science and technology will impact energy production by encouraging the next generations to be the outside-the-box thinkers necessary to bring about a greener world that produces power while protecting the planet as much as we can.

There are many other issues to tackle, but I want this commitment to America to be at the top of the list because it will take the longest to implement while having the biggest positive impact on our country and its future. In a little while, you will hear the Democrats’ response to this State of the Union, and I’m sure they will pick my speech apart. As you listen to it, keep in mind what I’ve said and how I want to improve the country for everyone. If the Democrats have better ideas, I’m open to hear them and debate them in a civilized manner.

That’s what makes us united.

Good night, and God Bless America.

Kavanarma

3 Views

The Left has a double standard when it comes to allegations against political figures. If it’s someone on the Right, the allegations (no matter how implausible) are enough to warrant action against him or her and to demand other conservatives and Republicans denounce that person. If it’s someone on the Left, however, we need to take our time to make sure the accused isn’t treated unfairly by a mob mentality, even if you have a notarized statement from the accused saying, “Yep, I did that.”

Enter current Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, who was seen wearing either black face or a Ku Klux Klan robe and hood in a photograph from the early-to-mid 1980s. And there’s more! The Washington Post did an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct from 2004 against Virginia’s Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax. The Post decided not to publish the results of their investigation because they did not find any corroboration. Let’s see…wasn’t there a recent Supreme Court nomination held up for a month due to uncorroborated allegations of sexual misconduct/assault that the Post among others published?

Why, yes. Yes, there was.

Waaaaaaaay back in September and October of that long-ago year of 2018, Brett Kavanaugh didn’t exactly get the Northam treatment by the press. Using uncorroborated testimony by a witness flakier than my Grandma’s pie crust, Kavanaugh was metaphorically crucified by the press, including a piece by the aforementioned WaPo stating the parents of the girls he was coaching in basketball should be concerned by the allegations levied against him. Look, the dude passed five background checks. If there was anything shady in his past, more than likely it would have been found out by now.

Now, before you Leftists start calling “whataboutism”, let me point something out to you. First off, the way you treated Kavanaugh versus the way you’ve treated Northam and Fairfax show a clear double standard and a logical inconsistency that deserves to be called out and criticized. Second, you were the ones who set the new rules of engagement, as it were, with regards to political hit jobs. You can’t cry foul when it’s your team getting called out. And third, with your recent track record of slandering first and asking questions never, you have zero room to call out any. Sit down and let Daddy drive.

The reason for the Left’s double standard here is clearly political, more specifically the politics of abortion. The Left justifies their tactics against Kavanaugh because of what they feel he would do to Roe v. Wade. The fact it was bad law aside, the Left has gained money and power by whipping up threats that the Right will outlaw abortion tomorrow if X happens. Yet, in spite of the multiple times X has happened and Roe is still the law of the land, Leftists keep buying into the fearmongering. (Never mind the fact Kavanaugh has repeatedly said he would not vote to overturn Roe.)

That brings us back to Northam. Last week, he supported a bill that would allow a mother to terminate her pregnancy up to the moment of birth if a doctor said it would hurt the mother’s health, including mental health. That’s not even a “clump of cells” anymore, kids. That’s a full-blown baby we’re dealing with here. And Northam tried to pass it off like no big deal. But since Northam is pro choice, or as I call it pro-baby-death, Leftists not only agreed with him, but cheered his decision.

Then, the picture surfaced and Northam became Chernobyl.

Put another way, the Left is okay with killing actual babies but not okay with black face and Klan robes.

The same dynamic is at work with Fairfax, albeit with circumstances far closer to Kavanaugh’s. The allegations against Fairfax are, as yet, unfounded, so I will be holding my judgment on whether he’s a sexual predator or falsely accused of being one, just as I did with Kavanaugh. But for the #MeToo #BelieveAllWomen pink hat brigade, you got some ‘splainin’ to do. You dragged a man through the mud on the basis of allegations flimsier than a Kleenex teddy because of what you think he might do to your unholy sacrament, but you’re silent when someone on your side is alleged to have done with just as flimsy of evidence? I’m sorry, but you don’t get to play that game with me. You either hold Fairfax to the same standard or you apologize to Kavanagh and his family for putting them through Hell for the sins of being nominated to the US Supreme Court by Donald Trump and being conservative.

And if you think I’m being too harsh, let me point out I’m being far more charitable than you were and still are to Brett Kavanaugh.

As far as Ralph Northam is concerned, I hope he sticks it out as long as possible, not because I justify his actions, but because it will continue to make Leftists look like the baby-killing hypocrites they are.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

7 Views

In a world of information, we seem to have access to all sorts of facts. Or at least, information we’re told are facts. Global climate change is a fact, according to some. The reporting on MAGA hat wearing teenagers in Washington, DC, was factual…kinda. Even CNN, the self-professed leader in cable news, tells us they’re committed to facts, even when they get facts horribly wrong. Many times, they’re too busy confusing their apples with bananas.

For centuries, philosophers have tried to determine what truth is, and Man has continued to question it in today’s landscape of 24 news programs, reporters as Leftist stenographers, and Internet and real life hoaxes becoming major stories. Do we even know what facts are anymore?

No, but at least there’s a topic for a Leftist Lexicon!

facts

What the Left thinks it means – information that supports the truth

What it really means – information that the Left thinks supports their truth, but doesn’t always

When it comes to facts, the Left isn’t always on speaking terms with them. Sure, they say they’re the “Party of Science” and “truth has a liberal bias,” but when science and truth clash with their ideology, more often than not they either pretend it doesn’t exist or find ways to talk around it.

Take abortion, for example. The Left denies a fetus is a human being, even though medical science confirms it. Instead, the Left calls the fetus a “clump of cells.” The funny thing is that description applies to pretty much every human being on the planet. And if the fetus isn’t human, what is it? A dog? A 1971 Dodge Charger in pristine condition? (Actually, if it were a 71 Charger, I’d be ecstatic.) In spite of the science, the Left wants to treat the fetus differently than, say, an endangered animal. Remember, some of these same Leftists who treat fetuses as clumps of cells got their collectivist panties in a wad over Donald Trump’s sons killing animals on safari.

Anybody want to try to square that circle?

The bedrock principle of a fact is that it’s based on what is, not what we want it to be. No matter how many flat earthers say the planet is as flat as a crepe sat on by Rosie O’Donnell, the planet is still roundish. A problem arises when dealing with humans, though. See, humans are about as logical as letting Ted Kennedy be the designated driver. (Because, well, he’s dead.) We bring our own baggage, blind spots, and ideological bents to any observable event, and that can make facts a little murkier than they should be.

I mentioned the Covington Catholic school kids in passing earlier, and this single event became the epicenter of a battle for truth. Even with a full video showing what happened, people took sides on what the facts of the case were to the point of inventing new narratives not based on the facts in play. Without even saying a word, one of the students was branded a racist, merely for wearing a red MAGA hat, which the Left says other racists have worn in support of Trump (who also happens to be a racist to the Left because he makes overt racism okay again, or something). Not only that, but a case of mistaken identity lead to death threats against the family of a student who wasn’t even there. Slight bit of an oops there, kids.

But these types of things are to be expected when we let emotions dictate what the facts are. Unfortunately, we’re in an age where emotions and perceptions create the factual baseline for our opinions, where “hot takes” that prove to be wrong are commonplace, and we emote first and ask questions never. It’s almost as if we feel we have to rush to tweet something without checking it out first because we get a thrill out of it or it gives us attention, which feeds our egos. Meanwhile, facts seem to be getting mugged in dark alleyways while pseudo-facts have become the gospel of the land.

But it doesn’t have to be that way.

The first key to dealing in facts is to patiently gather information from multiple sources. Over time, you’ll figure out which sources can be trusted and which are the factual equivalent of junk food. Looking right at you, BuzzFeed. By the way, Gawker called and they don’t want their business model back, so it’s yours to keep…at least until you get sued into oblivion.

Once you have determined what sources to trust, keep checking them. Just because you trust them doesn’t make them infallible. And check everything you see, read, and hear against a little thing the kids call Occam’s Razor. Simply put, Occam’s Razor states the simplest answer is usually the right one. Throw in a bit of Sherlock Holmes-style deduction (which is pretty much Occam’s Razor with a twist of acknowledging the possibility of an improbable answer being correct), and you have your network of facts.

And on a side note, don’t trust any fact checking websites without visiting them. Most of them are partisan garbage and will insult your intelligence. If they have to tell you they’re fact checkers, they’re peddling themselves, not the truth. (Insert obligatory Bill Clinton/Anthony Weiner/Pee Wee Herman joke here.)

The most important thing to remember when fact checking on your own is to be patient. Very rarely will the truth appear to you with flashing neon lights with arrows pointing towards it. That’s only happened to me once or twice in my life and I think it was the NyQuil more than anything else that made it happen. Anyway, don’t jump on a bandwagon of information because someone else is doing it. The truth takes time to uncover, and a delayed factual response is better than a quick flawed one.

Just ask Gawker. Oh, wait…

Rolling in the D’OH!

7 Views

Although billionaire Howard Schultz is capturing a lot of headlines these days, there’s another billionaire who is upset at it. I’m referring to one of the “good” billionaires, Tom Steyer, the guy funding “Impeach Trump” commercials that haven’t moved the needle, but has Leftists creaming themselves. Anyway, Steyer recently tweeted the following:

@HowardSchultz isn’t ready for prime time. His knee-jerk rejection of a wealth tax shows why. We can’t end inequality until people like Howard & me are required to invest our fair share into our country. It’s not “punitive”—it’s patriotic.

Steyer’s tweet is full of the typical Leftist squawking points, but one part of it caught my eye: “required to invest in our country.” It’s not enough Schultz created a business that employs millions, supports Leftist causes, and elevates people and industries worldwide. Apparently, he needs to do more by force of government (because, let’s face it, that’s what Leftists want). And Schultz’s refusal to submit to force means he’s not a serious Presidential candidate?

There’s a lot to unpack here, so I’ll give you a moment to get a sammich and a cold drink. Ready? Here we go.

The First Amendment outlines a right to peaceably assemble, which means Congress can’t tell us who we can hang out with as long as it’s done without causing harm to others. At first blush, this seems to underscore Steyer’s point, but not when Leftist ideology used in another part of the First Amendment is brought into play. Leftists have maintained the freedom of religion also applies to the freedom from religion, meaning people should be free not to feel obligated to be part of a religion. So, in order for the Left’s argument regarding religion to be logical, they would have to reject Steyer’s idea that billionaires should be forced to contribute.

Judging from the responses to his tweet, that ain’t happening.

Plus, there’s the whole idea of being forced to do something for the common good. These days, the only things people can agree upon are hating the New England Patriots and Michael Bay movies. Beyond that, there is no common approach to the common good. It’s all about perspective.

Say for example you think it would be in the common good to bulldoze a crack house and erect a park. Many people might agree with your idea and support it, but others, like the International Brotherhood of Crack Dealers Local 305, would disagree with it. In their eyes, a crack house is a source of income and putting up a park would affect it. Which common good should prevail? Are both ideas valid? Could there be a compromise, like turning it into a Crack Fun House?

Whenever you invoke the common good, you have to deal with the possibility of pushback, and Steyer hasn’t considered that yet. Even though I’m not a billionaire (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), I would be one of the first to object to his plan to force people like him to give more to the government because a) the government can’t spend the money it already gets effectively, and b) using force to make a desired societal change opens the door to swing the other way once people of a different ideological persuasion get into power. And it will, sooner or later. Don’t damage yourself down the road for a little instant gratification.

However, I do have an idea for Mr. Steyer if he thinks he should pay more in taxes. The IRS takes gifts, and it’s not hard to find out where to send it. If he’s serious about Schultz’s lack of contribution, he should lead the way and voluntarily give up more of his income.

But notice his tweet doesn’t mention that. He’s waiting for government to tell him to do it, meaning…he’s not willing to do it himself. And he’s telling us Howard Schultz isn’t ready to be a leader?

Let that sink in, folks. Then, promptly tell Tom Steyer to shove his idea where the sun don’t shine. That’s right, I’m referring to his brain.

Which, appropriately enough, is shoved up his ass.

Lattes and Leftists

3 Views

Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks, announced recently he is running for President in 2020. You would think Leftists would be happy (or at least less pissy than they usually are), but they’re not. Yes, dear reader, Leftists are unhappy that the CEO of the Mocha Mecca of Leftist ideology is running for the highest office of the land because…they don’t think he’ll win. To be fair, though, I could have been just as accurate if I had stopped after “think” in the previous sentence.

The Left is doing their best to make Schultz as unappealing as possible within their ideological bubble, up to and including inventing conspiracy theories about why he’s really running. The most popular one (and the one that is debunked with a little bit of research) is that Schultz running will mean Donald Trump will win reelection by splitting votes on the Left. The main problem with this idea is creates a built-in excuse for the Democrats if their candidate doesn’t win, but it doesn’t address the problem: maybe their candidate sucks on ice. For all the people who blame Ralph Nader for siphoning votes away from Al Gore, I don’t think many of them stopped for a moment and considered Gore could have been less like an animatronic display at Disney’s Hall of Presidents and more like an actual President and been more popular, or possibly even adopted some of Nader’s positions as a means to undercut Nader’s popularity.

But that would require insight and honesty not available in the current model of Leftist.

And that’s exactly what Schultz is bringing to the table. He’s been described as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, meaning he knows how to make money and then piss it away again. He hasn’t adopted some of the current Leftist must-haves, like support for Medicare for All (a plan that would make Obamacare look like a well-oiled machine, or at least a website that worked), and he’s made an appeal to the right of many of the current Leftist darlings, like Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. That means the Left hates him. Well, that, and the fact he’s a billionaire who isn’t “paying his fair share” or “paying his dues” by running for a lower office first.

Of course, all of these excuses hold less water than a bucket made of air.

The real reason the Left is attacking Schultz is because he left their utopia. In earlier statements, he has lamented how far left the Left has gotten and expressed how he no longer identifies with them. The Left may not want to admit this, but Schultz’s story rings true to a lot of people, and that means more potential voters for his campaign. It’s not exactly a secret that the current incarnation of the Left is driving away or at least muting the voices of more moderates and right-leaning Democrats, so a Schultz candidacy might do what Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, and Bernie Sanders couldn’t do: put a public end to the notion the only two choices are Democrats and Republicans.

And that scares Leftists shitless.

Once people break out of the two-party concept, it leaves people of all political stripes the freedom to choose someone who more closely aligns with their beliefs if it isn’t a Democrat or a Republican. As much as the Left loves to talk about choice, the only choice they support is one they agree with (or can make money from).

I, on the other hand, welcome Mr. Schultz to the Presidential arena/clown car. In fairness to him, I will listen to what he has to say and determine if he’s worthy of my support. I may disagree with much of his platform, but I won’t know until I hear him out, something the Left doesn’t want me to do. And instead of focusing on trivial matters, like whether he’s really self-made, I want to ask the important questions.

Like how he justifies paying $5 for a large cup of coffee flavored milk that tastes like the beans were roasted in Mt. Vesuvius.

When Aesop Wrote Non-Fiction

8 Views

I’ve noticed a trend in Leftist Twitter these days: the use of anecdotes to underscore a political point. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, an anecdote is a story designed to lead to a conclusion that may or may not be known to the audience. A good example of this would be Aesop’s fables, where the stories built up to a moral (and to more than a few freaky dreams by your humble correspondent after taking old school NyQuil).

Granted, Aesop’s fables aren’t meant to be taken literally. A talking fox wanting a bunch of grapes too high for him to reach isn’t plausible. Now, a talking pig, that I can believe! Of course, it would have to be some pig for that to happen, but I digress. The issue I have is the Left’s use of anecdotes don’t even rise to the level of believing talking animals are real.

A recent example came from noted Leftist feminist Jessica Valenti. Recently she tweeted a waitress came over and gave her a free dessert because the waitress was a fan of Valenti’s, and that impressed her eight-year-old daughter while underscoring how good feminism can be. Naturally, many people threw the brown challenge bullshit flag on the tweet and questioned whether it actually happened, which caused Valenti to lament on Twitter about how horrible it can be to post real stuff like that on Twitter.

Here’s the problem I have with it. It sounds way too much like other anecdotal tweets from Leftists. All the stories seem to involve a child or some other unnamed person saying or doing something in the Leftists’ presence that just so happens to coincide with an issue Leftists are promoting. Let’s try to create our own MadLibs Leftist Tweet!

Today, I was (everyday action) when a (non-specific term for a person) came up to me and (expression of emotion). (Pronoun for non-specific person) said, “(short statement about current event/cause).” That inspired me to (active verb involving current event/issue). (General statement in favor of position/cause)

Even if the stories were true, they far too often fall into the pattern I provided above. Although it may get those readers who are more emotional or ideologically aligned with the Left, it leaves a lot of us outside of that bubble wondering what the truth really is. Maybe Valenti’s eight year old daughter really thought feminism was cool because of her mom getting a free dessert, but let’s look at the other side of the coin for a moment. Jessica Valenti got a free dessert because of who she was, not necessarily because of any accomplishment worthy of a free dessert. What kind of message does that actually send? It’s okay to get free stuff if you’re on the right side of an issue? (Come to think of it, that’s pretty much the Left’s 2020 Presidential platform.)

Another issue I have is the person who makes the statement about the current event/cause always seems to be someone you wouldn’t normally expect to be so intellectually deep. That’s not to say there aren’t some smart eight year olds, taxi drivers, or airline attendants out there, but the odds of these people a) knowing who these Leftists are, b) being brave enough to approach them, c) giving such a perfect statement in line with the Leftists’ beliefs, and d) having all of that appear in a mundane setting at the right time tends to be on the “not even Fox Mulder believes you” side of the scale.

Look, I get the Left wants us to believe the issues they care about are important, but these unbelievable stories aren’t helping the matter. Emotional appeals work. They don’t replace actual reasoning, though. If anything, emotions are anathema to reason. And if you Leftists are telling the truth in these all-too-familiar anecdotes, maybe do a bit more to vary the narrative. Most of us don’t like leftovers when it comes to food. What makes you think we like them in our politics?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

8 Views

Within the past week, a new war has flared up. No, not in a foreign country against an evil dictator, but in this country against…billionaires.

Although the Left has always had misgivings about the rich (except, of course, towards those who donate heavily to Leftist causes), with the advent of Bernie Sanders and our favorite Socialist Socialite, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, they’re getting more free with their disdain for people who make lots of money. They’re even trying to spin it into a moral argument, stating it’s an immoral system that allows people to make billions of dollars without sharing because sharing is caring, y’all.

This seems like as good a time as any to delve into the Leftist Lexicon and figure out what we can about billionaires.

billionaire

What the Left thinks it means – someone who makes money and hoards it so others can’t have it, greedy people who exploit workers to make money

What it really means – someone who makes more money than the Left thinks he or she should

That’s right, kids. The Left’s entire argument against the wealthy is based on perception, and more than a little economic illiteracy, which we’ll get into later. The problem with basing an argument on perception is that it may not be reality. (I know this runs counter to customer service training, but hear me out.) Without understanding context or seeking out the facts behind a situation, our perceptions are skewed, and far too often we let out preconceived notions fill in the blanks as a short cut.

Take the Trayvon Martin shooting, for example. There are more than a few stories out there about what happened, and most if not all of them are based on perception. Only two people know for sure what happened, and one is dead and the other is a lying scumbag. Everyone else’s hot takes, including mine, are speculation at best. And when there’s speculation, there is bound to be error.

When it comes to billionaires, the Left has a glaring error in that they assume the only way the wealthy get wealthy is through dishonest means or government loopholes. In fact, an argument I’ve seen more than once lately with regards to billionaires in general is “they didn’t earn all that money.” Again, this is speculation. In some cases, the wealth comes from hard work paying off. In other cases, money getting reinvested and creating more wealth (and, surprise surprise, jobs). In still other cases, people are born into wealth and stay there unless they make incredibly bad decision.

Like, say, voting for Leftists.

In any case, at some point down the line, someone worked for that money the Left covets so much. Now, if the billionaire in question made money through fraud or questionable means (like, say, oh I don’t know…Uncle George Soros?), then the Left has a point. But to paint all billionaires as thieves and grifters isn’t right. Of course, if you Leftists have proof of such, I’m willing to hear it, but I get the feeling your charges are more wind than anything.

The reason the Left is so quick to attack billionaires relies on an economic fallacy called zero-sum. Basically, zero-sum alleges there is a finite amount of money in an economy, so whenever someone has more of it, it’s at the expense of someone else. Let’s use the ever-ubiquitous example of pie. In a zero-sum mindset, there is one pie and only one pie, so whomever has the largest piece is stealing from those who don’t have any pie yet. The problem with this is an economy is not a single pie. It is a number of pies in all different sizes and flavors. All you have to do is look for the table they’re on, say “Hey, there are some more pies over here,” and chow down to your heart’s content. And because of capitalism, as long as there is a demand for pie and the ability to make it, there will be pie.

But the prospect of a potentially infinite number of pies doesn’t stoke enough class envy to suit the Left, so they pretend zero-sum is the only way to go. Ah, I think we’ve hit upon the real reason the Left hates the wealthy: they can’t keep up with the Joneses. Leftist economic theory sounds good to the ear and looks good on paper where you can manipulate the outcomes, but in practice it creates an environment where success is frowned upon and making everyone equally miserable seems to be Utopia. Sounds like paradise, amiright? Where do I sign up?

Actually, I don’t want to sign up because Leftist economics is a bad solution in search of enough suckers to believe it’s a good solution to what amounts to a non-problem. Bill Gates makes more than I do? Good for him! I don’t agree with him politically, but I will never begrudge his success and wealth as a result of it. His operating system, on the other hand…let’s just say Sybil is more stable than the Windows OS, but that’s neither here nor there. We have three choices when it comes to wealthy people: be jealous of them, be inspired by them, or ignore them and choose our own path. The Left thinks option 1 is the only option because they need victims to sustain their ideology. If you choose door number 2 or number 3, you can’t be a victim, so you’re of no use to them.

As far as the morality of being a billionaire is concerned, the only morality in play is how that person made his or her fortune. Ill-gotten gains are certainly nothing to be celebrated, nor are gains made from dumb luck or a lack of talent. Wealth earned through sweat and innovation, on the other hand, should be celebrated, not demonized. That’s one reason I admire Elon Musk. He’s making money the old fashioned way: by looking into our future. (Wait…but that’s…nevermind.)

So, if you’re a Leftist billionaire, be careful who you root for because the next one they attack may be you.