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.

First Look – Kamala Harris

12 Views

Kamala Harris had a staged Town Hall at Drake University in Des Moines Iowa last night. Since she announced her candidacy for President the other day she is at least smart enough to come to Iowa first.

But as stated in the opening line this Town Hall meeting was staged. The audience was carefully screened. The questions were prewritten and just read aloud by those participating in the charade.

So these were just your typical progressive socialist and Trump-hating questions and answers. Nothing new here at all. Nothing with real solutions to real problems. Just the talking points.

At this point she doesn’t stand a chance of getting the Democratic nomination, let alone defeating President Trump for a 2nd term in the 2020 November election.

You Really Don’t Like Me! You Really, Really Don’t Like Me!

3 Views

Elizabeth Warren has been toying with the idea of running for President since at least 2016, but recently she announced in a cringe-worthy video she started an exploratory committee for 2020. This has media types asking the most important question they can think of.

Is Elizabeth Warren likeable?

Seriously. That’s the idea they’re going with, and Leftists are up in arms over it. To them, Warren is accomplished, articulate, intelligent, and many other things these same folks said Hillary Clinton was in 2016. Any criticism of her, legitimate or otherwise, is written off as sexist, racist, unintelligent. You know, the same things said when any criticism of Hillary was made in 2016 (and oddly enough descriptors that apply to her as well). Some have gone so far as to say asking if Warren is likeable or relatable is offensive.

Let me field this one. No, no it’s not. Politics is a game of style over substance, so likeability/relatability is a legitimate concern, and when it comes to it, Elizabeth Warren isn’t that likeable or relatable. She’s more awkward than John Kerry on a hunting trip. I’m not sure she’s up to Dukakis in a tank level yet, but the election season is still young. (On a side note, why are Presidential candidates from Massachusetts so bad? Must be something in the imported spring water….)

I will admit I am not a fan of Chief Running Mouth, mainly because of her creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which from personal experience has little to do with consumer protection and everything to do with financial bureaucracy. Since it’s existence, the CFPB has accomplished very little for consumers while raking in federal dollars to do the job they’re doing at a frozen snail’s pace. The only federal program who does less with more is Super Fund, but give the CFPB time and they’ll make Super Fund look thrifty.

But this tangent cuts into one of the reasons Warren isn’t likeable. She thinks she’s smarter than she actually is and her attitude reflects it. Watch her when she’s presiding over a Senate hearing or in an interview. She thinks she is the expert whenever a subject comes up for discussion, just like your typical Leftist. This may win her Leftist hearts and minds, but it can be off-putting to someone outside of the Leftist hivemind. And before you Leftists reading this say “You’re just intimidated by a strong, intelligent woman,” let me point out if that were the case, I wouldn’t be married to my wife. And, unlike Warren, she doesn’t need to show off how smart and capable she is.

Warren is having the same trouble Hillary did in 2016 in that she’s trying too hard to fit in. When that happens, people see right through it and it hurts the tryer’s credibility. This is especially true in the Midwest, where I’m from. We can spot a phony a mile away and tend not to give them a chance to burn us once, let alone twice. No matter how many corn dogs she can wolf down or how many visits she makes to the Iowa State Fair, she will be seen by enough as a phony.

If Elizabeth Warren does decide to throw her 1/1024 of a hat into the ring, the likeability issue will need to be addressed. Instead of trying to tiptoe around it or dismiss it out of hand, let me give you a piece of advice: be honest with us. I know you think you are, but you’re not. Just come out and tell us what you want and let us decide if we’re in favor of your vision of the country. Trying to appeal to different groups and failing only makes you look foolish.

But if you want to stay on the course you’re on, at least make it an entertaining dumpster fire! Sure, you’ll go down in flames like the Hindenburg, but at least you’ll bring joy to millions of Americans like me and you’ll be liked for being brave (if you’ll pardon the expression) enough to take this tack and crazy enough to have agreed to it in the first place. Ross Perot and Ron Paul tapped into this and they’re still beloved today.

You’ll thank me later.