image_pdfimage_print

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” – “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus

“Especially if we can get them to vote Democrat.” – the DNC corollary

Just like a Tyler Perry movie, it seems impossible to get away from the topic of illegal immigration. (Editor’s Note: As Tom was writing this, three more Tyler Perry movies have been shot and will be released in the next 9 hours.) However, a new twist to the discussion came out recently, thanks to Leftists. In an attempt to remove the stigma of people illegally coming into America, Leftists have claimed these people were seeking asylum, which makes the alleged separation of children from parents even worse Naziesque. (Editor’s Note: As Tom was writing this, Leftists make 9,348,178,399,298,804,367,316 Trump/Hitler comparisons.)

Maybe it’s time we educate ourselves (and hopefully Leftists) on what asylum actually means.

asylum

What the Left thinks it means – extending America’s protection to the less fortunate, regardless of circumstances

What it really means – extending America’s protection to the less fortunate with certain conditions

Contrary to popular Leftist belief, asylum is a bit more complicated than just showing up with a suitcase and an expectation to be let in. There are forms that have to be completed (because…government) and a process to be followed (also, because…government). Although this tends to go against my inclination to want a smaller government, this is one area I can understand. Abuse of the asylum option means any Juan, Ricardo, and Jorge can claim it even if the real reason they’re fleeing their home country is because they have overdue library books. Then again, being married to a librarian, that might be a federal offense.

And it’s abuse of the asylum option the Left is advocating right now. By turning every illegal immigrant as an asylum seeker, it waters down the spirit of why we have it in the first place. When someone seeks asylum, it’s because he or she are seeking protection from his or her home country. In other words, we are sticking our necks out for these people and allowing them to come here and be protected. That’s one of the reasons we take the steps we do. If we take in a mass murderer because he or she requests asylum, it makes a mockery of asylum and makes us look worse than David Duke on…well, any day.

As bad as the photos from the detention centers are (which seem to be at least faked more than a Stormy Daniels…”performance”), imagine the damage that could be done to us by making asylum as easy to get as the aforementioned Ms. Daniels. Yet, that’s what Leftists want to do because it suits their needs, politically and financially. And when you add money and power to a situation, the Left will do everything in its power to guarantee a result in their favor.

Case in point, the efforts to malign President Donald Trump for what amounts to inheriting a problem previous Administrations left for him. Trump hasn’t been flawless in his approach, but he has made more strides in two weeks than the Presidents from Reagan to Obama did in years. You can argue about the specifics (and believe me I have), but at least we are moving forward instead of just moving a can down the road.

Asylum should be granted to those who can show they have a legitimate concern with retaliation from their home countries, but those who request it have to do it the right way. It shouldn’t be granted to anyone who wants it. Much like citizenship for those who emigrate here, it has to be earned. Leftists want it to be given like water at a marathon.

But I’m willing to meet the Left halfway on this. They can get their expanded asylum on one condition: they have to take responsibility for those granted asylum on everything from providing basics to ensuring they get American citizenship to guaranteeing their new charges don’t break the law.

So, what do you say, Leftists? Do it…for the children.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To be honest, the Internet is as safe as a meth lab housed in a nitroglycerin factory on the San Andreas Fault. Although I’m exaggerating for (hopefully) humorous effect, you don’t want to be too careless with your personal information online because there are unethical slimeballs out there who will use that information against you in any way they can. Although, I hear that Nigerian prince is a real cool guy.

When the war of ideologies goes online, political operatives have a number of tools at their disposal, one of which is a called doxing. We’ll get into the definition of it here in a bit, but the reason it’s become a hot topic recently is because of a Huffington Post writer named Luke O’Brien. O’Brien did a story about a Twitter user named Amy Mekelburg who has tweeted some anti-Muslim sentiments and has been retweeted by President Donald Trump. O’Brien’s story exposed Mekelburg, but also opened up her family to additional harassment. And this occurred because Mekelburg left identifying information online for people to follow.

Leftists cheered this, stating racists have no right to privacy and should be exposed. Others expressed outrage at those who took it upon themselves to bring Mekelburg’s private actions into the public square and expose her family to various punishments for actions they didn’t directly take.

In order to understand the Leftist mindset on doxing, let’s start by defining the term, shall we?

doxing

What the Left thinks it means – exposing conservatives for saying and doing things that should be called out and discouraged

What it actually means – invading someone’s privacy for purely ideological reasons

One of the key elements of Leftist ideology is the ends justify the means. If they can find a way to destroy an enemy, even if it goes against their public platform, they will do it. It’s just a matter of how and when. And when it comes to doxing, Leftists have no qualms doing it to conservatives because of another key element of Leftist ideology: those who do not conform are the enemy.

Nice folks, those Leftists.

In the Mekelburg situation, the Left has argued she doxed herself, which is entirely plausible and most likely happened. If O’Brien wrote a piece limited solely to her, we can debate the merits and flaws of the approach. However, that didn’t happen. O’Brien went to her husband’s employer for a comment, which caused her husband to get fired and a business owned by members of her family (who have openly said they don’t agree with her, by the way) to get harassed. Collateral damage because Mekelburg said something the Left didn’t agree with.

And while we’re here, what did Mekelburg say? Among other things, she made disparaging comments about Muslim prophet Mohammed, linked to people like Sean Hannity, and told people to follow noted white supremacists. The first two are enough for Leftists to get their collectivist panties in a wad, but the third gave them all the excuse they needed to target her…and her family. Obviously, they must agree with her. After all, they have the same last name!

And, as with most things Leftists believe, their position is hypocritical on a number of fronts, the most glaring one being the Left’s professed love of privacy. This may smack of “whataboutism”, but I have to say it: the Left has more problem with a woman expressing an opposite and Constitutionally protected opinion than it has with a woman killing an unborn baby in the womb. Call me crazy (because, trust me, plenty have), but isn’t that a bit…well…stupid?

I don’t condone what Mekelburg says, but she has a right to say it, thanks to the First Amendment. Which brings us to another area of Leftist hypocrisy, by the way. The Left will cry about freedom of speech being threatened whenever Donald Trump calls CNN fake news (I have another name for them that’s far harsher), but they also want to limit the speech of conservatives and libertarians because they’re afraid those groups will tell the truth.

And to round out this trifecta of trickery, the Left engages in guilt by association when it suits them, as it did in this case. Yet, who are the first ones to scold us for assuming terrorists are Muslims because “not all Muslims are terrorists”? Leftists, who by a complete coincidence always assume mass shooters are white men. (And, unlike them, the people who assume terrorists are Muslim tend to be right more often than wrong.)

And let me make myself perfectly clear here. Doxing done by anyone is morally wrong and, in my humble opinion, is a form of terrorism designed to control targets into either hiding or conforming to the ”right” opinion. And, to take it a step further, anyone who is responsible for circulating a person’s information online and/or uses it to harass innocent people is just as bad as the doxers themselves. No gray area, no letting it slide, no mulligans. If you dox or help spread the information, you are scum. Thank you for playing.

That brings us back to O’Brien. I’m sure he thought he was doing the right thing, but he should have taken more than a nanosecond to think about the implications of and fallout from taking the actions he did before submitting even a pitch to his editors. The fact it doesn’t appear he took that step is a stain on his integrity and yet another blot on an already-Mount Everest-sized mountain covering the media today. As the saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right, and O’Brien and Mekelburg are as wrong as they can be.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Since he announced his candidacy, President Donald Trump has made illegal immigration a cornerstone of his rhetoric. Whether it’s his promise to build a wall between the US and Mexico or calling MS13 animals, Trump has been consistent and vocal about this issue.

So, naturally, the Left wants him to shut up about it, or if they can’t shut him up, they will try to make him look like a racist. Just like a port-a-potty teetering on top of a hill, the crap rolls downhill and affects ICE, or Immigration and Customers Enforcement for those of you playing along at home. The Left has called ICE “Trump’s Gestapo” because so much of what it does involves illegal immigration.

But are they as bad as the Left makes them out to be? Glad you asked!

ICE

What the Left thinks it means – a group of unaccountable racists who seek to destroy families of people coming to America to start a new life

What it really means – a law enforcement agency that does more good than harm

One of the things to remember about Leftists is they are experts at hiding their true intentions. (That, and they suck at staying on a budget.) When Leftists try to paint ICE as “Trump’s Gestapo”, it serves four purposes. One, it reinforces their idea Trump is acting just like Adolf Hitler did. Two, it creates a negative image of ICE, which creates fear and distrust of law enforcement in general. Third, it creates a need for Leftists to swoop in and be white knights for the poor oppressed people (that they helped to be poor and oppressed in the first place). Finally, it gives Leftists a steady stream of potential voters who will vote for anyone who will protect them. And, yes, there are illegal immigrants who vote, thanks in part to Leftist initiatives like California’s “Motor Voter” law which makes it possible for people to register to vote when they get drivers licenses. Because when you want to rig elections, you want to make it as convenient as possible, amirite?

Leftists may say they love law enforcement officers, but don’t let them fool you. They hate law enforcement at every level, and ICE is no exception. By doing their jobs, ICE disrupts the Left’s ultimate goal of turning illegal immigrants into a reliable voting bloc. Why, it’s almost as though ICE…wants our immigration laws enforced. Those bastards!

But are they really as bad as the Left makes them out to be? You might be surprised, but the answer is no, and this is coming from a guy who isn’t that keen on the Department of Homeland Security in the first place. ICE performs an important function for this country: trying to keep our immigration laws from becoming as meaningless as the current wall between the US and Mexico. That requires the grit of a soldier with the heart of a saint because every situation ICE gets involved in can go sideways in so many ways and affects entire families. Do I think ICE agents enjoy arresting mothers and fathers for being here illegally? Absolutely not. One would have to be a heartless, soulless monster to derive joy at that kind of pain. But they do have a hard, thankless job, no thanks to Leftists trying to paint them as the aforementioned monsters.

Here’s where things get a bit more complicated for the Left. ICE is actively seeking out and arresting people involved in human trafficking…a cause some Leftists have taken up. And when you consider many of the victims of human trafficking are women, it puts the Left’s hatred of ICE and their effectiveness as women’s advocates into perspective. While self-styled feminists march wearing knitted vagina, ICE is helping vulnerable women out of a horrible situation.

And that’s not all. ICE helps with other functions of law enforcement, including fighting illegal drug smuggling, international gangs, and cybercrime, just to name three. The more you look into ICE, the more you realize these men and women are doing their bests to keep the threads of society together as best they can.

As with all law enforcement agencies, there will be bad actors, but more often than not the good cops outnumber the bad ones, and I have no reason to believe ICE is any different. And I have no reason to believe the Left’s poisonous rhetoric. ICE isn’t the Gestapo for President Trump or anyone else. On a related note, I don’t seem to remember the Left getting their collectivist panties in a bunch when ICE did their jobs under President Obama. Coincidence? I think not! I guess when the “Gestapo” is working for a President you like, it’s perfectly fine to Leftists.

As with the Left’s recent love affair with the FBI (which is about as believable as Bill Cosby offering a woman a pudding pop), the Left’s hatred of ICE is politically motivated. When politics get injected into law enforcement, the results aren’t usually pretty and may actually hurt the latter in the short and long run.

That’s what makes the “ICE is Trump’s Gestapo” rhetoric so dangerous. The Left doesn’t care whether the world goes to Hell faster than Keith Olbermann can get fired from a job as long as their political needs are met. What they don’t realize is the type of criminals ICE is trying to catch don’t care about Leftists as long as their personal needs are met. And, given what we’ve seen from MS13 in recent years, Leftists had better be hitting their knees and praying to whatever deity they believe in that ICE is doing their jobs in spite of Leftists’ best efforts to destroy them.

Share This:

 

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

Last weekend was the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, which some people call “Nerd Prom” and I call a waste of time. Among the usual back patting, chest puffing, and smugness, there was a… well, I guess you could call it a performance by a…well, I guess you could call her a comedian, Michelle Wolf, who delivered…well, I guess you could call it jokes, mostly directed at President Donald Trump and members of the Trump Administration. In the audience were White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders and Kellyanne Conway, who sat there and took the lines with a straight face. (Then again, judging from the YouTube video of Wolf’s comments, most of the people in the audience took the lines with a straight face, too.)

But the Left thought Wolf’s comments were brave, hysterical, and…get this…speaking truth to power. What is that, you ask? Well, good thing I decided to write about it this week!

speaking truth to power

What the Left thinks it means – bravely telling uncomfortable truths to people in power in the hopes it will change their minds and behaviors

What it really means – Leftists being assholes

I sat through Wolf’s remarks for two reasons. First, I wanted to make sure to get the full context of what she said. Second, so you wouldn’t have to. I came up with a drinking game where I took a shot for every time I laughed during her comments. After the full 19:17, I was…stone sober. Well, except for the shot I took when I realized Wolf is what you would get if Joanie Cunningham and Rachel Dolezal had a baby.

As far as speaking truth to power, I didn’t see much truth, and the media have lost a lot of their power through their incompetence. There were occasional facts thrown in for good measure, but much of what I endured was more talking point than truth. And I will admit Wolf made a couple of good points about what the media cover and what they overlook in lieu of continuing coverage of Stormy Daniels because God knows we need more of that.

The idea of speaking truth to power is funny to me because the Left isn’t always on speaking terms with the truth. In fact, some Leftist intellectuals (an oxymoron if ever there was one) argue truth is subjective based on personal experiences. This, of course, makes as much sense as putting Bill Cosby in charge of the refreshments at a sorority party. Truth doesn’t change because your background is different than mine. I’m pretty sure gravity affects us all the same regardless of whether you’re dirt poor or filthy rich, as do death, taxes, and the inevitability of the Rolling Stones going back on tour.

What the Left means when they say someone is speaking truth to power is that person is speaking a truth the Left agrees with, and anything that doesn’t conform is dismissed as false. Take gun control, for example. The Left squeed like I did at “Avengers: Infinity War” when David Hogg and his Parkland Pals “stood up” to the NRA by pushing for stricter gun control laws. They and their ideological allies point to the number of people being killed every year by guns, usually around 30,000 (all while ignoring inconvenient details like the number of suicides and gang-related killings that make up a decent chunk of that larger number), and by itself it’s pretty persuasive.

But it’s not the truth, or at least not all of it.

Research from the FBI to the CDC show there are more defensive gun uses than there are gun deaths. The term “defensive gun uses” refers to the number of times a gun is used in the defense of one’s person or property, and by sheer volume, it’s not even close. Last time I checked, the low end of this spectrum is in the neighborhood of 800,000 defensive gun uses per year. And, regardless of how you feel about the issue, regardless of your experiences, 800,000 is a bigger number than 30,000. To put it another way, you are over 26 times more likely to use a gun to defend yourself than you are to be killed by a gun. And when you take out suicides and gang violence, that number goes even higher.

I wouldn’t call that speaking truth to power, though, because to me the truth is power. And with that power comes a level of fearlessness that steels your resolve and calms you as you wait for the slings and arrows of outrageous outrage at dismantling a poorly-reasoned talking point. When you boil it right down, the Left loves thinking they speak truth to power because they think it shuts down all arguments. It doesn’t. One person armed with the truth can take down an army of liars. All it takes is the courage to unapologetically stand with the truth in the face of criticism.

That’s what Michelle Wolf (and much of the audience at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner) failed to do. They spoke and believed their own truths and overlooked the power they wield on a daily basis. I mean, it’s not like these folks have to take on a second job to make ends meet; they willingly take on second jobs as DNC spokespeople.

In closing, let me leave you with a joke.

Knock Knock
Who’s there?
Michelle Wolf
Michelle Wolf who?
Precisely

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:

 

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: