image_pdfimage_print

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

tax cuts

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

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

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

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

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

The Underpants Gnomes have nothing on Leftists.

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

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

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

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

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

You might not know it yet, but we’re totally going to die unless we change our energy sources. Don’t believe me? Ask former Vice President Al “I’m as Much of a Scientist as Bill Nye” Gore and current House Minority Leader Nancy “I Make Pennywise Look Like a Teddy Bear” Pelosi, both of whom came out against President Donald Trump’s decision to allow more offshore drilling. And we know just how much intellectual firepower they both have…

When asked for specifics on how to get the oil monkey off our country’s back, the Left always bring up green energy. Wind, solar, and other energy sources are the future! Oil is the past! We need to embrace the future or else we’re DOOMED, DOOMED I SAY!

Sorry. I channeled my former Leftist self there for a second.

Let’s take a closer look at the green energy phenomenon, shall we?

green energy

What the Left believes it means –  energy sources that are cleaner and better for our environment

What it really means – a source of money for Leftists under the illusion of protecting the environment

The self-professed “Party of Science” has a habit of using science to make it easier for them to line their pockets through a steady stream of misinformation, loaded language, and, oh yeah, ginning up more fear than Vincent Price. This toxic concoction has made actual discussion on the scientific merits (or lack thereof) of green energy hard to come by. Let me start the conversation.

Green energy is great in theory, but sucks in execution.

Your turn, Leftists.

Seriously, green energy has good intentions. When put in the simplest of terms, only the truly mad would want our natural resources to be depleted and our environment destroyed. Yes, my Leftist readers, that includes those allegedly evil corporations because if the environment gets destroyed, it tends to kill people. No people, no customers. Economics 101.

And that’s one element that the Left doesn’t consider when coming up with its green energy approaches. One of the problems with green energy so far is it’s not economical on a large enough scale. Leftists can point to large solar farms and wind farms as evidence to the contrary, but as awesome as they are, they run into a problem: storage. On days when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing, your need for power doesn’t go away. Unless you have a way to store energy from sunny or windy days, you’ll be more in the dark than Paris Hilton spelunking.

That’s where batteries come into the picture. Granted, battery technology has come a long way in the past decade or so, but it’s still a process that requires the use of chemicals that can be damaging to the environment. Hmmm…so in order for green energy to be effective, we have to use things that are…not green? Maybe it’s me, but I think that defeats the purpose of green energy. But I’m sure it’s just me. I mean, who would be dumb enough to support something so ignorant?

Oh, wait…

Until the battery technology catches up to the wishful thinking of the green energy movement, the Left will have to address the reality of the situation. And they do that by utterly ignoring reality. They have a lot invested in green energy, mainly because Leftists tend to be the ones running green energy companies. But since green energy isn’t taking off the way the Left thinks it should, green energy companies often request (and get) federal funds to keep afloat. Then, in order to keep the funds coming in, green energy companies have to keep sucking up to Leftist politicians, which might just involve financial donations, and the cycle continues as long as Leftists keep getting into office and have access to federal funds.

Good thing that never backfires. Say, how is Solyndra doing these days?

As with global climate change, the Left is operating from a position of scientific ignorance with green energy. They keep saying oil is obsolete, but they’re wrong. Biofuels, converting coal into oil, and as yet fully untapped oil reserves exist, and until we exhaust those sources, oil will have a place in the energy conversation. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to find alternatives, but to say green energy is the only source worth exploring is short-sighted. Besides, with people like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi pushing for green energy, I think it’s a safe bet it’s not nearly as good as they make it out to be.

Share This:

 

Alabama Vote not a Victory for America

The Democratic victory in Alabama sends a dire message to the GOP. Lies and scandal will cost votes due to the Leftist hatred of the President and his party. And anyone on the Right is a target. Evidence is not required as one is always guilty without need of proof or verification of any allegations. And the low-information voters do exactly what the Democratic controlled media tells them to do and how to vote.

There is a big fight coming in 2018 and the Left will not hesitate to lie, cheat, or steal its way to a complete victory in Congress. And if you can see the opposition to the President’s agenda in Congress now that it is Republican controlled. It will be far worse with Democratic control. The President doesn’t even have a full staff yet due to Democratic and Republican feet dragging. And Republican control is the only thing that stands between 4 to 8 years of President Trump and a President Trump impeachment on false accusations and lies. If the Leftist control the Congress in 2018, they will impeach the President.

And I can see a day where they would be foaming at the mouth and impeach both President Trump and Vice President Pence. Thus giving the last 2 years of the Trump Administration to Nancy Pelosi. In a Democratic controlled House, she becomes Speaker of the House and next inline of Presidential succession in the event both President Trump and Vice President Pence are unable to serve. Being impeached and removed from office would make this reality.

This nightmare can happen. And We the People will let it happen with our apathy to the political process. And the Democratic leadership is counting on it.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As the seasons turn from summer to fall, there are some things we can depend on. Kids going back to school. Leaves turning colors. And discussions about the debt ceiling.

Recently, President Donald Trump spoke to House Minority Leader Nancy “Joan Rivers Was a Piker Compared to Me” Pelosi and Senate Minority leader Charles “Don’t Get Between Me and a Microphone” Schumer and agreed to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for concessions on disaster relief. Yeah, I know. Debt ceiling talk is so sexy, right? Well, get ready to get really hot because here we go!

debt ceiling

What the Left believes it means – a budgetary procedure to ensure the government can pay its debts without shutting down

What it really means – giving the least fiscally responsible entity on Earth a pass on bad spending.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to pay the debts of the country, including the debts they themselves rack up allegedly representing the county. Usually, this gets done through the budget process, where the House, the Senate, and the President try to hammer out a vision for what needs to get paid and by whom. There’s a tiny snag with this currently: we haven’t actually had a budget since 2006. The way Congress has done around this detail has been to raise the debt ceiling, which allows the government to pay debts. A necessary evil, right?

Not quite.

Let’s say you have a credit card that you max out on a trip to Las Vegas. You may be able to skate by for a while, but eventually you are going to have to make a payment. Then, instead of making a payment, you request raising your credit line. The credit card company agrees, and you go back to Vegas to max out your card again. Then, payment time rolls around again, and you request yet another credit line extension. The credit card company agrees, and the process continues.

There’s no way this can end badly, right?

Actually, there is no way this can’t end badly. With a budget, Congress has a framework for how to proceed. Without a budget, Congress can spend and spend without much oversight. Wait…did we just stumble onto the reason we haven’t had a budget in 11 years? Why, yes, yes, we did!

Under the typical budget process, the House comes up with a budget and gives it to the Senate to look over and either approve as-is or offer changes. If there are changes, the House and Senate come together and work out the differences before sending it to the President to sign. Then, if the President vetoes it, the budget proposal goes back to Congress to either fix the proposal or override the veto. In short, there are checkpoints at every stage of the budget process to prevent one side or the other from running roughshod over the other and to put limits on what is to be spent. By simply agreeing to forego the normal budget process and raise the debt ceiling, those safeguards are as reliable as the TSA.

If America had her financial house in order, raising the debt ceiling might not be an issue. After all, we’ve accrued debt in the past for noble purposes, like fighting a war. However, America is spending like a drunken sailor these days. Okay, that may have been out of line. After all, drunken sailors have a bit more fiscal responsibility than the average Congrescritter. I mean, when was the last time you saw a drunken sailor spend money to watch shrimp on a treadmill?

Complicating matters further is the fact America doesn’t own all of its debt. We have issued bonds for our debt for various parties to buy. And guess who owns a good chunk of those bonds. China. Yeah, that country that hasn’t quite gotten over the Cold War and has a penchant for trying to handicap America whenever it can. And we gave them Most Favored Nation status in the 1990s! And how do they repay us? Sending toys with lead paint and dog food that actually kills dogs.

But I’m sure they’ll do us right this time!

All it takes for our fiscal house of cards to come tumbling down is for China to say, “Yeah, we kinda want our money back because we don’t think you can pay us back.” If you thought the financial crisis in 2008 was bad, this will make that look like “Heidi.” (For you Leftists out there reading this, that is a bad thing.) And if that happens, we have Democrats and Republicans to blame. Our representatives decided that spending money is more important than fiscal security. Even when we get representatives elected who promise to keep us on budget, those voices are either drowned out or sold out by those who think we can print enough money to keep ourselves afloat. Spoiler Alert: we can’t. The more money we print, the less valuable the money we have becomes. That isn’t a recipe for success, kids.

So, how do we fix it? Outside of a Congressional enema, we’re stuck until our representatives figure out raising the debt ceiling without a reason will cost us more than the ability to spend money we don’t have on crap that has no real purpose.

Like shrimp on treadmills.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Sometimes people ask me why I don’t associate with the Democrats or the Republicans. Usually, I give an answer about how the two major parties are too much alike for my tastes. And after this past week, I have another example.

To say President Donald Trump has critics in both major parties is an understatement of Rosie O’Donnell sized proportions. Two such critics are House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senator Lindsey Graham. On paper, these two should be fighting like cats and dogs, but when it comes to the deficiencies in the Trump Administration (in their opinions), they are practically inseparable. One is a whiny partisan hack who wears a dress, and the other is Nancy Pelosi.

Recently, both Pelosi and Graham urged President Trump to not only beef up our military, but to beef up our diplomatic power. Both of them referred to the latter as “soft power.” And when two Leftists use the same term, it piques my interest.

soft power

What the Left believes it means – power that derives from peaceful endeavors

What it really means – using words when force would work better

I am not a violent man by nature, but there are times when even I recognize extending an olive branch will not make the other side stop wanting to shoot your hand off. Take ISIS/ISIL, for example. They have a massive hard-on to destroy us, so inviting them over for tea really isn’t an option. Not to mention, their preferred tea is of the TN variety.

This is a problem the Left doesn’t quite understand when it comes to using soft power: not everyone is open to negotiation. When two parties enter into a negotiation, they have goals they want to meet if at all possible. Between countries, these goals typically revolve around not going to war over trifles. Between people, these goals may involve sharing of ideas and profits. Put another way, negotiation requires all parties involved to have a sense of self-interest to avoid conflict.

Now, what if one side doesn’t want to avoid conflict? All the talking in the world won’t make them come to the table and reject their nature, so there needs to be hard power to back up the soft power. Think of a biker who loves getting into a fight. If he has his gang to get his back, he’s going to get what he wants. If he’s flying solo, he might be more willing to listen to reason if he’s faced with a gang armed with sawed-off shotguns, but he might also choose to fight. And that biker happens to be Wolverine…

From a political perspective, having hard power and soft power at your disposal is a good thing, as long as the use of those powers are consistent. And that’s where the current political environment goes off the rails like Joseph Hazelwood running an Amtrak line on the San Andreas Fault. For the past couple of decades, our diplomats have taken the position that being American means always having to say you’re sorry. Even when we’re in the right, our diplomats are apologizing for us being Americans. If we apologize any more, Canada is going to annex us.

So, what happens when the soft power and hard power are at odds with each other? That depends on the leadership of the President. If he leans more towards using hard power, diplomacy will be used only when absolutely necessary. Think of it as the shoot first and ask questions later approach. When the President decides using diplomacy would accomplish more than blowing up the other party’s stuff, words become the ammunition.

Guess what kind of power the previous Administration relied on most. I mean, aside from capitulating to the wrong people while isolating our allies.

With a new President comes a new approach. Donald Trump has already stated he will rebuild our military strength and restore our standing around the world. If he sticks with the approach that won him the Presidency, we’ll see a heavier reliance on hard power, which is not necessarily a bad thing after spending years as the geopolitical equivalent of a 98 pound weakling. I would urge the President not to neglect soft power, but not to let people like Nancy Pelosi and Lindsey Graham make the decisions on where and when to use it.

Share This: