image_pdfimage_print

The Party of Noooooooope!

During the Obama Presidency, Democrats and Leftists gave the Republican Party a nickname, “The Party of No” because they opposed Obama’s agenda. Gee, an opposition party not wanting a President from a certain party to succeed? Why that’s…completely expected!

Lately, though, I’ve had to wonder what is in the DNC’s water supply or whether they’ve moved their headquarters to Colorado because the Left has gone beyond merely opposing Donald Trump’s agenda. They’re heading into Bad Idea Territory. Here are a few examples.

1) In the light of the recent March for Future Democrat Votes (also known as the March For Our Lives), the Left has made a renewed push to repeal the Second Amendment. But they’re totally not trying to take away anybody’s guns.

2) A Planned Parenthood center’s Twitter account had a tweet lamenting there should be a Disney Princess who had an abortion. Oddly enough, that tweet was deleted. I wonder why…

3) The state of California is suing the Trump Administration for including a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. This might have a bearing on why the state openly defied federal law and declared themselves to be a “Sanctuary State.”

4) The relaunch of “Roseanne” was met with Leftist resistance because the main character voted for Trump.

And those have just happened this week!

The Left has never been an ideology that has attracted the best and brightest, but even so, some of these ideas are dumber than putting Joe Biden in charge of sexual harassment training. (Note to Leftists reading this: This is not a serious suggestion. Do not treat it as such.) The ideas coming out of the Left within the past few years have not made them any friends, but it has made them plenty of detractors.

At this point, I see the Left pandering more for votes than at any other time in recent history. A big part of that is because of Bernie Sanders. During the 2016 election, Sanders gave the Left a choice: continue on the path they were on, or blaze a new trail. Although Hillary Clinton ultimately won the nomination, it wasn’t without a lot of Leftists wanting to continue on the new trail instead of circling back. And these Leftists will vote outside of the prescribed candidates to further their ideological goals. Combine with that the fact Democrats keep voting in people who swing to the Left of even Clinton, and you have a voter bloc that can be boom or bust for the DNC.

Hence, the reason behind their recent insanity. Behind the cries for a living wage or stricter gun laws from Democrat politicians is a political calculation with more than a little cynicism mixed in for good measure. The problem is the potential voters they’re courting might not be so quick to come back. These voters are looking for a bit more ideological purity than the DNC can provide, and they aren’t afraid to rock the boat in favor of candidates and policies they want, no matter how outrageous they are. This will force Democrats to walk the walk and talk the talk if they want these votes.

And that is going to backfire spectacularly. As the Democrats go further Left, the vaunted middle (of which your humble correspondent is a member) isn’t willing to go along with them. More often than not, the Left will cross a threshold that make people outside of its ideological bubble think twice about the logic, judgment, and sanity behind the move. If the Democrats aren’t careful, they will be giving up the middle to chase votes that may or may not show up when it counts.

But, hey. You do you, Leftists!

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Last week, the Left got its collectivist panties in a bunch over something President Donald Trump did. He…I’m not even sure I can say this without a warning, so…

Warning: What I am about to describe may cause men, women, children, and some household pets to burst into flames, fits of inconsolable weeping, or both. Post no bills. If you read this blog post backwards, you may find sardonic messages. Violators will be towed. Towers will be violated. Any unauthorized rebroadcast, televising, or description of this blog post is strictly prohibited by Major League Baseball, but may be overlooked with some money and/or cake. Side effects may include dizziness, temporary leprosy, involuntary narcolepsy and/or simultaneous explosive diarrhea, the desire to dress like Carol Channing, holes to appear in your nose and ears, and general discontent, discord, and otherwise icky stuff.

Now that we have that out of the way, I can tell you what President Trump did. He…called Russian President Vladimir Putin and congratulated him on his recent election victory! Against the wishes of some of his advisors!

How will we ever get over such a violation of diplomatic protocol? By talking about diplomacy!

diplomacy

What the Left thinks it means – being a good global neighbor by being willing to give up power in exchange for peace

What it really means – protecting our interests while exercising our strength

The Left loves to portray itself as the party of diplomacy and have pointed to people like former Secretaries of State Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry as examples of how it should be done. The problem? None of them are skilled diplomats, unless you consider constantly apologizing for being American the sign of good diplomacy. And, as you might expect, I don’t.

This isn’t to say Secretaries of State under Republican Presidents have been any better. In my lifetime, diplomacy has gone from strategic alliances that benefit all parties involves to Americans always having to say we’re sorry. Since the Cold War ended, the world stage may have gotten less chaotic, but it shouldn’t have meant our strategic alliances went the way of New Coke.

Unfortunately for us, our political leaders didn’t agree. Once the Berlin Wall came tumbling down and glasnost became a household word, the competent leaders decided to take a 20+ year nap on the diplomatic front and let the new guys (and gals) try their hands at it.

And, boy, did they screw it up.

Now, I’m not talking  an “Oops, I forgot to add mustard to the yolks when we made the egg salad” screw-up. When you screw up diplomacy, it tends to go very badly and get fixed very slowly. Thanks to Christopher and Albright, we saw radical Islam get bolder and spread further while we worried about global warming, unnecessary military actions in Kosovo and Bosnia, and whether the Commander in Chief was wearing pants at any given moment. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were a minor step up, but that’s not saying much given the folks who were in the office before them. Leftists called the George W. Bush approach to world affairs “cowboy diplomacy.” Say what you will, but it worked for the most part. Then, Clinton and Kerry got into office and gave us…ISIS.

Congratulations, American diplomats. You helped create a bigger mess than we had before you took office.

Going to the Trump call to Putin, the same foreign policy knuckleheads who said the Arab Spring was good went apoplectic. Some said we shouldn’t congratulate Putin because it would look bad, given the allegations of voting irregularities from the 2016 election linked back to Russia. Others said it would legitimize what appeared to be a questionable election.

And all of them are wrong.

It is commonplace for the President to call and congratulate the winner of elections with countries we’re friendly, sociable, or even just familiar with because…how can I put this gently…it’s good for diplomacy. Even if Putin is responsible for half the stuff his country’s accused of doing, that doesn’t make him any less of a world leader. And he’s a world leader who happens to be ex-KGB and isn’t above killing opponents. At the very least, we should try to stay on Putin’s good side.

On a global scale, Trump’s actions could help us down the road with other diplomatic efforts, namely the impending talks between North and South Korea. China has a vested interest in keeping North Korea in check, and Russia and China have become friendly. If we didn’t keep the big picture in mind, Russia and China would make the negotiations more difficult than putting together a piece of furniture from IKEA using only the description of the instructions as given by Joe Biden after 14 shots of Fireball. Regardless of how you feel about Trump, the congratulatory call was the right call.

Personally, I think the reason the Left were so upset that Trump congratulated Putin is because it runs counter to the image of Trump they’ve cultivated. Since Trump announced, the Left said he would lead us to World War III within a few minutes of taking the Oath of Office. Well, judging from the lack of a nuclear winter and radioactive mutants driving around Mad Max style, I would say their assessment was wrong. And Trump’s actions with Putin only underscores how wrong the Left has been about him and about diplomacy in general. The ultimate goal of diplomacy is to avoid war. If it takes calling Putin to congratulate him to accomplish this, why shouldn’t we take that step? And, no, protecting Leftist fee-fees isn’t a good enough reason.

Next time you hear a Leftist pontificating about diplomacy, remember their idea of diplomacy involves America genuflecting to every other world leader, regardless of whether they’re allies or enemies, but more often than not our enemies. That’s like trying to negotiate with the hangman’s rope as you’re swinging from it. Without a firm concept of what is actually good for America, our diplomats are the nerds of the UN lunchroom and we will continue to get atomic wedgies until we stand up for ourselves.

In other words, be prepared for a lot of wedgies.

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

It’s been a busy couple of weeks for the men and women of the FBI, namely because of the House Intelligence Committee and a little memo put together by Republican member Devin Nunes. The memo released this past Friday outlines a number of issues with a FISA warrant issued against the Donald Trump campaign, not the least of which being a little oopsie involving a questionable dossier that people like former FBI Director James Comey neglected to tell the FISA Court wasn’t fully vetted and was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. You know, like happens to us every day.

As a result, the Left has become a vocal proponent of the FBI. The fact the memo was even released was an affront to national security and would lead to everything from enemies getting our secrets to the New England Patriots winning the Super Bowl. But a day or so removed from Memo Day and nothing like that has happened.

However, what has happened is the FBI is undergoing scrutiny for what is perceived to be pretty shady dealings. That, and the latest entry into the Leftist Lexicon.

the FBI

What the Left believes it means – a group of devoted public servants who are being unfairly attacked by the Trump Administration and the Right to divert attention from the Trump/Russia investigation

What it really means – a group of public servants caught between duty and bad leadership

This is one point where I agree with the Left. The FBI rank and file are the backbone of our law enforcement community. They deserve to be held in high esteem, especially when they aren’t guilty of the things their leaders are being accused of doing.

Now, if you’re expecting a big “but” here, you’re right. There is a huge but here, and I cannot lie. The rank and file who are involved in the FISA court abuse are not the kind of people who should be in the FBI. However, they should be in Fort Leavenworth. One of the important decisions that any leader and his or her subordinates have to make is whether a particular decision is a worthy goal. The more honest you are, the tougher the decision becomes, and vice versa.

This is where members of the FBI’s leadership, including the aforementioned Mr. Comey, have a reason to be sweating more than Michael Moore running the first quarter mile of the Boston Marathon. Even if you are the top cop in the country, you are subject to our laws (Just ask all the Leftists who want Trump impeached.)

Which brings up a troubling point for Leftists. If they believe the President isn’t above the law, why would they believe the FBI (which is in the Executive Branch along with the President) should be? The Nunes memo lays out some pretty significant and damaging charges that even Lady Justice can see have some heft to them, contrary to the charges the Left have against Trump which are flimsier than a toilet paper negligee. If they want to hold the high ground on Trump, they can’t overlook the current issue with the FBI.

They can’t, but they will.

Another problem the Left has to contend with is their messaging related to the Nunes memo. In the past two weeks alone, it’s been portrayed as a bunch of lies, a “nothingburger”, a political hit job, and a threat to national security. And that’s just from Nancy Pelosi! To put it mildly, the Left has more faces on this issue than, well, Nancy Pelosi. So, when Leftists come out and say they support the FBI, one has to wonder if they’re telling the truth.

Consider just a year or so ago, these same Leftists voiced support for Black Lives Matter, a group with leaders and members whose attitudes towards law enforcement are less than favorable. In fact, some have even said they want to kill police officers.

Yeah, not exactly making a solid case today for backing law enforcement.

The Left is getting behind the FBI for political expediency and cover. As cynical as that sounds, it’s the only logical explanation. On the other hand, Republicans are staying consistent with their “Back the Blue” message. This may seem counter-intuitive given what appears to be happening, but the truth is they aren’t attacking the entire FBI, just the parts that have betrayed their duty to serve the country and its laws. No matter what these particular agents are alleged to have done, it doesn’t tarnish the entire FBI, just like a few bad police officers don’t tarnish the entire police force.

Of course, the Left doesn’t want you to remember that. They want you to ignore the misdeeds of the bad players and get caught up in the positive feelings we’re supposed to feel towards police officers. But without calling out the bad players, we can never get to a point where the good players are honored and held in high esteem.

Thank you to the men and women of the FBI. Just know some of us out here are rooting for you to have a brighter tomorrow once the rats within your ranks are brought to justice today.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Remember the story of Chicken Little? You know, the story where a conspiracy-minded fowl convinces other barnyard animals of impending doom due to suspected, yet unfounded, gravitational inversion? Wait, that’s the Art Bell Show. Either way, the story reminds us of the importance of getting all the facts before deciding on a course of action.

And if you’ve been paying attention, it seems the Left hired Chicken Little to write their talking points because everything is going to kill us. The latest threat to our lives is…tax cuts. If you think I’m exaggerating, I point you to most Leftist’s Twitter feeds. I have literally (and I’m not using it incorrectly) read people saying people will die because of President Donald Trump’s tax cut proposal, which has already passed Congress.

Admittedly, this is a more modern take on tax cuts, which Leftists love as much as getting an eye wash with a sandblaster, but the general disdain the Left has for tax cuts has been a constant for decades. Whether it was Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, or Donald Trump, no tax cuts are good enough for Leftists. But they are good enough for this week’s Leftist Lexicon.

tax cuts

What the Left believes it means – stealing money from the poor and middle class to fund unnecessary spending by the wealthy

What it really means – taking back money from the government to fund necessary spending by taxpayers and avoid unnecessary spending by wealthy politicians

The driving force behind the Left’s attitude about tax cuts is control. If the government keeps more of our money, it controls how the money is spent. By extension, it also gives the government control over us. Conversely, if the government gives back more of our money, it loses control over how that money can be spent. The Left believes we can’t be trusted with our money because we might spend it on stupid things like food, gas, and housing. They know how the money should be spent on important projects like…researching shrimp workout programs!

And that’s one of the main reasons I like tax cuts: our government makes worse fiscal decisions than a failed stock broker with a $10,000 a day cocaine habit. Come to think of it, that’s not fair. Some of our politicians spend way more than that on cocaine (which, incidentally, might explain how they can justify spending on the “Bridge to Nowhere.”) Contrary to Leftist beliefs, some of us have more on the ball than they realize. Why, some of us actually have to make a living by working at a real job instead of writing bad poetry at a Starbucks because we decided Albino Eskimo Midget Feminist Basket Weaving was a good major.

The Leftists’ fiscal failure doesn’t end there. During the 1990s, the Left became obsessed with the idea of a middle class tax cut, an idea Leftists still cling to today. They believe the key to a booming economy is to give the middle class a tax cut. On paper, it sounds good. The problem? These same people who believe the middle class tax cut is the cure to all of our economic woes simultaneously believe the middle class is shrinking due to a widening gap between the rich and poor. So, in order to create a booming economy, we have to give tax cuts to fewer people because reasons?

The Underpants Gnomes have nothing on Leftists.

A recent example of the Left’s attitude towards tax cuts came from our favorite former Speaker of the House, Nancy “If I Have Any More Facelifts, I’ll Have a Widow’s Peak” Pelosi. In her attempts to sour public opinion on the Trump tax cuts, she called $1000 “crumbs.” As you might have guessed, that went over as well as Ben Shapiro Week at UC Berkeley. The Left came to her rescue, citing the billions in tax cuts the wealthy and corporations are getting. Of course, that would be the case since they pay more in taxes than we do. And with corporations, they pass increases in production costs (like…oh, I don’t know…having to pay more taxes) to us, so we ultimately pay for their tax increases. And unless the rich decide to hold onto their money and not spend any of it, that money will get pumped back into the economy by purchasing goods and services. This, in turn, will create demand, which drives purchasing and hiring decisions, which creates a ripple effect for those companies who provide goods and services to the companies providing goods and services.

That, in a nutshell, is supply side economics. So simple, and yet way above Nancy Pelosi’s pay grade.

Without going too much further into the weeds with technical jargon, let’s just say tax cuts work pretty well for stimulating our economy, and the Left has no answer for it. I mean, how stupid is it to argue that people should be upset at higher pay, more jobs, and a booming economy? Then again, the people who argue that are the same ones who thought Hillary Clinton was the most qualified Presidential candidate in history because the least qualified President ever said so.

Oh, and the other reason I like tax cuts? It makes Leftists look dumb. (Hey, I didn’t say it was a good reason!)

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The media obsess over the weirdest things these days. They can write and talk for days over whether President Donald Trump has one scoop of ice cream or two, how many Diet Cokes he drinks a day, whether a psychologist who hasn’t examined the President personally is credible enough to speak on his mental fitness, and other minutia with literally nothing to do with actual news.

Maybe the news business has changed since I decided journalism and I should spend a few decades away from each other to get our heads straight. And I can assure you one of us has (and for once it’s me).

Whether you think today’s news is hard-hitting and factual or a DNC public relations release, we should spend a little time delving into what news has become.

news

What Leftists believe it means – information that needs to get into the public’s hands no matter what

What it really means – political narratives with bylines

When we think back to how newscasters and reporters used to report the day’s events, it wasn’t remarkable. The stories they covered may have been, but they tended not to wear their ideologies on their sleeves. You got the facts and were left to make up your mind on how to think about them.

Today? Not so much. In fact, according to MSNBC’s Mika “I’m a Barbie Girl in a Newsie World” Brzezinski, the media’s job is to “control what people think.” And she’s not alone. During the Obama Administration, news figures said it was their jobs to help the President. Now that Trump’s in office, those same news figures are upset at how “soft” their coverage has become.

From watchdogs to lapdogs, kids.

The truth of the matter is news isn’t about helping or hurting a President or control what people think. News should only be about, well, news. There is a vast difference between a news show and an opinion show, just like there is a difference between a news article and an opinion piece. The difference is how facts are presented.

Let’s say you see a car accident outside your living room window. As a witness, the police may ask you to provide your account of what happened. They don’t care about your opinions on seatbelt laws or cracking down on distracted driving; they want details so they can investigate the matter further. In the days of Edward R. Murrow, reporters treated news like that. No fluff, no personal insights, just information.

So, how did we get from there to here? A change in culture and politics. During the 60s and 70s, the youth became more socially conscious (which isn’t a bad thing, necessarily) and believed they could change the world (also, not a bad thing in and of itself). Then, they discovered Leftist ideas (which is a bad thing), and the rest is history. By embracing ideas that work great on paper, but suck when implemented, the youth of the 60s and 70s became the adults of the 80s, 90s, and today, and they put their feelings ahead of facts. And that mindset infiltrated the media, which lead to seeing newspeople asking Hillary Clinton what kind of dessert she likes to have while delving into the “dark history” of Sarah Palin’s son’s girlfriend’s mother’s dog groomer’s cousin’s accountant’s pet sitter’s favorite teacher because if Palin associated with that kind of person, she’s utterly unfit to be a political leader!

And when they’re not trying to tear down any Right-leaning person for an overdue library book, these same serious news reporters fawn all over celebrities. What kind of pizza does Taylor Swift order? Find out in this multi-page article in the New York Times! Want to know the secret behind all things Kardashian? Watch this 6 minute news video! Do you absolutely need to know what is going through Nikki Minaj’s mind right now?

It’s air. I saved you from having to find out on your national newscasts. You’re welcome.

News organizations tell us the crap they’re serving us as news is what we ask for, and it’s not their fault we demand dreck. Although there are some people who do (I’m looking right at you, Jerry Springer fans), some of us want more. Let’s have a news report on global climate change where both sides are presented in a fair and balanced light and let us decide for ourselves what needs to be done. Ditto with racism, gay rights, Islam, and other controversial topics.

But the news people can’t do that. They feel anything that is outside of their ideological bubble isn’t worth discussing. There’s a reason these people call the land between the East and West Coasts “flyover country” and it’s not because they’re high when they travel through this part of the country. (Although, given what they choose to report, drug use isn’t completely off the table.) It’s because these serious news reporters don’t think anything happens here. In fact, if they had their druthers, they wouldn’t venture outside of Manhattan or Los Angeles to track down a story.

Which is part of the problem. The minute you start purposely excluding yourself from potential stories, the minute you cease being a good reporter and become a stenographer for whatever ideology you deny you have in public. But, then don’t call yourselves news people.

My rule of thumb when it comes to news is Ronald Reagan’s “Trust, but verify.” Seek out multiple sources of information, paying close attention to what is being said and how it’s being said. There are subtle clues in turns of a phrase that will reveal the leanings of a writer or reporter, but you have to be looking for them. And, yes, my Leftist friends, that includes Fox News, Breitbart, and other right-leaning sources.

In the meantime, maybe the news folks will get the hint if we start ignoring them. Or, if you can’t do that, do what I do and point and laugh at them. I hear Jim Acosta is particularly salty about being mocked.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The Left has an interesting relationship with the truth. Sometimes, they deny there is any truth whatsoever (usually when it’s something that makes them look bad). Other times, they cloak themselves in the truth (usually when it’s something that makes the Right look bad).

Lately, they’ve found themselves trying to do both, thanks to a new book titled Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House by Michael Wolff. Leftists have been salivating over the book like Oprah salivates over an all-you-can-eat buffet. Upon further review, however, the book is riddled with factual, editing, and other errors that would cause most rational people to disregard the book as trash. Wolff, and many Leftists, disagree. Wolff himself said if you feel something is true, then it is.

Tell that to my bank account when I feel like a million bucks, but only have around $5 in it.

Prepare the aspirin, because this one’s gonna be painful.

truth

What the Left thinks it means – whatever you want it to be

What it really means – what is

You would think something so simple wouldn’t be so difficult for the Left to grasp. Ah, but the Left has to complicate everything so they can say things are “nuanced” and, thus, puff up their egos without doing anything to earn it.

The Left further complicates the idea of truth because of their belief truth is subjective. They believe everybody sees the same things differently, which is true to an extent, but they say personal experiences, life struggles, and the ever-present oppression creates a new framework through which truth is seen. Although those elements can add to a person’s perspective on truth, they don’t change truth itself. Just because an albino crossdressing little person who walks with a limp says the Earth is flat doesn’t make it so. There is such a thing as observable truth, no matter how much the Left wants to pretend it’s not a thing. For example, an observable truth is Carrot Top is an odd-looking dude. Try arguing against that, Leftists.

There is an underlying reason the Left treats the truth like Ike treated Tina: the truth makes it harder for them to lie. Once people know the facts, Leftists have to work that much harder to get people to disbelieve the truth and believe the lie. This can be done through a number of means, but usually it’s done by denying it until the story is “too old” to be discussed (at least in the Left’s view). Along the way, people who focus on the truth get called a litany of names, from the tried and true chestnuts of racist/sexist/homophobic/right wing nut job to the more popular crazy, obsessed, and bigot.

But nowhere during this process do Leftists acknowledge the truth. That would not only ruin their narrative, but it would damage their egos.

Ahhhh…methinks we’ve stumbled onto a deeper reason for the Left’s contempt for truth. If you are committed to the truth, you have to be committed to all of it, not just the good parts. I may think I’m good enough to be a starting point guard for the Chicago Bulls, but if I don’t have the skill set to be successful, I won’t even be good enough to ride the pine. The Left doesn’t let the negative aspects of truth get to them. They pick and choose what they want and ignore the rest. That’s how Rachel Dolezal and Shawn King can claim to be black when they’re make Edgar Winter look like George Hamilton. Heck, compared to them, I’m James Brown. (And for the record, I got soul and I’m super bad.)

It’s this kind of thinking that makes Leftists believe Wolff’s telling the truth. They want (or in some cases, need) it all to be true so they can justify their beliefs about Trump being an emotional toddler with access to the nuclear codes. If they can “prove” this, it opens up all sorts of other delusions, like being able to prove Trump is mentally unfit to be President, Trump getting impeached, even Hillary being named President (and, yes, they actually believe this will happen). And when none of it happens, the Left will find some other reason to deny the truth.

Which is good, since it gives me more to mock.

Although Leftists aren’t on speaking terms with the truth, it’s important we don’t follow suit. Whether you think the President is the next Hitler or better than two scoops of ice cream, the truth must always be defended against those who would seek to subvert it. If we lose the truth, everything else falls after it.

And no amount of feeling the truth will bring it back.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Leftists are hoping for a major Christmas present thanks to their new Santa Claus, Robert Mueller in the form of an obstruction of justice indictment against President Donald Trump. When you consider the multiple problems with the Mueller investigation make it more useless than a corner sofa set in a round building, the Left might be getting a piece of coal in their stockings.

Since the “Trump colluded with Russia” line has run its course (and uncovered actual collusion between Russia and Hillary Clinton/DNC), the Left is pivoting to obstruction of justice using President Trump’s firing of James Comey as proof he was trying to delay or disrupt the investigation into his ties with Russia. Whether these charges have any legal weight to them is questionable, but what isn’t questionable is the Left may not have that great a grasp on what obstruction of justice actually is.

Fortunately, I do, or this would be a really short blog post.

obstruction of justice

What the Left thinks it means – preventing an investigation into a crime, such as Donald Trump has committed

What it really means – hindering an investigation into a crime, not unlike what the Clintons/DNC have done

First off, obstruction of justice isn’t a partisan matter. Neither major party has a monopoly of criminal activity and attempts to cover it up through various means, such as misdirection, lying to investigators, or generally being a smug assbag with good lawyers. Having said that, I have seen more attempts to obstruct justice coming from the Left than I have from the Right in recent years.

But before we jump too much further into the matter, we need to understand what the obstruction of justice charge entails. And that requires a bit more than a sassy definition from a justly underpaid blogger.

The Legal Information Institute states obstruction of justice:

is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that “whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense).” Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to interfere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or interfering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.

  • 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.

    To put it another way, obstruction requires intent, knowledge, and a clear connection between the action to obstruct and the investigation or judicial proceeding.Here’s where the Left gets it wrong with Trump: his actions don’t meet the legal threshold, no matter what their anti-Trump hysteria tells them. FBI Director James Comey was not all that effective, as evidenced by his mishandling of the case against Hillary Clinton. It was so bad even Democrats were calling for him to resign. Then…Trump happened. Overnight, Comey went from Joe Biden level incompetence to Solomon reincarnated, in spite of the fact he didn’t really lose his incompetence. Trump fired Comey, which he had every right to do because, well, he’s the freaking President, and the Left came up with the obstruction of justice story. After all, the only reason Trump got rid of Comey was because he was closing in on proof of Russia’s collusion with the Trump campaign right?

    Oooooh, sor-ray. Seems Comey was fired for the aforementioned incompetence, and the investigation into the alleged collusion continued on unabated. There is even some question as to whether Trump knew he was under investigation based on what Comey has said. So, let’s see…the President had the power to fire Comey and would have known the firing would not have stopped the investigation…and it’s up in the air whether Trump knew he was being investigated…and the investigation didn’t stop as a result of the firing. Kinda puts a damper on the Obstruction-A-Palooza the Left has been dreaming of.

    Collusion is off the table, and now obstruction of justice is off the table, or should be under normal circumstances. Ah, but the Left isn’t on speaking terms with normal, so they’ll continue to make the case for obstruction of justice in spite of the facts. And remember, kids, the Left is fact-based (just ask them). But to those of us outside of the Leftist bubble, it’s hard to see where there is a legal case to be made.

    But there is another element: the political. Even if the legal case is on shakier ground than a sinkhole on the San Andreas Fault, the fact the allegations continue becomes a political cudgel for the Left to use whenever mentioning President Trump. And since the Left preys upon the ignorant, it will continue to pump out stories to make it seem like Trump is hiding something. All it takes is a momentary lapse of common sense to believe it.

    And all it takes to burst the Leftist bubble is to point out the facts. Unfortunately for the Left, I’m kinda partial to facts, which makes me a porcupine. Hey, I’ve been called worse!

 

Share This:

 

With Allies Like These

Our relationship with the United Nations is, to put it mildly, complicated (to use the Facebook term). We go from being their whipping boy to being the ones to bail them out of situations they get into. In short, they’re our little brothers.

For years, people from across the right side of the aisle (including your humble correspondent) have asked why we’re still in the UN. The Left, of course, disagrees, saying our involvement in the UN is necessary for world peace. (Actual results may vary.) Frankly, I think the Left wants us to stay in the UN because their approach to American diplomacy is always having to say we’re sorry.

Enter President Donald Trump and Nikki Haley. It started with President Trump officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. You would think he put a puppy through a chipper shredder the way the Left reacted. The UN, being the masters of leading from behind, then had its Security Council vote on a resolution reversing the President’s decision.

Okay, take a moment to let that sink in. The United Nations, an international group with only the power we allow it to have and with zero power in our government, thought it could pass a resolution and reverse a US President’s decision, one that has been previously supported by our legislative body as late as last year. Yeah, that’s not how it works. Pass all the resolutions you want. You may convince the Leftist muttonheads, but you’ll turn off those of us who bother to pay attention.

Trump and Haley doubled down on their decision, stating they would be taking names of those who came out against us on this issue. As you might expect, there are already countries lining up to be first on the list because they think we’re being disrespectful. Then, there was the recent vote by the UN General Assembly approving a resolution declaring President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol. It wasn’t even close. The vote in favor of the resolution was 128 in favor, 9 against, and 35 abstentions. And the Left and the majority of the world cheered in victory, having put America and Donald Trump in their places (at least in their minds).

Yeah, you might want to rethink that vote.

First of all, we pay 22% of the UN’s budget through our dues and 28% of the UN budget to keep the peace around the world, as of 2015. And as we see in the Middle East, the UN is doing a bang-up job of peacekeeping. If we withdraw from the UN, that money goes away, and the other UN countries will have to make up the difference. That means you have to decide between having hurt fee-fees and having less in your government coffers. Let’s just say the prospect of losing a significant chunk of money might just buy these countries a thicker skin.

Along with the financial burden that will face the UN if we leave, there will also be a military burden. After all, we supply a lot of military personnel and hardware so the UN can fail worse than the Cleveland Browns. If the US leaves the UN, that would leave the peacekeeping efforts to the military power that is France.

I’ll give you the next hour or so to stop laughing before you continue reading.

Perhaps the best reason for the US to leave the UN is the fact one of these parties has a lousy track record with human rights, sexual assault, hatred and racism, and rampant corruption. And the other is the United States. Granted, we can do better, but the UN is the platinum standard of cruddiness, and they have no intention of getting better. The Left says our world reputation will be ruined if we leave the UN, but I would argue it would be worse if we stay.

Trump and Haley’s position may not be the most popular with some Americans, but it is ultimately the right decision. We need to get out of the UN because they don’t appreciate what we bring to the table. In this case, our absence will make the UN’s heart grow fonder.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Last week, President Donald Trump announced America would recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel after decades and 3 previous Presidents promised and failed to deliver. To hear the Left’s reaction to the news, you’d think Trump set a puppy on fire on live television while doing unspeakable things to a picture of Rosie O’Donnell. Trump’s actions are going to start World War 23, cause the Middle East peace process to fall apart like Kathy Griffin’s career, and create mass death, destruction, and mayhem!

And that’s the opinion of the more sensible Leftists, all three of them.

If the Left had a Facebook relationship status with Israel, it would be “It’s Complicated.” Some would say America’s relationship to Israel is complicated, but is it? This week’s Leftist Lexicon takes us into the wonderful world of the only sane place in the Middle East.

Israel

What the Left thinks it means – a fundamentalist conservative country whose existence and actions cause strife for its neighbors and must change to stabilize the region

What it really means – a country resoundingly criticized by the Left for daring to think it deserves to exist

Without going into a long, drawn out explanation of the creation of Israel, let me try my hand at summarizing centuries of discord into an easy-to-understand manner. Once upon a time, there was a country called Israel that got broken up through various wars, invasions, and dating Yoko Ono. After being tossed from country to country, a group of Jews decided to reclaim the former country of Israel, and after some lengthy discussions and some arm-twisting from the US, they got their wish. This angered the neighbors, including a group of people claiming to be from Palestine, a country that doesn’t have any ties to the land where Israel sits today and refuses to stop being jerks to the Jews. The Left, being of big hearts and small minds, support the Palestinians because they’re the Cleveland Browns to Israel’s New England Patriots. Actually, I take that back. The Palestinians have a better running game.

Based upon this, you might think the Left hates Israel, and you’d be right to an extent. They do hate Israel, but they love the money coming from Jewish Leftists to pay lip service to Israel while at the same time working to support those who want to wipe Israel off the map. So, it’s a love/hate relationship in a way, only with more use of military force.

There is another possible reason the Left hates Israel; the Right loves Israel. Whether it’s for religious reasons or because they love the way Israel handles terrorism (Spoiler Alert: Israel makes Chuck Norris look like Lindsey Graham), the Right has Israel’s back. And when you really think about it, the Left hates people of faith (especially those of us who believe in God) and those who treat terrorists like terrorists instead of delicate flowers who were just misunderstood and need jobs. I wish I were kidding, but the Obama Administration actually advanced the idea there would be less terrorism if potential terrorists had jobs. Maybe, but I’m guessing there would be a lot of people calling in sick on a regular basis.

In spite of our history with Israel, we have a vested interest in being on their good side, and not just because of their badassery. They give us a strategic foothold in the Middle East, so our relationship needs to be as good as it can be as a means of protecting us from Muslim extremists. By the same token, Israel needs to be on our good side because we provide them with the technology and firepower needed to fend off those who want them to go the way of Pauly Shore’s Oscar hopes. This viewpoint makes our relationship with Israel feel more like a big brother-little brother dynamic. Sure, our little brothers may annoy us and get in trouble, but when push come to shove we have their backs.

While there are a lot more Leftist Jews than conservative Jews, the latter group is finding its voice and defending Israel while the former group keeps electing people like Chuck Schumer, who is as two-faced as they come when it comes to Israel. Which side ultimately prevails is still up in the air, but for the sake of both of our countries, we should be rooting for the side that supports Israel, not as a potential source of campaign cash or voters, but as a homeland worth protecting.

Share This: