image_pdfimage_print

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:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

He is Risen! Happy Easter and Passover!

Although it’s Easter Sunday, Leftist insanity doesn’t take a day off, so neither do I. And boy do we have a doozy for you!

Recently in an email group I belong to, the subject of Christians and Christianity came up. The Leftists in the group did everything in their power to either dismiss Christianity or use it to “prove” they were better than Christians because…reasons. Some even attempted to prove the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by ghost writers. Casper could not be reached for comment.

To put it mildly, Leftists have an odd approach to Christians. That’s fine by me, since I have an odd approach to Leftists: mocking them whenever I can.

Christians

What the Left thinks it means – a group of backwards-thinking people bound by superstition and denying science, facts, and logic

What it really means – a group of imperfect people who are easy targets for those who don’t believe

The Left has a tendency to believe they are the smartest people in the room, and as such anything that falls outside of that belief is stupid. Such is the case with Christianity. To Leftists, Christians are complete mysteries. I mean, believing in an invisible deity who promises eternal life? That’s what Democrats in Chicago do to stay in power by voting for the dead, and they’re quite visible (some say transparent), so faith in God has to be for rubes and uneducated hicks!

At least until those same Leftists need votes. Then, candidates either couch their rhetoric with such fine sounding words like “economic and social justice” or “helping the less fortunate.” For a lot of Christians, it works…as long as you don’t bother looking into what the proposals are. This cynical approach to Christians is designed to hit them in their hearts. By nature, Christians are compassionate and want to help people in whatever way they can. Some even think the deeds on Earth will get them into Heaven.

Without getting too far into the theological weeds, there is a question as to whether this approach actually works. Although it’s nice to help someone who needs a hand, it doesn’t turn God into Willy Wonka. Deeds on Earth, known in some circles as “works”, only go so far. If they’re being done to hit the Heavenly Lotto, it defeats the purpose of doing the deeds because they’re being done for selfish reasons. In my faith (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran for those playing along at home), works mean nothing because Man is imperfect. It’s like trusting Michael Jackson to babysit; you hope it will turn out well, but bets are it won’t.

Leftists also have this need to be in control. To accept God means Leftists would have to give up at least some power over their lives and the lives of others. As a result, their best and brightest thinkers set out to disprove God using whatever means necessary. Semantics, logic, even philosophy and science are tools in their arsenals, and they use them whenever they can.

Which is to say all the time. Now you know how London felt during the Blitz.

Under near-constant attack, many Christians feel the need to give in if only to fit in. And it’s not like the Left is illiterate when it comes to Scripture, either. When they’re not trying to pick it apart to find discrepancies, they use it to justify their ideological goals. As the old saying goes, however, even the Devil can quote Scripture. In this case, Christians have to be careful not to fall prey to false doctrine when it’s tied to political ends.

One time when I went to visit my parents over a spring weekend, I went to my old church in my hometown. The service was good, the Pastor was good, but then it came down to the Bible lesson about being good shepherds of the Earth. In a stunning twist, the leaders of my old church turned the lesson into an appeal for environmentalism and to fight against global warming. I know God said we should take care of the Earth, but I see Him more as Barry Gibb rather than Al Gore.

Of course, if you’re not on board with that or any other Leftist ideas, then the Left will say you’re not Christian enough. Against illegal immigration? Well, the Bible says we need to take care of the less fortunate, so you’re not acting very Christian! Think there should be tax cuts? The Bible says wealth is bad, so you’re not too Christian!

And when they’re not calling you out, they’re calling you backwards. Against abortion? The Bible is anti-woman, so we can’t live by those outdated notions! Dressing modestly? That’s because the Bible is outdated! Don’t drink, smoke, or have sex before marriage? How old fashioned and utterly boring!

See the problem here? To the Left, Christians are like small children who just don’t know any better, and the Left sees themselves as wise men and women who will lead you out of your intellectual morass and into enlightenment (i.e. get you to vote for their issues and candidates and donate heavily to their causes). And they will use your faith as a tool to get you to do what they want.

If that’s not weaponizing faith, I don’t know what is.

But here’s the thing, kids. God doesn’t care who you vote for. He has that already covered. If He wants abortions on demand, He will find a way to make Nancy Pelosi the President of the United States. From what I understand, He has that kind of power. (Then again, so do the Russians allegedly, but that’s neither here nor there.) Man’s power on Earth is peanuts compared to the kind of power God has. What Man thinks will take several months to complete, God can do in the blink of an eye.

Faith and politics are two areas that can corrupt one another very easily when both are applied incorrectly because both appeal to Man’s baser nature. But when one can find a balance between the two with a focus on doing the right thing to honor God and honor a commitment to his or her constituents, it’s a wonder to behold.

Even though we Christians are imperfect, we mustn’t let that get us down because God loves us anyway. Easter Sunday is a reminder of that. God so loved the world than He let his only Son be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Leftists have a hard time going without wifi, let alone giving up their lives to save people they don’t like. And make no mistake, Leftists do not like Christians.

Fine by me. I’ll pray for you all the same. That serves a couple of purposes. First, God teaches us to pray for our enemies we would ourselves. Second, it really pisses them off, so you can get some enjoyment there, too. It’s a win-win!

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

Out of the tragedy of the Parkland, Florida, school shootings has come a hashtag (#NeverAgain) and renewed calls for gun control. However, it has also created potential leaders in members of the student body. On the pro-gun control side, students David Hogg, Cameron Kasky, and Emma Gonzalez have been treated to media interviews, town hall meetings, and other high profile events where their voices have been amplified.

Then, on the pro-Second Amendment side, there’s Kyle Kashuv. He’s visited the White House, spoken to numbers members of Congress, and engaged people of all stripes on Twitter.

But this week’s edition of the Leftist Lexicon isn’t about gun control; it’s about public education. The same school produced Hogg, Kasky, Gonzalez, and Kashuv, but they have radically different viewpoints, and it may be because of the current state of public education.

public education

What the Left thinks it means – a system that teaches children the fundamentals necessary to become informed citizens

What it really means – a Leftist indoctrination factory where the fundamentals are barely taught

By way of full disclosure, I am a public school graduate, as are the members of my family. However, even back when I was roaming the hallways of my high school wondering why cute girls thought I was a nerd (maybe cause, well, I was one), I noticed standards were slipping a bit. Sure, I had some of the same teachers my older brothers did, but it was still noticeable.

Seeing some of the high school students today, I’m pretty sure standards have slipped more than a con artist who makes a living filing bodily injury claims. And it’s not because the students today are lacking access to technology or Internet coverage. You’d be hard-pressed to find a student without a smartphone attached to their bodies in some fashion, and they use hashtags, emojis, and other online forms of communication better than they can speak or write their native language.

Some would say the teachers are to blame, and to some extent, they’ve earned it. Outside of your parents and family, teachers represent most of the adults kids get to know. That’s a pretty big responsibility. You are shaping the minds of young people who will lead this country in the future.

And many of the people with that responsibility seem to think it’s vital to indoctrinate the next generation. After all, we don’t want them growing up thinking government isn’t the greatest thing since sliced bread, right? Now, imagine year after year of being told the Left is right and the Right is wrong. By the time students graduate high school today, they may have been exposed to somewhere in the neighborhood of 13-14 years of Leftist propaganda. And that indoctrination will continue into college where you’re more likely to find a unicorn that farts rainbows than you are a conservative teacher in a prominent position.

A large part of this has to do with teachers unions. Like with most other labor unions, teachers unions tend to be Leftist politically, which means it becomes another way for Leftists to launder federal tax dollars (i.e. our money) through public education, which go right back to the politicians who gave them the money in the first place. Combine that with the number of tenure jockeys out there who lost the passion to teach a long time ago, how schools are desperate enough to hire any teacher who can breathe, and how it practically takes an act of God to get a teacher fired and you have yourself a situation that screams “perfect job for a Leftist.”

Of course, if you’re a Leftist parent, you see nothing wrong with this. But for some of us who would like to get a fast food order filled right the third time, let alone the first, it’s not ideal. That’s why homeschooling, private schools, and school vouchers have gotten so popular in the past couple of decades. And this is why public school advocates and teachers unions like the National Education Association have been working so hard to derail the exodus away from their gravy train. Fewer public school students means less money going to public schools and less power in the political realm.

Look at how the Left has demonized Betsy DeVos, the current Secretary of Education. They say she bought her way into the position (more than likely true), hasn’t set foot in a public school so she isn’t qualified to be Secretary of Education (actually, that sounds more like a selling point than a point of criticism), and she wants to promote homeschooling over public schooling (again, more of a selling point). Having seen DeVos in action, you can make an argument that she isn’t the best person for the job, but to say she’s the spawn of Satan for wanting to improve public education is a bit much. For all we know, she might only be a second cousin to Satan.

Just kidding, Secretary DeVos.

With public education, anyone wanting to make a difference or to improve the overall quality is fighting an uphill battle, one that discourages more people than encourages them. But all is not lost. It is possible to educate a child caught in the public school system, but it takes work. If you can’t afford to send your child to a public school or to homeschool, you need to be  attentive to what your children are learning and show an active interest in it. If you see something you’re not comfortable with what your child is learning, ask questions and balance the lessons with information you’re more comfortable with. Don’t forget education isn’t about spouting what a teacher says; it’s about exposing your children to multiple sources of information so they can learn and grow. An educated student is the bane of public education because he or she will have the tools to make up his or her mind on his or her own. (If I say his or her one more time in this piece, I get a free sandwich. And there it is!)

Not every public school teacher is horrible, but enough are that we need to take a serious look at the public school system to make sure we are getting the best results we with the money being spent. Although I may not agree with the David Hoggs of the world, the fact he is speaking up is admirable and shows his teachers did a good job. The same can be said of the Kyle Kashuvs of the world. If we had more students like these and fewer students who can name more Kardashians than Supreme Court Justices, the world might wind up a better place.

Of course, you realize this means we’re doomed.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It’s been close to a month since a gunman shot students and teachers at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, but you wouldn’t know it by following the media coverage in the aftermath. Students, such as David Hogg, have taken center stage with a push for stricter gun control laws (to replace the multiple laws that failed to stop the shooter, I guess) and the Left have been eager to give them that stage.

This is a formula the Left has mastered: bring out children to help them make political advances they couldn’t get on their own. Although this is close to child exploitation, it works. And, it speaks to how the Left regards children.

And by “regards,” I mean “uses.”

children

What the Left thinks it means – the smartest and wisest of humanity

What it really means – the future we create today

The Left has it in their heads children are merely adults washed in hot water, but without the cynicism that comes with getting older. That cynicism doesn’t come until those children get told by Leftists that everything sucks. Usually around, oh, Kindergarten.

The problem with this approach is it’s not realistic. Children aren’t mini-adults; they’re children with all the problems and issues of not being adults. Granted, some children these days are more mature than their parents, but they are exceptions and not the rule. To put children at the forefront of any political issue, let alone one as complex as gun control, is morally questionable.

Yet, it’s effective because children play to our emotions, which is what the Left loves to do. Why argue the pros and cons of any issue when you can get people to act and feel the way you want by playing to your emotions? Well, aside from being intellectually dishonest and more cowardly than a French soldier in Berlin during World War II…or Tuesday. But that’s the way the Left wants to handle their business, so we’d better understand why.

For that, we need to go back a few decades. In the 1950s, children were seen as influential and deserving of all the best their parents could give them. Although this can be a good thing, some parents took it a little too far. This bore fruit for the Left in the 1960s when the children who were told they were the best and brightest went to college, where they took lots of drugs, listened to professors who may have also been on drugs, and decided they were the ones who could change the world by taking up Leftist policies and fighting against “The Man.”

At least until they became “The Man.” Then, they went to work to create as many ideological Mini Mes as possible and then utilize them to further Leftist causes. Now, after a few decades, we get David Hogg telling us we need to pass more gun control laws. And when there’s another crisis, expect there will be another child to take up the banner. And then another.

But it’s not just politics that is affected by the Left’s attitudes towards children. They have also affected how parents parent. By treating children like smaller versions of themselves, parents set unrealistic goals and fill their lives with more and more activities. Although their intentions may be good, it puts incredible amounts of pressure on those who may not be able to handle it.

This is the problem I have with the way children are being treated today. We have lost the idea these children are children. Giving them an iPhone or an iPad and sending them on their way isn’t really parenting. (iParenting, maybe, but not parenting.) Neither is pushing children to the extremes of their abilities. There has to be a balance between setting up your children to succeed and giving them the opportunity to explore life while their sense of wonder is still intact. Let them explore, nurture their interests, and support them in their efforts. Then, be prepared to repeat the process until they find something they love to do.

When looking at David Hogg, I don’t see a young man who is passionate about gun control so much as indoctrinated to support it. And that’s the sad part. Childhood and young adulthood should be more about finding one’s self, not being a cookie cutter version of a political operative. In either case, I hope David finds his passion and has the courage to follow through on it.

But if you’re not convinced children are the best and brightest of humanity, remember just a few weeks ago we had to tell them not to eat Tide Pods.

And people wonder why I think humanity is doomed.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With all the oddball things that have gone on this year alone, this has to be the oddest. Snopes, the well-known fact checker website, did a fact check on an article published in the Babylon Bee. At first blush, there’s nothing odd about it…until you do a bit of research. The Babylon Bee is a Christian parody website.

While some have proclaimed satire is dead because it’s getting harder to tell who is serious and who is joking, it’s getting even harder to tell who is serious and who is joking about fact checking. (Granted, you have to be pretty desperate for work, dumber than a bag of hammers, or bored to fact check a satire website, but who am I to judge?) And who appointed these fact checkers to be fact checkers? The answers may surprise you. But what shouldn’t surprise you is that fact checkers are this week’s Leftist Lexicon installment.

fact checkers

What the Left thinks it means – people who look for dishonesty in public policy and media and expose it

What it really means – Leftists trying to mask their biases by hiding behind a false commitment to the truth

The Left has an interesting relationship with the truth. Sometimes, they say the truth is subjective (usually when they’re on the wrong side of an issue that even a 3 year old can figure out). Other times, they say the truth is clearly defined (usually when they’re on what they think is the winning side of an issue and there are no 3 year olds present to tell them off). On the issue of fact checking, they rely on the latter approach.

When you think about fact checking, the first place you may think of is Snopes. That’s because they’ve been around the longest and have been referenced by everyone from CNN to Forbes. Although it started out busting urban legends, it has moved into the realm of fact checking political statements. And, let’s just say they’re not quite as balanced as some would lead us to believe. It seems their political fact checker is…drumroll please…a Leftist.

But wait. Didn’t Snopes get investigated by FactCheck and found not to be biased? They were. However, FactCheck’s judgment is as flawed as Hillary Clinton’s after a vodka bender with Chelsea Handler. For one, FactCheck cleared Snopes back in 2009, which was before the aforementioned political fact checker at Snopes was hired. Second, FactCheck has taken a leftward turn in recent years, as evidenced by what they chose to check and how frequently.

Then, there’s PolitiFact, the entity that gave us the Truth-O-Meter. To call them the National Enquirer of fact checking would be an insult to the National Enquirer. While Snopes and FactCheck take great pains to at least appear non-partisan (more on that later), PolitiFact doesn’t bother with that. Here’s an example.

At a Republican Presidential candidate debate, Ron Paul said the federal income tax rate was 0% until 1913. This is correct, as the 16th Amendment creating a federal income tax was not ratified until that year. PolitiFact rated that as Half True. The facts prove Paul right, but it’s only Half True?

But wait! There’s more! Democrat Presidential candidate Jim Webb said in 2015 the US didn’t have a federal income tax until 1913, which as noted above is true. PolitiFact rated that as Mostly True…until December 20, 2016, when they revised their rating to Half True. But by that point, the damage had been done. They rated a Republican and a Democrat differently for saying the same thing, just with different wording.

And let’s not forget Media Matters, a wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros run by admitted liar and observed coke fiend David Brock, was created and still maintains itself as a fact checking organization devoted to calling out the lies of the GOP, conservatives, and anyone to the right of Karl Marx.

The thing to remember about fact checking is it should be factual, not factual with asterisks. This is where a lot of fact checking sources the Left uses fall flat because they don’t see the problem with biased phrasing. Heck, the mainstream media do it all the time and the Left treats it like gospel! But for those of us looking for the truth, sifting through mounds of doublespeak to find a sliver of honesty can be tiring and somewhat fruitless.

Meanwhile, fact checking sites become the default soothsayers without so much as a second opinion from outside their own circles. After all, if one of them falls, they all take a hit. So, to keep up appearances, they will occasionally throw a Leftist under the bus in the hopes you won’t notice the tires are covered with Republicans they’ve run over in a rush to prove they lied, even when they didn’t.

But here’s the thing. Volume of alleged truths or lies doesn’t make one side more or less honest than the other when the ones controlling the volume have a bias going into the process. A person with an axe to grind or to hide will see the same statements differently if said by people they disagree with, as we saw with the Paul/Webb example. That should put everybody concerned with the truth on high alert with any fact checkers.

Whenever I try to think through a political, social, or criminal (but I repeat myself since I already mentioned political) situation, I ask a simple question: Who benefits? The same approach can and should be taken with fact checkers. Who benefits from their checking or lack thereof? Who benefits when they use biased reasoning to determine who is telling the truth and who is lying? Who benefits by keeping people guessing about what the truth really is?

I can tell you none of us benefit when we let political hacks tell us what should believe.

Read everything you can on a subject with a critical eye. Don’t just take one perspective on it; find multiple sources and compare what you find. Don’t be afraid to check your own biases at the door and open your mind to other possibilities. And above all else, watch out for the language used. The more emotionally charged the language, the less truthful it is.

Good luck on your quest to find truth. We’re gonna need it.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

After the recent mass shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School, people were outraged and looking for answers. How could someone get and use an AR-15 on a group of unsuspecting teenagers? If you answered “mental health issues” or “failure of the local and federal authorities to act before the shooter could commit murder”, you’d be wrong.

It’s gun culture.

Did I mention the people who were getting the most attention with their answers were Leftists?

With every mass shooting, the phrase “gun culture” gets brought out as an explanation/scapegoat for every death. If you do it right, you can even sing “Blame gun culture” to the tune of “Blame Canada” from the South Park movie. But what is it? Glad you asked because otherwise this would be a very short Leftist Lexicon entry.

gun culture

What the Left thinks it means – an environment where anyone is allowed to have guns without responsibility and a regard for human life

What it really means – more proof the Left doesn’t understand people outside of their bubble

Whenever I hear a Leftist talk about gun culture, one question always seems to come to mind: have you been around gun owners aside from your armed security detail? I’ll bet most, if not all, of them haven’t. On the other hand, I have, and let me tell you it was some of the scariest times of my life. And by “scariest” I mean “awesomest.” (I know it’s not a word, but the point is the same.)

I’m not a gun guy by any stretch of the imagination, but hanging out with the average gun owner is eye-opening. They aren’t the weekend militia types or the paranoid guy with an arsenal ranting about black helicopters. They’re men and women just like you and me. Most are polite, law-abiding citizens who would never dream of pulling a gun on another person unless their lives or the lives of others were in danger. In other words, the opposite of the Broward County Sheriff’s Department.

And, I’m sure some of them might even vote Democrat.

But, since they’re gun owners, they’re all lumped together with the aforementioned militia and paranoid folks because it’s easier to paint all gun owners with the same broad brush than it is to paint with a finer brush and paint an honest picture. Remember, the Left thinks its members are smarter, more moral, and all in all better than everyone else. For them to admit they could be wrong about gun owners, even ones who might agree with every other issue the Left advocates, would be like Bill Clinton giving up extramarital sex: it just isn’t going to happen. So, the Left will continue to use a souped-up Wagner Power Painter to give a false picture of gun owners.

And that’s where people like us come in. Even if you don’t own a gun (like yours truly), you can still respect gun ownership and realize the Left’s game. If they can make gun owners less popular than NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch at a gun control rally, then they can control the debate on guns and gun culture without even having to fire a shot, if you’ll pardon the metaphor. That only works, however, if people like us hold our tongues. Granted, coming out as pro-gun today isn’t going to be easy. There are voices, young and old, screaming for us to get rid of assault weapons, restrict gun rights even more, and even taxing bullets to the point guns become restrictive to own.

But that doesn’t frighten me. I’ve had more unpopular opinions in my life than Michael Bloomberg has gun control mouthpieces. Yet, as unpopular as they may have been, they have been honest. And that’s not something the gun control side can claim. If you speak honestly, you need not fear the barbs of others.

This is why the Left needs to discourage and disparage what they call the gun culture. If the truth gets out, their arguments go out the window. If people find out gun owners aren’t dangerous and might actually be safe to be around, there is no Plan B for the Left. You don’t have to own a gun to be part of the gun culture. You just need to respect the Second Amendment and recognize the responsibility that comes with owning a firearm, from a Glock to an AR-15. This is a fight we can, and must, win because if the Left gets what it wants, it will be impossible to put the genie back into the bottle and there will continue to be mass shootings. And there will be more calls for stricter gun control that will also fail to stop mass shootings.

Maybe it’s not the gun culture that’s dangerous, but rather the anti-gun culture.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It’s been a bad week for the Left, although you’ll never get them to admit it. Not only are the DNC’s coffers drier than a Mormon keg party, but their one hope to undo the 2016 election is coming to a close with no actual connection between President Donald Trump and Russia’s alleged attempts to rig the election in Trump’s favor. Yep, Mueller Time may be ending soon, and the Left are already pushing the denial meter to 11 because, well, it’s one higher.

As the end of this farce of a snipe hunt comes to a close, it’s time we add the term to the Leftist Lexicon for further review.

Russiagate

What the Left believes it means – criminal collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign to win Trump the Presidency and subvert our democracy

What it really means – a scandal cooked up by Leftists to avoid admitting Hillary Clinton sucked as a candidate

We’ve talked about various aspects of Russiagate, but I’ve shied away from tackling it head-on for two reasons. One, I can’t fit my head in my old football helmet, and, two, I wanted to wait for more facts to come in. The Left and the Right ran with every piece of information they could to condemn or exonerate President Trump. Robert Mueller had an overdue library book in the fourth grade? Why, that’s proof his investigation is a witch hunt! Donald Trump’s brother’s cousin’s college roommate’s hairdresser’s little brother’s accordion teacher loves Russian dressing? Collusion!

Meanwhile outside of Bizarro World, people like me got tired of all the allegations being tossed about without any basis in evidence. Sure, Mueller got indictments of four members of Trump’s campaign, but a grand total of zero of them had anything to do with the campaign itself. Now, with the recent report saying Mueller found no collusion between the Trump team and Russia to disrupt the 2016 Presidential election, this fairy tale is coming to a close, and the Left has no answers left.

So, they do what they always do: pretend the truth doesn’t exist.

Within the past three or four days, I have seen several attempts by Leftists to downplay Mueller’s findings (or lack thereof). Some say the investigation isn’t over yet (which, technically, it isn’t), but let’s just say the fat lady’s on in five. Others say we’re misinterpreting Mueller’s findings when people say he’s exonerated Trump. Still others insist Russiagate is real, dammit! Just like white privilege, the Loch Ness Monster, and Jennifer Lopez’s talent, I just haven’t seen enough to believe.

That leads us to the most obvious conclusion: Hillary Clinton lost because she’s a bad candidate. I mean, it’s possible the Russians hacked her campaign so she didn’t campaign in three vital states that typically vote Democrat, but I wouldn’t put any money on it.

Although we haven’t seen any proof of collusion between Trump and Russia, there have been more than a few Democrats who have been caught red-handed (see what I did there?) dealing with the Russians. Under the Left’s own logic, that’s proof they colluded with a hostile foreign government, which is a threat to our country. But, of course, the Left exempts themselves from their own logic. Only Trump can be guilty of undermining democracy because they say so. And we know they never lie, right?

Say, I seem to have misplaced my $2500 savings from Obamacare. Has anyone else seen it?

Unfortunately for them, I don’t play by their rules. If you advance a particular argument, you had better be ready to defend it even at the expense of your own self interests. It’s that little thing called consistency that I try to live by and has done me well in my near 50 years of walking on this floating ball of rock we call planet Earth. The minute you start making exceptions for your arguments, especially self-serving exceptions, your argument goes the way of Kathy Griffin’s career options today.

And right now, the Left’s Russiagate argument is dying the death of a thousand goose chases, as it should. However, the investigation has opened up another avenue that should be explored, that being Democrats’ possible collusion with Russia. Let’s launch a full scale investigation, complete with Independent Counsel, and see where the threads take us.

After all, only those who would want to undermine our country would object to that, right?

Share This: