image_pdfimage_print

Let’s Unmake a Deal!

It’s official. President Donald Trump announced we will be pulling out of the Iran Deal brokered by former President Barack Obama. And if your dogs heard a high pitched shriek, that was from Leftists losing their shit over it.

Let me make one thing crystal clear. I am not a fan of the Iran Deal, nor have I ever been. Although the Left says now it’s because I’m racist and want to erase a major accomplishment of the Obama Administration because Obama is black, nothing could be further from the truth. A bad deal is a bad deal, no matter who makes it.

And the Iran Deal is the Academy Award of bad ideas.

First off, it’s an agreement where the other party got the store without much effort on their part. The original terms of the Iran Deal included a provision where Iran agreed not to develop nuclear weapons while promising to allow inspections of their nuclear facilities. Sounds good, right? Wellllll…there’s part of the issue. In order for those inspections to occur, Iran would have to agree to let them happen and were given 24 days to comply with a request to inspect their nuclear sites. And if they refused or didn’t respond, there would be another vote by a Joint Commission…in which Iran would be allowed a vote.

In other words, if Iran got a request to inspect their nuclear facilities, they would have nearly a month to respond. Now, what could happen in that time frame? Maybe…oh, I don’t know…make it look like they were complying with the terms of the Iran Deal while not actually complying?

In addition to that, there isn’t much of an incentive to comply. If Iran failed, the sanctions they had before the Iran Deal could be put back in place, which is basically the equivalent of a sternly worded memo. You know, like the UN likes to send when a member country does something bad. And with those sanctions back in place, Iran could go back to doing everything it was doing to develop nuclear weapons prior to the Iran Deal.

Then, there’s the bribe…I mean payment we gave them. First, we gave them $400 million for an undelivered weapons shipment from the US to Iran during the reign of the Shah of Iran. After he was toppled by Islamic extremists, that money was frozen. Enter Barack Obama, who not only gave them the $400 million to settle that tab, but also gave them an additional $1.3 billion in interest to boot! That’s like giving a school bully your lunch money for the days he was too sick to bully you as well as your lunch money until you’re, oh, 75.

Good thing Iran has a history of liking us…oh, wait. Remember the aforementioned Shah of Iran? Well, his successors love to chant “Death to America” and want us wiped off the face of the planet. And no number of concerts with James Taylor sponsored by then-Secretary of State John “Robert Mueller’s Stunt Double” Kerry will change that. If anything, it might make Iran more driven to build nukes. Talk about seeing fire and rain, kids!

The kicker for me is the fact the Iran Deal wouldn’t move the needle on preventing them from building nuclear weapons. Under the terms of the deal, Iran would still be allowed to develop nuclear energy, just not nuclear weapons. But why would Iran need nuclear energy in the first place? They are sitting on one of the richest oil reserves in the world, and let’s just say Iran hasn’t been joining in the Earth Day celebrations since…ever. And considering the environmentalists don’t exactly like nuclear energy, it’s hard for me to believe they would be willing to roll over for this.

But let’s go back to the oil reserves for a moment. The bulk of the world still needs oil, which means Iran has a vested interest in continuing to drill for it. What would be their incentive to switch to nuclear power? Frankly, there isn’t one. Even if they found out their oil reserves were dryer than an Al Gore poetry slam, there is no upside to them going nuclear.

And that’s the point the Left completely misses when defending the Iran Deal. No matter what the terms of the agreement were, it wouldn’t stop (or even hinder) Iran from getting nuclear weapons due to the Mack truck sized holes in the deal. It would, however, give them plenty of incentive to play the same games Saddam Hussein did with his chemical and biological weapons while making the world community look like buffoons in the process. Brilliant diplomacy, Barack and John.

No matter what the world leaders say, the Iran Deal was a dog turd on top of a cold vomit sundae that we would have to eat while Iran got all you can eat ice cream. President Trump was absolutely right to get us out of the Iran Deal.

Of course, the Left will tell us such a move puts us all in more danger than if we had stuck with the Iran Deal or negotiated for a better plan. Here’s the thing, kids: Iran wasn’t going to comply because they are intent on getting nuclear weapons. They were stringing us along from the word go, and the Obama Administration were willing to hold the string. And, no, the Iran Deal wasn’t better than nothing, as nothing wouldn’t have given Iran an influx of cash they could divert to making or buying nuclear weapons, thus ensuring they would be a nuclear power either way.

Leftists also say pulling out of the Iran Deal is proof Trump, and by extension Israel, wants war. I beg to differ. Few people in this world want war, but blowing shit up tends to make it harder for our enemies to strike back or use their nuclear arsenals against us. If it’s war that will accomplish a non-nuclear Iran, then it will be a good sight better than the Iran Deal. It’s not the endgame I favor, but it’s the endgame we may be facing, and it was caused by an inept President and his inept State Department trying to get anything they could just to look like they did something.

In other words, they wanted a participation trophy for diplomacy. And we know how those tend to work.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This past week saw something people thought would never occur in our lifetimes. And, no, I’m not talking about the Chicago Cubs winning the World Series. That doesn’t happen until the fall, and on top of that, this event is more geopolitical. For the first time in decades, North and South Korea have agreed to meet to discuss peace, and it happened under President Donald Trump’s watch.

And that drives the Left crazy.

What drives the Left even crazier is a notion making the rounds: nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. If Tweets on the subject are any indication, Leftists either laugh in disbelief or foam at the mouth in anger. After all, the Nobel Peace Prize is reserved for people who brought peace to the world. You know, like Yasser Arafat?

Regardless of where you come down on Trump’s worthiness for the Nobel Peace Prize, it gives us a chance to examine the award and why it means so much to Leftists.

Nobel Peace Prize

What the Left thinks it means – a prestigious award that deserves to go to only the most worthy people who want world peace

What it really means – an award that has become as meaningless as Hillary Clinton’s 2016 victory plan.

Back in the day, a Nobel Prize winner was someone to admire and emulate if possible. In some fields, like science, it still is. In the field of peace…let’s say Elizabeth Warren’s credentials with the Cherokee hold more weight. If anything, today’s Peace Prize has more to do with politics than with peace.

Take one of the recent winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama. He was nominated before he had even had time to get the new Oval Office smell out of his clothes. Although the head of the committee at the time said Obama was being awarded the Peace Prize based on what he did during 2008 (which was, well, campaigning to become President and skipping out of his job as Senator), this explanation defies simple logic. What did Obama do to foster world peace in the year he was focused on winning the Presidency?

Nothing. And that’s being charitable.

And after he won the Peace Prize? He waged war on several countries, alienated allies, emboldened enemies, and made conditions around the world less peaceful. The irony is the Nobel Committee were persuaded to give Obama the Peace Prize because of a speech he gave in Cairo…which incidentally kicked off the “Arab Spring” that gave us ISIS/ISIL/INNAGODDADAVIDA.

Well done, Nobel Committee.

And when the Committee isn’t giving out Peace Prizes to terrorist enablers, they give it to actual terrorists (the aforementioned Arafat), a former Vice President who is pushing global climate change like a crack dealer working straight commission (Al Gore), a global agency doing what Gore does (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and a group pushing to get rid of nuclear weapons supported by TV POTUS and the progenitor of Charlie Sheen, Martin Sheen (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons). Oh, and they finally gave Jimmy Carter one only, oh, 24 years of doing the work that warranted him earning it in the first place.

In the past 10-20 years or so, the Peace Prize has become more of a Leftist participation trophy than an actual acknowledgment of achievement. Even when a person or group earns the Peace Prize, the fact the Committee has made so many ideological and substandard choices takes the shine off the medal, even more than anyone thinks Trump could.

That brings us to two central questions. First, does Trump deserve the Peace Prize? There’s an argument to be made either way, but I’m going to say he’s done enough to warrant the award. I mean, he’s done more than his predecessor to bring peace to the world by getting North and South Korea to the table. Having said that, I would wait to nominate him until after the Koreas kiss and make up officially.

Second, should Trump accept the nomination and award? I’m going to make some Trump supporters mad by saying this, but I don’t think he should. After all, imagine being forever tied to Leftist halfwits and terrorists. That would taint his Presidency even more than Stormy Daniels could.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With everything going on in Washington right now, it’s enough to make people shake their heads in disbelief. The FBI scandal (complete with dueling memos), continued and escalating partisan strife (complete with dueling Tweets), Robert Mueller’s investigation (complete with dueling dumbassery), and many more pain points have left people asking one question.

Is it too late to move to Canada?

But there’s another question that needs to be asked: do we need a large government? Maybe we should downsize our government just a bit (and by “a bit” I mean a lot). Those are words the Left hates worse than President Donald Trump, so it makes for a perfect entry to the Leftist Lexicon.

limited government

What the Left believes it means – a dangerous idea that will leave people dying, poisoned, and enslaved by unaccountable corporations

What it really means – a benign idea that will leave people freer, more secure, and free from being enslaved by unaccountable politicans

When the concept of limited government comes up, the Left spins all sorts of nightmare scenarios to argue against it. Food, air, and water would be poisoned. Airplanes and cars would be unsafe. There would be bodies piling up in the streets. They would bring back “Roseanne.” (Okay, so that last one was made up…or was it?) And, they’re all wrong.

In fact, big government has been at least partially to blame for bringing those nightmare scenarios to life. Remember Olestra? Approved by the Food and Drug Administration…and lead to a lot of people having to change their underwear due to what was called “anal leakage.” Dirty air? Ask Nancy Pelosi about her cross-country airplane trips as Speaker of the House. Poisonous water? Flint, Michigan, would like to have a talk with you big government fans. You know, something about poisonous water.

The Left needs to get people to reject the idea of smaller government by using fear because they can’t find a legitimate argument against it, given the multiple screw-ups created by big government. And they are afraid that people will realize smaller government makes sense and act on it by electing candidates who agree. So, the Left has a vested interest in keeping people distrustful of small government advocates.

Remember the TEA Party? The Left poisoned the well by painting them all as kooks who take from the government and want to deny everyone else. Oh, and they’re racists because reasons. Now, most people who would normally agree with the TEA Party’s message of lower taxes and smaller government shy away from the label. And those who were elected under the TEA Party mantle have either been marginalized by the GOP leadership or sucked up by them. Make no mistake, Leftists have found their way into both major parties, so it’s not a Democrat/Republican thing.

And Leftists in both parties lust after the prospect of bigger government.

One of my Undeniable Truths is the sole purpose of a bureaucracy is to grow so large as to become indispensable. Whether it’s the Department of Homeland Security (who hasn’t done all that great a job securing the homeland) or the Environmental Protection Agency (who hasn’t done all that great a job protecting the environment), Leftists in both major parties think they can run big government better than the other party. And they’re both wrong. Regardless of a Democrat or Republican President, the federal government will be filled with people who want to get paid for doing next to nothing. And the people outside of Congress are pretty bad, too!

Whenever there is a government shutdown, Leftists talk about how horrible things will become, but by and large it hasn’t affected us as a country. That should be a major red flag for anyone who believes big government is best. The fact we’re still able to function relatively well without Big Daddy Government holding our hands is a good thing and should be celebrated instead of denigrated. If you question this, answer me this. Why are we paying for non-essential government employees if they’re non-essential?

Here’s the thing that gets me the most. We are seeing multiple examples of government malfeasance in real time, but no one is putting 2 and 2 together. Maybe it’s because no one can do simple math anymore thanks to Common Core, but maybe it has more to do with the idea we need a big government when we really don’t. An easy way to cut down on the corruption in government is to give bad players fewer access points. Plus, with a smaller government, there will be fewer people willing or able to cover up the corruption.  A smaller government won’t completely eliminate the possibility of government corruption, but it will make it infinitely easier to locate and subsequently punish the guilty.

And think about how much money could be saved by cutting government! Take food safety, for example. There are multiple government agencies, departments, and sub-departments covering this one aspect of government. Why do we need more than one organization to take care of this? When a private company finds redundancies, the leadership tries to find ways to be more efficient because it saves them money in the long run. If there are 10 agencies doing the same job, that is 9 too many, and several millions of our tax dollars being wasted in the process. Let’s cut the fat and put that money back in the hands of the people or into infrastructure. You know, that thing the Left always says is worse than Harvey Weinstein’s dating habits, but never seems to spend money on?

The larger the government, the more it will find ways to work its way into our lives and deprive us of freedom. Yet, people are afraid to push for limited government out of fear of being seen as heartless or selfish. Yet, the people who try to make you believe you’re being heartless or selfish are the ones who want to take your money and spend it without any consideration of whether the spending is needed. Not that you need it, but you have my permission to be selfish and demand government be as small as possible to ensure it can be as effective as possible.

And let me know if any Leftists can come up with an answer to my question about non-essential government employees.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The Left has tried everything they could think of to get rid of President Donald Trump, but so far they’ve been unsuccessful. Russia? I’ve seen more evidence of the existence of Bigfoot than I have proof of any collusion between Trump and Russia. Emoluments clause? I’m surprised Leftists can spell “emoluments” let alone figure out how it relates to Trump. Insisting the popular vote should determine who is President? Sorry, but Al Gore took the initiative in inventing that excuse and what did it get him? The title of former Vice President and loser of the 2000 Presidential election.

Impeachment? Calls to step down? Maxine Waters threatening to use her considerable power to bring down Trump under any circumstances? Three strikes, and you’re out.

But now, the Left thinks they have the answer, the silver bullet that will end their Trump-fueled nightmares, the 25th Amendment. But is it the answer to their prayers, or just another Hail Obama? Let’s find out!

25th Amendment

What the Left believes it means – a Constitutional Amendment that will allow them to remove Donald Trump from the White House

What it really means – a Constitutional Amendment that provides for the line of succession should the President be unable to perform the duties of the office

The part of the 25th Amendment the Left is fixating on is Section 4, which reads as follows:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

To put it in simple language, if the Vice President and enough Cabinet members or a house of Congress writes the President incapable of performing the duties of the job, the President is out the door faster than Bill Clinton at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch when he hears Hillary is in town. That’s a pretty tall order. After all, the President is the one who hired his Cabinet and Vice President, and Congress is full of people who aren’t fit to tie their shoes, let alone comment on the fitness of the President. (See the aforementioned Maxine Waters.)

So, what we have here is a failure to remunerate the proof Donald Trump is unfit for the White House. The Left loves to point to his tweets as proof he is mentally unstable, but that’s hardly sufficient proof for me. I mean, Kanye West tweets and he hasn’t been sent to Bellevue yet in spite of being more unhinged than a trailer door during a tornado. Anyone on the Left want to put Keith Olbermann on notice? How about Rosie O’Donnell? Heck, if you wanted to take it that far, most of the “reporters” in the mainstream media who lean Left would have to set up shop at the funny farm. And if that happened, the quality of reporting would automatically skyrocket by subtraction. Hmmm…maybe there’s something to that line of thinking…

The biggest problem with the Left’s obsession with the 25th Amendment is it requires a leap of faith on their part that Republicans will turn on Trump. Granted, some would, others might, but most would not. And, no, it’s not due to “party before country.” It’s because they realize Trump didn’t do anything to warrant removing him from office. On the other hand, the Left is putting party before country by taking the position it has. Plus, it has one major drawback: precedent.

During Barack Obama’s 8 years in the White House, he blundered quite a bit to the point Republicans could have brought up the 25th Amendment to have Obama removed, especially after 2010. They didn’t. Now, Leftists will say it’s because Obama wasn’t mentally incompetent, but let me remind you this is the same man who said he visited 57 states (and had 3 more to visit), couldn’t pronounce corpsmen right, and blamed a YouTube video for the attack on the embassy in Benghazi. Granted, the Left will say these aren’t examples of mental incompetence, but let’s also remember how the Left treated George W. Bush and his numerous miscues, verbal gaffes, and questionable decisions. Yeah, let’s just say they were far more generous with Obama than they were with Bush. The fact Republicans didn’t pull the 25th Amendment trigger on Obama shows incredible restraint, or at least a better understanding of the Constitution.

Another major drawback to what the Left is trying to do with the 25th Amendment is it exists primarily in an echo chamber amplified by people with similar ideological bents. When one Leftist goes off on a Trump tweet (or even a tweet from a parody account for Sean Spicer), it gets circulated and repeated. Then, more Leftists react to it with disgust (and maybe adds the call to impeach/remove/arrest/depose Trump), and the cycle continues.

The problem with an echo chamber is it gives the impression of multiple voices due to volume, but it may not be an accurate impression. Think of the boy who cried wolf. Now, picture that with millions of boys crying wolf millions of times. That’s how a lot of ideas get spread these days. You know, like Hillary Clinton being the most qualified person ever to run for President? With so many people paying less attention to politics and more attention to whichever Kardashian is doing something stupid this minute, correcting false information spread by the echo chamber is a Herculean task.

Guess what I think the whole 25th Amendment discussion with the Left is.

After losing the 2016 election, the Left is desperate to try to change the outcome after the fact. And believe me there are a lot of Leftists who think if you get rid of Trump that Hillary automatically becomes President. Once you stop laughing at the absurdity, you realize they’re not trying to be funny.

This is why it’s important to look at the endgame of any political movement. Once you figure out what the movement wants to accomplish, you can see how the proponents want to achieve its goals. And the 25th Amendment is the latest attempt to undo the 2016 election, and it’s as based in reality and plausibility as a science fiction book written by Cher.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

When President Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President, it was met with a lot of skepticism and disbelief, partially because he seemed to advance ideas with little-to-no basis in fact. Think Bernie Sanders’ views on the economy. Yet, in some cases, Trump was proven to be right.

Recently, President Trump and his surrogates started talking about a group of entrenched bureaucrats who has been working to undermine the Trump Presidency whenever and wherever they can. Trump called these folks the “deep state”, and it has become a point of debate. And, thanks to your humble correspondent, it has become a blog post.

deep state

What the Left believes it means – an imaginary group created by Donald Trump to be a scapegoat for his missteps

What it really means – a legitimate concern that isn’t getting nearly the amount of attention it deserves

With the changing of the President, there is usually a changing of the guard in government positions. However, there are some positions where the turnover is tracked in glacial periods. And considering how government works these days, that’s considered lightning fast.

One of these areas is in the intelligence community. No matter who is President, these men and women have access to vital security information that needs to be maintained and updated constantly. If you’re looking for a textbook definition of a job where politics has no place in the workplace, this is it.

The election of Donald Trump left a lot of Leftists stunned, upset, and edgy. These raw emotions can lead people to do irrational things, and with Leftists being irrational to begin with, it’s not out of the realm of possibility there are loyalists to President Barack Obama in the intelligence community right now. Would these loyalists take it upon themselves to undercut President Trump, who swore to undo what Obama did?

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the million dollar question.

The intelligence community is not the only place where real damage could be done if politics got in the way of doing a job. Think of what harm would come if political operatives in the diplomatic corps let their partisanship rule their decisions. We would be at war by the time you’d be done reading this post. (Of course, Trump being on Twitter might have the same result, but that’s another blog post altogether.)

Hamstringing a President you disagree with is an act of political sabotage that would be unthinkable in previous ages. As much animosity as there is between Democrats and Republicans, it isn’t surprising we’re just now seeing that animosity being shown in highly sensitive and potentially dangerous areas. Disappointing, yes, but not surprising.

This is one reason we shouldn’t dismiss talk of the “deep state” so quickly. The potential fallout of their actions is frightening, and regardless of how you feel about Donald Trump, it should give you pause. What happens if there are Trump loyalists in place when a Democrat President takes power? If they act the way the “deep state” is, it will undercut the defense of our country in significant ways. And before the Left gets indignant, just remember you’re enabling it with your actions now.

This brings us to the question of why the Left is so quick to dismiss Trump’s claims regarding the “deep state.” The simple answer is because they know it’s real and they’re willing accomplices to what they’re doing.
The more complex answer takes a bit more thought. Remember, the Left feels America is fundamentally flawed and needs to be rebuilt in its own image. The election of Donald Trump is a direct affront to their plans for America, so in their minds, Trump needs to be destroyed by any means necessary. And if America can be destroyed along with Trump, all the better.

The simplest answer? They’re assholes.

Whether the Left will be willing to continue the charade of denying the “deep state” has yet to be seen, but history can provide us an insight. Remember Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson? They were the perfect example of the “deep state” in action, but they made some pretty big mistakes that lead them to become laughingstocks. If the current “deep state” agents learned from Plame and Wilson’s mistakes, it may be harder to dismiss them as buffoons.

And it makes them all the more dangerous.

Share This:

 

Intervention

Leftists, we need to talk.

Since Election Day, you guys have gotten really unhinged. I’m not talking your normal level of unhingedness. I’m talking Nick Nolte on a Red Bull and cocaine bender unhinged.

In the past week, Rosie O’Donnell tweeted she wanted martial law to be enacted until Donald Trump could be cleared of all charges. Of course, she doesn’t say what charges exactly, but given how Russian hacking is in the news and living rent free in your heads, I’m guessing that’s the charges in question. Now, I’ve come to expect this from Rosie, so it didn’t shock me. What shocked me was the number of people who agreed with her.

Let’s take a step back away from the abyss here for a moment. We have people thinking martial law is the way to stop Trump from being President, and they don’t see anything wrong with that. As someone who happens to like freedom, I have to object. Not only is it a stupid short-term solution to a minor problem, but it’s not one you can just take back once you’re satisfied. Yeah, once you give government that much power, they tend not to give it back so quickly.

Then, there are the celebrities holding an anti-inaugural concert to compete with Inauguration Day. I’m sure it will be well-attended and will make a lot of news, but think about this for a second. You guys did stuff like this before Trump won the Presidency, and how did that work out for you? No matter how many concerts you hold, no matter how many celebrities give their opinions on our future, no matter how much you stomp your feet in anger and disgust, it’s not going to work. Donald Trump is going to be President, and it’s going to be for a while.

Consider this to be an intervention because you Leftists are addicted to stupid.

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, and you have a lot of problems starting with the soon-to-be-former President, Barack Obama. He helped you win the White House in 2008 and since then has done nothing to help you advance. If anything, he has caused your ideology to take several steps back by living up to your current standards. Obama could have ensured a progressive future if he (and you) had been more willing to find ways to compromise. Instead, once he won, he (and you) decided to use a chainsaw where a scalpel was needed.

Then, came Hillary Clinton, who was the ideological heir to Obama’s kingdom, but didn’t have the same charisma to pull off the argument. Let’s not forget this is the same Hillary Clinton who got trounced by Obama in 2008, but 8 years later she’s supposed to be unbeatable? Well, when you have a DNC chair willing to rig the primaries for her, maybe she thought she was unbeatable. And it doesn’t hurt to have a temporary DNC chair feed debate questions to her campaign.

Yet, with all of that rigging, Hillary Clinton lost. And, no, her winning the popular vote doesn’t give your side any more credibility because the Presidency is not always awarded to the candidate who wins the most votes. This may help you in making a case to do away with the Electoral College, but it doesn’t reverse the 2016 election.

Maybe if you hadn’t mocked Trump’s claims of a rigged election when you thought you were winning, you might have a leg to stand on. As it stands, you’re the ideological equivalent of Lt. Dan from “Forrest Gump.”

While you’re trying to find your way out of the wilderness, you will need people to step up as leaders. Given the fact Nancy Pelosi is still House Minority Leader, you folks are sticking with some of the morons that got you President Trump. I understand loyalty, but loyalty towards someone who has literally been an anchor to your political power is insanity. It’s time for you to find new leaders, people who can actually represent what you believe and be effective voices in articulating your vision. And, no, “we’re not Trump” isn’t effective. It didn’t work for Hillary, and it won’t work going forward. When you define yourself in terms of your opposition, you not only fail to make your argument, but you also bring attention to your opponent.

Also, you need to ratchet the negativity down a lot. With your current train of thought, you are guaranteeing more people will be willing to give Trump a chance because you are being ugly, authoritarian asshats. Remember how you went after the “alt-right”? Well, contrary to what you think, there are a lot of people you lumped in with the alt-right that do not agree with conservative causes. In short, you created monsters from people who agree with you, but because they don’t agree with you 100% of the time, you treated them like garbage.

By the way, Donald Trump thanks you for the votes and support, and I say this as someone who isn’t thrilled with the prospect of a Trump Presidency.

And you know why Trump won a majority of the country? He wasn’t an arrogant snob like you have become. You may think you’re the smartest people in the room, but you don’t have to tell us you are. Words don’t mean anything unless there are actions to back them up. Talking down to people you disagree with or who don’t live on the coasts is a clear turn-off. And calling us racists, sexists, homophobes, etc., because Hillary lost isn’t the way to win elections and influence voters. But I’m sure it will totally work for you in 2018.

By the way, that was sarcasm.

As a recovering Leftist myself, I see the patterns you have fallen into and need to overcome for your continued survival. Take the first step and get weaned off the stupid.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As I am writing this, Democrats are still finding reasons why Hillary Clinton lost (and none of them involve Hillary Clinton being a horrible candidate). One of the latest excuses is the rise of what the Left is calling “fake news.” If you believe them (and, really, why would you), fake news is so prevalent, so pervasive, and so destructive to our democracy that we need to recognize it and stamp it out. We might even need the federal government to get involved!

And there we have the real reason the Left is against fake news. But we should take a look at the term to understand the kerfluffle.

fake news

What the Left believes it means – news stories from partisan sources, usually from right-leaning media, designed to confuse the average media consumer

What it really means – any news not vetted through the Leftist media echo chamber

Amazing how the Left discovered how bad fake news was after Donald Trump won the Presidency, isn’t it? Up until then, the media were just reporting the facts about how horrible Donald Trump was and how wonderful Hillary Clinton was. You know, standard operating procedure. But once it was clear Hillary was going down like a prostitute on the Titanic working on a volume basis, the media “realized” there were fake news stories being spread and believed.

You know, like Hillary being wonderful.

Where the “fake news” controversy comes apart is when you look at how blissfully unaware the people making the claims are. This election cycle was full of news stories based on partisan fancy, ignoring inconvenient facts, or general laziness in following up on hard leads.

Let’s take a look at two news stories from 2016: the Wikileaks hack of DNC emails, and Trump’s “grab them by the”…well, you know, comment. With the latter, there was wall-to-wall coverage (and commentary) about it. You could swing a cat and hit a reporter with some new story. The column inches were awash with ink. You would have thought Trump killed Lady Gaga from what we were hearing.

With the former? Not so much. The only media outlets covering the Wikileaks story were…the outlets the Left are calling “fake news.”

Let that sink in for a moment. The people who we’ve trusted for decades to tell us the news were guilty of spreading fake news while ignoring actual news. And now these same people are worried about fake news.

And the media wonder why reporters are seen as less trustworthy than a pathological liar car salesman?

For the purposes of full disclosure, I studied journalism in college and learned how to write a news story. In learning that, I learned how the media can frame stories with something as simple as a turn of a phrase. Republican ideas are called “wacky”, Republicans are considered “hard conservative”, and anything to the right of Lenin is considered bad. Republicans in trouble are always named as Republicans.

Democrats, on the other hand, get pass after pass. When a Democrat gets in trouble, his or her political affiliation is buried in the story. Democrats are never referred to as “hard liberal” or have their ideas maligned. Nope, media coverage of Democrats are almost to the point of being laudatory and deferential.

The reason I mention this dichotomy is to put the “fake news” idea into a fuller context. Media have the ability to shape how we see the world, but the Left has started losing its grip on the reins of power in the media. Talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, websites like Breitbart and Hot Air, and people like those of you reading this are starting to loosen the Left’s grip on the narrative. So, what the Left can’t control, they will malign or destroy.

Hence, the creation of the “fake news” narrative. The coverage of an actual Clinton scandal ran in direct contrast to the coverage of the shocking, but ultimately minor, Trump scandal. (As it turns out, the Left attempted to create a false narrative by taking the offensive quotation out of context. Surprised?) Since the Left couldn’t control Wikileaks, it sought to malign it and anyone who did further legwork to flesh out the story.

In a related story, the Left is now pushing a narrative seeking to connect Wikileaks to Russia to Donald Trump as a means of delegitimizing the election results. The problem? It’s still speculation at this point. In other words, the media complaining about fake news…are putting out fake news.

Nobody said Leftists were self-aware.

Share This:

 

Two Truths

The 2 best truths stated by Donald Trump in a recent speech were:

“Hillary Clinton started the birther movement. I finished it.”

For those that have forgotten. Hillary Clinton and Obama were bitter rivals for the Democratic nomination back in the 2008 election cycle. Hillary’s campaign started the rumors that Obama wasn’t born in the United States. This was to discredit his candidacy so the Democrats would flock to her banner. It failed.

But the birther movement was picked up and carried forward by elements of the Republican party. Calling on Obama to produce his long form birth certificate. He refused to do so. Adding to the speculation that there was a Constitutional crisis. A non-Native born citizen had entered the White House.

During Obama’s first term as President things started to get worse for the American people. We became divided more and more. Taxes were going up and wages going down. Jobs were lost and more people were on welfare than ever before in our history as a nation. The Tea Party and other Liberty and Conservative based organizations with voices began to rise.

Several of these voices talked about a possible presidential run to challenge Obama in the 2012 election cycle. One of these voices was Donald Trump. He too had been caught up in the birther movement. And Obama had yet to provide any proof that he was a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution. But as Mr Trump began exploring a presidential bid for himself. I think the very thought of a billionaire who could easily pay for his own primary campaign was worrisome to Obama.

So Obama, in an attempt to ease the minds of those already supporting Donald Trump and his potential campaign, released the long awaited long-form birth certificate. Showing that Obama was born in Hawaii as claimed and not born in Kenya. So Mr Trump didn’t challenge Obama in 2012 but he ended the birther question once and for all.

I have a previous post where I discuss the question of Obama’s birth. But it has nothing to do with where he was born. He is a natural born US Citizen unfortunately. And many where duped by his false promises. You can read my previous post here: http://www.bynw.com/obamas-citizenship-and-muslim-roots/

Share This:

 

Swing…and a Miss….

In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, people around the world have been trying to figure out why the people of England decided to leave the European Union. (I mean, aside from the loss of sovereignty, the overbearing bureaucracy, and the general ineptitude of the “leaders” in the EU, that is.) One interesting factoid came from the Left. With the numbers they crunched, they discovered older Brits voted to leave the EU while younger Brits voted to stay.

Their conclusion? The older Brits weren’t concerned about the future and voted in their best interests, while younger Brits, especially millennials, voted for the future and the best interests of the world. Furthermore, the Left says we should have listened to the millennials because they’re just so smart!

Is it just me, or didn’t we Americans heard the same comments in 2008 about Barack Obama?

As with much of what the Left believes, it’s not exactly on speaking terms with reality. The motivations behind the Brexit results were much deeper than old people telling young people to screw themselves. And to get off their lawns!

I did a bit of digging on the characteristics of millennials and found a neat little list from our friends at Rice University. Upon further review, the millennials’ position on Brexit became very clear, but in case you don’t want to click on the link, here’s the Readers Digest condensed version.

– Millennials tend to think in terms of groups rather than individuals.
– Millennials trust government more.
– Millennials are sheltered.
– Millennials think they know how to fix things.
– Millennials are confident in themselves.

In short, millennials are Leftists. Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with how much positive coverage the media give them…naaaaaaaaah!

One of the characteristics not in the Rice piece, but that is quite obvious, is millennials don’t have the same experience that other generations do. For a good chunk of millennials, they didn’t know what it was like living in fear of a nuclear attack during the Cold War or what role Britain had in resolving it. They may have never heard of the Faukland Islands or why Britain and Argentina were fighting over them. They may not know the significance of Britain giving away sovereignty of Hong Kong to China.

But they know every damn craft beer establishment in every country on Earth and are willing to talk down to you about them all.

The generation that brought us “safe spaces” on college campuses, the man bun, and the Bernie Sanders for President 2016 idea may not be the best people to tell us whether to upsize our value meal, let alone make a decision that would bind all of England to what can at best be called a Titanic-sized sinking ship in the EU. And they’re now calling for a revote because reasons! Seriously, they feel their voices were heard and may have been mislead on what they were voting for in the first place.

Remember, kids, these are the people the Left tells us are smarter than we are, so we should listen to them.

Listen, millennial Brits. The world isn’t going to end because of the Brexit vote. They are going to need more unity than ever before, and that’s something you can actually help with. You lost this one, but your country isn’t as lost as you think. Take this opportunity and build a better Britain.

Oh, and can you please stop with the man bun thing? It’s not cool, and unless you’re a samurai, it’s not a good look.

Share This:

 

Ruling by Decree

Well our king has bypassed Congress yet again in his quest to fundamentally rebuild Amerika. This time issuing a decree to all schools in the realm to allow students to use the restroom, showers, and locker rooms associated with their gender identity. Failure to comply will result in the loss of Federal education funds to that state.

His majesty is overstepping his Constitutional authority. He continues to legislate from the Oval Office by Executive Order because Congress displeases him. I am certain he would disband Congress if he could get away with doing so and he may yet attempt it.

Nothing this man does surprises me in the least. He stated his goals at the beginning of his first term in office. Few believed it and now we are seven years deep in to his reign of destroying the Republic our founders created.

I even once remarked that President Obama could very well be the last president we as a country ever elect. If he succeeds in his quest to fundamentally rebuild Amerika. Why stop at 2 terms? That’s just that old Constitutional restriction. It doesn’t apply today of course.

King Obama has 7 more months to go on his 2nd term as President. He could find a legitimate excuse that the left and fools would believe to extend his reign beyond 2016. Ignoring the election result no matter who triumphs there. Obama would win, and the majority would follow like sheep.

Share This: