Release the Kraken … er Report!

157 Views

Releasing the entirety of the Mueller Report is not something that is going to happen. At least not right away. This will of course lead to more conspiracy theories by the Left and others.

This same thing happened decades ago with the Warren Commission and Report surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy. Even today not all of the details of that report have been released to the public. To demand that the entire Mueller Report be made public at this time is just lunacy.

The summary of the Mueller Report is simple. No collusion with Russia took place by then-candidate Donald Trump or any member of his presidential campaign. This means that President Trump lawfully won the 2016 election. The Left just needs to accept it and get over it.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

104 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

106 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!

The Socialism Scareword

105 Views

The internet is full of Leftist memes that are completely bogus or misleading so the uneducated or low information voter will fall victim to the false teachings with in them. I love exposing them.

I will start with the obvious here. This quote is attributed to President Truman. I haven’t fact checked it to see if he really said this or not. But let’s for the sake of argument say that he did in fact say this quote. There is the other fact that President Truman was a socialist, just as FDR was before him. Of course he is going to speak fondly of it. The Devil speaks fondly of Hell too.

The first statement is incorrect. Socialism is NOT a scareword that the unammed “they” have hurled at so-called advancements made between 1932 and 1952. Socialism is a warning word, that our Liberties, freedoms, and Republic are in danger of loosing because of these so-called advancements.

Public Power, I don’t know anywhere that has public power. All power is generated by a corporation, yes sometimes that corporation maybe owned by a municipality, but it is still for profit. If there is any power that is public an freely given to the people, then that is in fact socialism at work. And it should be abolished.

Social Security. This is socialism alright. The government should not be the one’s looking out for someone’s retirement years. Take personal responsibility and look out for yourself. I would like to have all of my FICA tax back thank you and never be charged it again.

Farm Price Supports. These are indeed socialist. Like all things socialist they should be abolished. A free and open market, despite its problems, is the best economic solution.

Bank Deposit Insurance. This was created after the Great Depression when banks closed because of poor practices and economic collapse that happened in that time period. What makes this socialist is that it is ran by the government. There again the government doing things it should not be doing. With the proper insurance company you can get anything insured, including your bank deposit with the free market.

The Growth of Free and Independent Labor Organizations. That is joke right? Every labor organization is controlled by the Democratic Party and their Leftist ideas. They are nothing but propaganda and funding sources for the Democratic Party elite.

And then there is that mysterious “their” again. Calling socialism a name for anything that helps all people. That too is also false. Socialism has never helped all people. History has repeatedly shown us this fact. Socialism widens the gap between rich and poor. Socialism brings everyone down to the same level and never allows anyone to rise above. Socialism has been tried, even in the original settlements of the American colonies. And it was abandoned then because it does not work.

So in conclusion here, the 1st and last statements are completely false and misleading. It also has the “them” and “their” as an invisible bad guy. The rest of it is accurate. Those things are all socialist and need to be abolished.

The Browser Wars Continue

114 Views

Google Chrome is the new Internet Explorer. Before you freak out it’s not due to a lack of security. No browser has security holes greater than those found in Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. No this time it’s due to web developers.

Back in the days when Internet Explorer was the apex of browsers. All others were either not around yet or up and coming. Web developers wrote code that only supported Internet Explorer. Other alternative browsers has various issues with these sites when attempting to load them due to this coding method.

Fast forward to now. And Google Chrome is the main browser of choice by the masses. So web developers are once again coding sites only for this browser. But today we have a wide market of browsers to choose from, Google Chrome isn’t the only one here. We still have IE/Edge, Firefox, Opera, Safari, and others as well that are not as well known.

When a web developer codes a site for only 1 browser, various issues can arise when a user attempts to load that site in another browser. Making that site unusable by some browsers and users.

So now Google Chrome has taken that exalted space once held by Internet Explorer and has become the new IE as web developers continue to code for it and only it.

NO!

143 Views

After 675 days of time spent on 28 hearings, 121 interviews and testimonies, 53 document requests with the cost to American taxpayers of 25 million dollars. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has submitted his report to the Attorney General of the United States after investigating the President and his campaign for collusion with Russia and obstruction during the 2016 Presidential Election.

Special Counsel Mueller has reported that there will be no further indictments against the President’s current or former staff or any indictments against the President himself. The multi page report can be summed up with the following:

There is NO evidence of collusion with the Russian Federation or its agents by anyone associated with the Trump campaign or Trump Administration, including the President himself.

Of course the watch dog who has been witch hunting the President for the last 675 days is now being called biased by the Democratic Left and they are calling the report incomplete. The reason? They lost the 2016 election and can’t understand why the American public voted for Donald Trump. So it has to be some kind of criminal act or conspiracy that allowed him to win the election. Robert Mueller has gone from the hero of the Left to their public enemy number 2 in just 48 hours time.

This is normal for the Democratic Left. If you are with them. You are held in high honors. The moment you step outside of their talking points you loose all credibility. They are the party of denial. Denying science when it shows that there are 2 genders. Denying due process when it shows Kavanaugh to be innocent. Denying history when it shows socialism always fails. And now denying Mueller when there is no collusion found.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

123 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

343 Views

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

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

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

Why do you think it doesn’t work anymore?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lowering the Voting Age

101 Views

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

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

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

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

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

A Tale of Two Muslims

130 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.