image_pdfimage_print

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Senator Elizabeth Warren is scared. Of what? Aside from taking a free DNA test to establish her Native American history, she is scared of what judicial nominees proposed by President Donald Trump might do! They might actually…rule in a particular ideological manner. (You know, like what many of Barack Obama’s judicial nominees did? I’m looking right at you, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.)

Fortunately, there is a term Chief Running Mouth’s concerns: judicial activism. And it’s especially fortunate for me, since I can write this week’s Leftist Lexicon!

judicial activism

What the Left thinks it means – judges ruling against common sense and the will of the people for purely conservative goals

What the Right thinks it means – judges ruling against common sense and the will of the people for purely liberal/Leftist goals

What it really means – judges ruling against common sense and the will of the people for purely ideological goals that have no basis in logic or existing law

Although I’m primarily focusing on the Left’s concept of judicial activism, I have to look at the Right’s concept of it briefly. Conservatives tend to look at the law as sacrosanct and rigid, so when a judge forces the law to bend a bit, it can be disconcerting to say the least, especially if the change doesn’t seem to make sense. Take the recent court rulings related to Christian bakers being sued by gay couples. Conservatives and libertarians, such as your humble correspondent, saw the change made by judicial fiat as shaky and illogical while limiting the freedoms of others. Even if we agreed with the end goal, the way we got to that goal can be an example when the bench made law.

And the Left is perfectly fine with it, as long as they agree with the decision.

The Left sees the law as more flexible than Plastic Man doing yoga. If there is a law stating “No Dogs Allowed”, the Left will find a way to turn it into “Only Dogs That Self-Identify As Dogs Not Allowed, and Even Then It’s Okay.” Why is this? Because the more gray a law is, the more flexible it becomes and the more exceptions that can be turned into law by finding a judge that agrees with the Left’s ideology. Given enough time, the Left would find a way to make it illegal to miss “The View”.

This dichotomy between the Left and the Right as it pertains to the law shows us two of the purposes of the law. One is to protect the public (which is what the Right tends to favor), and the other is to punish those who violate it (which is what the Left tends to favor). Put another way, the law is like a gun: it depends on how you use it that determines the result.

Now watch my email box overflow with Leftists complaining about “gun culture” or some such.

The point is a single judge’s decision in a court case may not be limited to that one situation thanks to a little thing the kids like to call precedent. Whenever there is a court decision, it can be used again and again like the Russia excuse for why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election. And when you have Leftists involved, those court decisions can and will be used in all sorts of bizarre and unrelated ways. Need to justify shutting down a Christian baker who refuses to decorate a cake for a gay wedding for dogs? Well, according to Schmedlapp vs. Throckmorton (a case that had to do with two neighbors fighting over who owned the crabgrass on a particular parcel of land), the baker has to do it because the judge said something about dogs being gay over crabgrass. Never mind the fact the judge was using the term “gay” to mean “happy”! Words matter!

Ah, but there’s another element of the law the Left doesn’t like to discuss: the spirit of the law. As much as they say they see nuance, the Left completely ignores it when it comes to the law because more often than not it ruins what they want to achieve through judicial activism. You can muddy the waters with language, but it’s a lot harder to do with the spirit of the law because it tends to be contextual and specific. Once you start bringing facts and context into the equation, judicial activism becomes more transparent and less justifiable.

To Chief Running Mouth’s point, it’s not that Trump is appointing judges who aren’t impartial. It’s that he’s appointing judges that aren’t partial to the Left, and that can only mean disaster for them. But if the judges Trump appoints are equally as loose with the law as the Left’s appointments tend to be, we will have the same problem, just with a different colored team jersey. Any judge who lets ideology trump the law should be removed from the bench because he or she is putting a thumb on the scales of justice and creating more headaches down the road. And when you consider the current jurisprudence cholesterol that clogs up our legal system (just watch any judge show for a week for proof), we don’t need to add judicial activism making the problem worse!

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Our favorite socialist, Bernie Sanders, is back in the news. Recently, he held a town hall meeting in California where he called for employees of a major global company to get paid more. That company? Disney. The location of the town hall? Disneyland.

For one day, Disneyland went from the happiest place on Earth to the most economically illiterate place on Earth.

Sanders and his followers (whom I call Bern Outs) advocate raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour and have a catchy little hashtag to go along with it, #FightFor15. And judging from the number of times it’s been trending on Twitter, it seems to be a popular idea.

Which is exactly why I relish the opportunity to mock it.

#FightFor15

What the Left thinks it means – a movement to raise workers’ wages by increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour

What it really means – more proof Leftists don’t know the first thing about economics

Throughout my working years, I have been paid less than, more than, and exactly minimum wage with each doing everything from mowing lawns to telling mortgage customers “no” when they wanted late fees waived because, and I quote, “we were only late several times.” And people wonder why I have gray hair…

My pay at each of these positions depended on a series of factors, not the least of which being work experience. I didn’t demand top dollar for my work because I didn’t have the body of work to back it up and I worked hard to build up my value to the employer. That way I knew I earned every cent.

Thanks to Sanders and the Bern Outs, people think they should be guaranteed a starting wage higher than the hourly wage many lower-level professionals make who have started building up their skills. And they don’t see a problem with this because they feel the working class doesn’t make enough to live in modern America, so they think raising the minimum wage will help.

Yeah…I’m gonna have to disagree with that because…how can I put this…it’s bullshit.

Although #FightFor15 is a nice idea on paper (or Twitter for that matter), it runs aground fairly quickly when you consider the impact it would have on labor costs. If Joe High School Dropout gets $15 an hour for running the fry machine on the night shift at the local Uncle Slappy’s It Kinda Looks Like Hamburger Emporium, that creates a business expense for Uncle Slappy, no matter how good or poor of a job he does. Throw in perks like health and dental insurance and before you know it, Joe’s doing all right for himself…until Uncle Slappy looks at his ledger sheet.

See, Uncle Slappy would not be the only employer having to pay increased labor costs due to the Fight for 15 crowd. Everything from the cost of what the Slapster swears is hamburger to buns to condiments will go up for the same reason. That creates a dilemma: raise prices or cut costs. At some point, raising prices destroys the consumer’s incentive to buy a product or service, which leaves cutting costs as the only option.

Guess what, Joe? You could find yourself on the unemployment line, and you know how much that pays? Zero.

Then, Joe will find himself in the same boat as other high-cost, low-skilled labor: competing for whatever work is available where only the most promising of employees will get a callback.

Even if Uncle Slappy is as liberal with his employee retention as he is with his “Buy One, Get a Stomach Pump Free” campaign, without cutting costs his Burger Emporium will close its doors, thus leaving Joe back in the same position he was in the other scenario. And, surprise surprise, make exactly the same pay as if he had been fired: zero!

Leftists will probably say I’m wrong about that, but there is a city that recently passed a law making a $15 per hour minimum wage a reality. And within a few months, their unemployment shot up, and companies started closing their doors because they couldn’t make ends meet. That city, by the way, is…Seattle, Washington.

Yep, a bastion of Leftist ideology got exactly what it wanted and saw it fail more spectacularly than Michelle Wolf’s jokes at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. And they still want to make $15 per hour the minimum wage.

Say what you will about the Bern Outs, but they’re committed. Or should be.

In the meantime, don’t be swayed by the arguments in favor of #FightFor15. If you want to make more than minimum wage, work harder, learn more, show up, and be responsible. It’s all about hustle. If you show it, eventually someone will take notice…and most likely give you more work. But at least you’ll be earning your paycheck, which is more rewarding in the long run than being given a wage you haven’t earned for work you can’t do because Bernie Sanders and the Bern Outs think you should.

Remember, Sanders has spent a great deal of his adult life making his money off taxpayers. Let’s just say I put more faith in my dog’s fiscal acumen than I do Bernie, and my dog licks himself on a regular basis.

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:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To put it mildly, the tension between the Israelis and the Palestinians over the Gaza Strip makes the Hatfields and McCoys look like a polite disagreement at a Lutheran potluck over whose Jello dish was better. Recently, those tensions came to a head when Hamas attempted to overrun the protective fence into Israel in Gaza and was met with violence. Reactions to this situation were mixed. Some said Israel was justified, while others lamented the death of Palestinian women and children. Still others wondered what stores were at the Gaza Strip.

Guess which side the Leftists took. Okay, they might be wondering about the stores, but most of them came down on Palestine’s side. And, yes, even Jewish Leftists came down on their side, which is a head-scratcher. I mean, it’s not like Palestine and Hamas want to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth or anything…oh, wait…

So, let’s take a trip to Palestine, thanks to the Leftist Lexicon. And the best part? You don’t even need to bring your passport!

Palestine

What the Left thinks it means – a country that is trying to fight against Israeli oppression and oppression

What it really means – a country that doesn’t exist today

That’s right, kids. You’re more likely to find Narnia or Hogwarts than you are to find Palestine in modern day 2018. Plus, I hear there’s a lot less violence in the former two, so there’s that.

Updated maps (excluding those of CNN and other Leftist media sources, by the way) do not show Palestine anywhere. This is not to say it didn’t exist previously, by the way. History and the Bible teach us it was a country, but as time went on, it was dissolved and became other countries. Its people assimilated into other countries and until recently things were quiet.

Then, the UN decided to recreate Israel using land in that part of the world where Jews had legitimate claim. Since then, the tensions skyrocketed like a SpaceX launch, bringing us to the present day where things aren’t much better. Yet, with all of that change, there are some constants. One, polyester should never be used to make suits. Two, Palestine didn’t reemerge. And three, Israel is still a target.

Palestinians groups like Hamas and the PLO before them love to sing the same song: Israel is oppressing us. They took our land, they kill our women and children, and are generally bad people. And Leftists, being suckers for a good sob story, have taken up for Palestine. With the frequent photos of the carnage, many non-Leftists are hard pressed to disagree.

Good thing I love a challenge.

There are many problems with the Left’s approach towards Palestinians, with the most obvious issue being the fact Palestinians are going after land that wasn’t part of Palestine. The bulk of what used to be their home country is in Jordan. There is some dispute over whether what is now Israel was a part of Palestine, but for the most part, Hamas and the PLO got their directions wrong.

So, that leads to the question of why Palestine is attacking Israel. Well, remember earlier when I said they wanted to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth? There’s your answer. Of course, the Left doesn’t believe them because of the photos they trot out whenever Israel decides not to take Palestinian crap. Yeah…about that…those women and children? They’re human shields. On a side note, where are the feminists on this? Oh yeah, supporting Palestine! Thanks, Linda Sarsour!

As far as the alleged oppression of Palestinians, you might want to take a look at Israel’s treatment of them. By comparison, Palestinians have more rights and enjoy a better way of life within Israel. They’re even allowed seats in the Knesset, the Israeli version of Congress. If that’s oppression, there are some Republicans in California and New York State who might want to sign up for that. On the other hand, we can imagine how Israelis are treated in the land the Palestinians call theirs. Let’s just say it’s not quite as hospitable. On top of that, Palestinian leaders treat their own people like Ike treated Tina, and it’s been pretty much a constant for decades. I mean, these people use women and children as human shields, put them in places where the leaders know there is a high likelihood they will be killed, and their properties look like Detroit after the Red Wings, Tigers, or Pistons win a championship (because we know the Lions won’t win a championship anytime soon.)

But, yeah, that’s Israel’s fault.

In spite of the facts on the table, the Left sticks up for Palestine for the same reason they take up for illegal immigrants: it’s an easy emotional appeal. Leftists love to take up for the underdog and they love to create images and ideas that play to our own love of them, which is both effective and manipulative. But once you realize it’s all a smokescreen, it’s easy to dispel the narrative.

No matter how you try to parse the situation, Israel was well within their rights to defend themselves against a hostile invading force trying to take land that doesn’t belong to them. That makes the Left’s arguments in favor of Palestine a really hard sell in my book. And by “really hard”, I mean impossible. The facts don’t line up, and they never will, which is why the Left has to make an emotional appeal.

But if they really cared about the Palestinians, wouldn’t they be doing more to stop the violence their leadership and Hamas have caused?

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It’s been quite a week for former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. For those of you who haven’t been following the news lately, Schneiderman has been accused of sexually assaulting at least four women. Normally, I would avoid this type of story like I avoid watching “Keeping Up With the Kardashians,” but it piqued my interest for a couple of reasons. One reason is because he is a Democrat who has built his career around fighting sexual assault, even to the point of being a proud supporter of #MeToo.

The other reason has nothing to do with Schneiderman directly. Instead, it has to do with someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Recently, MSNBC host Nicole Wallace asked reporters, “How do you resist the temptation to run up and wring her [Huckabee Sanders] neck?” complete with hand gestures replicating choking a person…in a question about tensions between Huckabee Sanders and the White House Press Corps.

Two different situations that fall under one word the Left slings around like hash browns at a Waffle House: misogyny. It seems to be a complicated, nuanced word to hear the Left talk, but is it?

Not so much.

misogyny

What the Left thinks it means – attacking a woman and her agency through thought, word, and deed

What it really means – attacking a Leftist woman and her agency through presumed thought, word, and deed

When the Left talks of misogyny, it’s usually in relation to existing economic or societal structures. In their minds, men run the world and do everything in their power to keep women down. Through this, Leftists weave a convincing narrative covering everything from women having to pay more for certain products like deodorant to women making less money as men for doing the same work to a lack of women in positions of power. All of this is wrapped up in a tidy bow and presented to us as fact.

Of course, it’s utter bullshit.

The Left needs women to think they’re being oppressed by The Man because that notion keeps them on the Leftist reservation with all the other people who think they’re being oppressed and the Left is the only group that can help them.  And, believe me, the Left talks a pretty good game when it comes to saying they want women to succeed. But try getting them to support a conservative or Republican woman. They abandon their identity politics faster than Bill Clinton hits on a woman at a Hooters and say “Supporting women doesn’t mean supporting women who aren’t qualified.”

In other words, Leftists support women so long as they think, speak, and act like they want. For anyone else, it’s open season.

Which brings us back to Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Because she’s not a Leftist, she can never be the victim of misogyny, no matter how vile the sentiments being expressed or how serious the threats to her personally and professionally.

But that sword cuts both ways. If you are a Leftist, you can never be a misogynist because you believe the right way. Even though it appears some of Schneiderman’s sexual escapades may have been non-consensual, there are Leftists weaving conspiracy theories stating President Donald Trump was behind it all. Granted, Trump has a lot of power, but he doesn’t have the power to make a powerful man treat women like trash, allegedly. That’s all on Schneiderman.

And that’s not the whole of it, either. Leftists also find ways to make just about everything misogynistic, even when there is no logical way it could be. One popular example of this is video games. The Left thinks video games are misogynistic if they don’t have enough strong female characters…or if they have strong female characters that are attractive to young men (the main demographic of video games)…or if the female characters don’t have compelling stories…or if they conform to the same goals as the male characters…or if they are the antagonists…or because their feefees got hurt.

This is one reason I always laugh when Leftists start seeing misogyny everywhere: because they are inventing outrage to justify their beliefs. (That, and they look like rejects from “Battlefield Earth.”) Another reason is because Leftists often fail to recognize actual misogyny. Extreme Islam, which actually attacks, kills, and enslaves women? The Left can’t be bothered to discuss that. They’re too busy protesting the obvious misogyny in Superman not being female!

Or hiding it when one of theirs is guilty of it.

Or attacking a conservative woman for not being one of them.

Leftists have a major blind spot when it comes to misogyny, which makes them not that credible when it comes to spotting misogyny. Instead, let’s call out the real misogyny that’s out there. Anytime a Leftist calls a conservative woman a horrible name, take them to task for it. Heck, if you really want to make a statement, insist Leftist males give up their positions to conservative women!

After all, they wouldn’t want to be misogynists, right?

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:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This past Friday, students across the country walked out on their schools to show their support for gun control laws. Or show their disdain for the National Rifle Association. You know, whichever suits the Left’s narrative today.

Regardless of where you stand on gun control, it’s hard to deny the NRA has, ironically enough, gotten in gun control advocates’ crosshairs once again. Whenever there is a mass shooting, the Left ramps up its propaganda machine to make the NRA look like Satan’s disowned redheaded stepchild. The truth, however, is a little less…distorted. Let’s take a look at the organization Leftists love to hate, shall we?

the NRA

What the Left thinks it means – a terrorist organization that promotes unrestricted gun sales to people through buying off Republicans and conservatives and makes money off gun sales

What it really means – a much-maligned organization that has staunchly defended the Second Amendment against lobbyists, politicians, and useful idiots who don’t understand what the Second Amendment means

With the possible exception of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, the Second Amendment is the most grossly misunderstood parts of the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and a murder mystery written by MC Escher combined. And it’s not that it’s all that complicated, as long as you remember basic grammar rules. Granted, most people today couldn’t identify an independent clause of a sentence if it were trending on Twitter.

And that’s where the NRA comes in handy. You may not agree with their tactics, beliefs, or standards, but they understand what the Second Amendment means. In short, if you want to be armed, you should be allowed to be armed as long as you’re safe and responsible with your arms of choice. And they will even train you on gun safety! What could be wrong with that?

If you’re a Leftist, plenty. See, if people knew what the Second Amendment actually meant and what the NRA does to promote and protect it, the Left would lose support for their gun control efforts because they rely on ignorance to strengthen said efforts. An ill-informed populous makes it easier for Leftists to control the narrative and, thus, the argument. So, any organization or group of people who can destroy that narrative is Public Enemy #1.

Hence, the reason you saw school students walking out of school Friday chanting, “Hey hey hey, NRA, how many kids have you killed today?”

Not in front of NRA headquarters, mind you. In front of such places as San Francisco City Hall. You know, where all the NRA bigwigs hang out? Or not.

Well, since the Left won’t teach these young people the right answer, let me do it. The number of kids the NRA has killed today is…wait for it…zero.

That’s right, kids. Zero. Zilch. Nada. The Big Goose Egg. The Number of the Beast minus The Number of the Beast. (Wouldn’t that be The Difference of the Beast?)

Of course, that’s just today. What about in the past week? Zero. The past month? Still zero. The past year? Yep, still zero. In fact, in the entire existence of the NRA, there has yet to be a mass shooting committed by one of their members. Granted, they’ve only been around since 1871, so it’s only a matter of time before one of them goes off. Annnny time now…

Whether you believe the NRA’s version of its history or the Leftists’ distortion of it, the point is you cannot blame the NRA for the mass shootings anymore than you can blame McDonalds for making people fat. At the end of the day, people still make choices, and some of those choices are crappy ones. The NRA doesn’t force people to make crappy decisions, like shooting up a school, thus giving David Hogg a platform to be a gun-grabbing asshat making money off dead people and becoming a Leftist celebrity…at least until his 15 minutes of fame are up.

Oh, and Dave. Can I call you Dave? Can I call you Skippy? Anyway, Dave, you’re at 14:59 and counting.

Anyway, back to crappy decisions. No matter how many protests you gun control advocates have, no matter how many walkouts you stage, no matter how many celebrities you get to sponsor gun control measures, the fact remains you are dealing with an organization that isn’t the monster you claim it to be. When you are forced to rely on lies, misinformation, and distortion to advance your cause, you’re going to take serious losses. And when you lose, the NRA wins, either by reducing the number of people in opposition to them or by increasing their numbers.

Fun Fact for you. Since the Parkland, Florida, shooting and David Hogg’s rise to prominence, NRA membership numbers have increased. I guess when people see a credible threat to their Second Amendment rights coming from people who can’t even tell the truth about them, people will flock to an organization that at least tries to level the playing field and put up at least some kind of fight.

Of course, Leftists will try to pass this blog post off as written by a gun nut/ammosexual/NRA stooge. And they have a point..or they would if I were any of these things. I don’t own a gun, don’t anticipate owning a gun, and am not the biggest fan of guns. However, I have a respect for firearms, the Second Amendment, and a little thing I like to call personal freedom. Just because I don’t want a gun doesn’t give me the authority to take other people’s guns away. Until those folks run afoul of the law and/or my personal freedom, they deserve the same respect that I would ask of them.

Try getting that out of David Hogg and his pals. You might as well ask them not to be offended at, well, everything. As long as there are Leftist gun grabbing knownothings out there, there will be a need for the NRA.

And quite possibly a constantly growing membership list.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It’s April 15th, the Leftists’ version of Christmas because that’s when federal taxes are usually due. To those who actually work for a living, it isn’t our favorite day for the same reason it’s the Left’s favorite day.

Actually, let me take that back a bit. Working Americans may not necessarily hate April 15th or paying taxes, but it’s certainly not a good day because it reminds us of a few things, most of which are not happy memories. Tax Day is like your mother-in-law moving in with you after you had a root canal without anesthesia while listening to death metal done by the Ray Coniff Singers turned up to 11 (because it’s, like, one higher) and having your fingernails and toenails removed by the Marquis de Sade…and then replaced.

Let’s take a look at taxes in greater detail.

taxes

What the Left thinks it means – a necessary good to ensure America can fund important programs

What it really means – a necessary evil that needs to be curtailed and or changed

I will give the Left credit for being correct on one point. Taxes are necessary to pay for important programs. Where we part company is what is constitutes important. Under the Constitution (which the Left simultaneously defend and reject, depending on the situation), tax dollars are supposed to be spent on items that benefit us as a country, such as national defense and infrastructure. Leftists have taken that concept to a whole new level, suggesting arts funding, research on shrimps using treadmills, and hammers more expensive than the MC of the same name are beneficial to our country. I believe there is an argument to be made for these items and many more on the Leftist Wish List.

But they never try to make the argument, mainly because they don’t have to. Leftists still swing a pretty big hammer when it comes to spending our tax dollars. And that’s why a lot of people like your humble correspondent have a problem with Tax Day. The problems with our country’s budgeting is a blog post in and of itself, but I will delve into it a little because taxes and budgeting are so closely related.

Taxes are revenue sources for the government, and like any good capitalist they try to find ways to keep the revenue coming in. In business, there is a saying: you have to spend money to make money. Well, the Left has taken that saying, pumped it full of steroids, and made it the guiding principle for government. And how does the government increase revenue sources? By increasing itself. The more government there is, the more money can be made, and the greater incentive there is to make government as big and as absolutely necessary as possible.

It’s the Circle of Bureaucratic Life, kids. Now if only we could get Elton John and Tim Rice to work on that song.

Another pain point when it comes to taxes is how much is taken out every day without us realizing it. When was the last time you filled up your gas tank? Unless you’re driving a hybrid (and, really, why would you if you have a shred of dignity), it probably cost you a pretty penny. Now, the Left wants you to believe oil companies are making money hand over fist when you fill your tank, which they do. But the taxes you pay for even a gallon of gas dwarfs what oil companies make, and it’s pure profit. The government doesn’t have people working at refineries, drilling for oil, or transporting the gas across the country. All they have to do is sit back and watch the money roll in.

Tax Day wouldn’t be such an issue for many if we knew the money wasn’t going to fund stupid programs, programs that could be better handled privately or at a lower level of government, or government pensions for people who work fewer hours than truant officer at Hedonism who moonlights as a Maytag repairman. Of course, we wouldn’t mind paying less, but that runs counter to the Left’s ideas about government. If you get to keep more of your own money, it means the government has to do with less. Why else do Leftists scream about how bad tax cuts are?

“But what’s the answer, Thomas?” you may be asking. Fortunately, I have an answer or two. My more realistic answer is to revert to a flat tax with few to no exemptions. Not only does it make the rich pay their ”fair share” that the Left wants, but it also makes sure everyone has a skin in the game, which is was the Right wants. Of course, since it makes sense, few people want to support it. But I’m thinking my more abstract answer will garner much more support.

Tax the stupid.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This year marks the 30th anniversary of my graduation from high school. I’m not sure if there will be a reunion (or if I’ll even be invited after the last reunion where I got arrested streaking through the restaurant…no, wait, that happened last Tuesday), but one thing I do know for sure is school has changed a lot from when I was a student. One area that has changed the most is bullying. Back in my day, I was bullied by some of my peers for being a geek, but not to the level we’re seeing today from peers and adults.

The recent shooting in Parkland, Florida, has brought out bullies from both sides, but it seems the standards for calling it out are vastly different. We’re told not to lash out at students like David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez for expressing their opinions (in favor of taking away people’s guns because fee-fees), but some of these same people lash out at students like Kyle Kashuv for expressing their opinions (in favor of allowing people to keep guns because they didn’t shoot anybody). But what constitutes bullying?

Glad you asked because otherwise this was going to be a boring edition of the Leftist Lexicon. Although we’ve already explored this topic previously,  recent events involving the school shooting survivors merit a revisit.

bullying

What the Left thinks it means – attacking, insulting, or harassing people weaker than you

What it really means – insulting a Leftist’s sensibilities, even if he or she wasn’t the target (does not apply to non-Leftists)

The Left’s view on bullying really relies on its perception of itself as perpetual victims. After all, if you’re a victim of The Man, nothing is ever your fault. The wage gap? It’s because of rich white men wanting to keep women down. Racism? Rich white men wanting to keep people of color down. Stubbed your toe on your bedpost? Rich white men wanting to kill you! Okay, I made that last one up, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s not something that’s crossed Leftists’ minds at one point or another.

As you can see, the Left sees rich white men as the eternal victimizers, which might explain why they hate Donald Trump so much, but that’s a blog entry for a different time. When put into this power dynamic, anyone who pushes back against the Leftist narrative, they become rich white men. (If that’s true, I think I’ve been missing a few payments from the Rich White Men League.) In the Leftist mindset, that makes it perfectly fine to bully those who aren’t like them while making it a mortal sin to bully those who are.

As I’ve said more than a few times, the Left isn’t known for logical consistency.

Of course, the threshold for what the Left considers bullying is lower than a centipede’s heels. I will be the first to admit there are some asshats out there who have made some vile comments towards David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez, and their ideological peers because a) I’ve seen some of them, and b) politics has become a mean, ugly thing. Need proof? Just look at what Hogg, Gonzalez, and their ideological peers have called the NRA. Having said that, most of what is being called bullying by the Left is…tame. Mennonites telling “Yo Mama” jokes are harsher than most of the comments directed at the March For Our Lives crowd.

On the other side of the spectrum, check out all the vitriol lobbed at one of Hogg and Gonzalez’s classmates, Kyle Kashuv. Within the past week or so, Kashuv has been subjected to allegations he’s mentally unstable levied by Kurt Eichenwald (who I believe actually is mentally unstable judging from his Twitter feed), an attack on Kashuv and his prom date by senior advisor to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (only to have this same person accuse Kashuv’s supporters of bullying her after she bullied his date and him), and had to endure the Second Amendment dumbassery of Piers Morgan in a Twitter exchange and on “Good Morning Britain”. And that’s on top of the usual vitriol Kashuv gets directly and indirectly from the Left. And, as you might expect, the ratio of good people to asshats is inverse to what Hogg, Gonzalez, and the other Marchers have.

But here’s the thing: the asshats are the bullies, regardless of their political affiliation. I freely admit I am on Kashuv’s side of the gun control debate, but I don’t seek out gun control advocates on his behalf to browbeat them with constant banter. That doesn’t solve the problem. Hogg, Gonzalez, and others like them may have bad intentions with guns, but that doesn’t give us the moral authority to paint them as pure evil. That makes us no better than the Leftists going after Kashuv, and it will perpetuate the bullying problem we continue to see in schools today. And remember this. The Parkland shooter was bullied before he decided to shoot students at the school. Imagine how many lives could have been saved if someone had stood up to the bullies and befriended the shooter.

And this isn’t limited to the students. Adults need to take a step back and lead by example. Sure, you may think David Hogg is as slimier than Kurt Eichenwald’s ideal first date, but haranguing him or his fellow students on the gun control side won’t make him change his mind. That comes with time, patience, and understanding. The same goes for adults who think Kyle Kashuv is an NRA puppet. If you want to change his mind, present the argument with respect and let the chips fall where they may. And for the love of Pete, don’t go personal against either side. Remember each one of these students, pro and anti gun control, have gone through a horrific event and will not react the same way to the aftermath. And the fact they’re all teenagers yet means we need to cut them a bit of slack. I remember how I was when I was their age and I was a dumbass.

Above all else, instead of marching for lives, march up to someone being bullied and stand up to the bullies. Sometimes all it takes is an open hand extended in friendship to open a heart and change a life. And to borrow a Leftist phrase, if it saves even one life…

Share This: