Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

76 Views

Recently the Doomsday Clock got to within 100 seconds to midnight, so if your date has to be home by then, you have a little over a minute to get him or her home before his/her parents get mad!

Seriously, though, we haven’t heard that much about the Doomsday Clock in recent years because it hasn’t really been that relevant since the end of the Cold War. Kinda like NATO with Swiss timing. Although its initial intent was to give us a visual representation of an impending nuclear doomsday, its purpose has expanded to include climate change. In other words, it keeps track of two bombs.

With the furor building over the change to the Doomsday Clock, I think it warrants a closer look at it.

the Doomsday Clock

What the Left thinks it means – a useful tool to reflect how close our world is to irreversible destruction

What it really means – an arbitrary measure of a doomsday that isn’t coming anytime soon

The Doomsday Clock was created in 1947 by Hyman Goldsmith and Martyl Langsdorf to show how close we were to atomic warfare and destruction with midnight being last call for humanity. Since its creation, different people have been responsible for determining when and how much the clock hands change with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist’s Science and Security Board making the current final decision. In 2007, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist included climate change in their determination of how close we were to utter destruction.

I did a bit of reading on who is on the Science and Security Board so you wouldn’t have to, and one thing struck me time and time again: a decent number of these folks have Leftist ties. Ranging from former Obama Administration officials to California Governor Jerry Brown, the Science and Security Board is a virtual Who Cares of scientists and political folks all striving to make it seem like we’re on the verge of destruction. Of course, they consult with their peers in various scientific fields, but they are the ones who make the final decision.

In other words, a self-perpetuating echo chamber that would make Greta Thunberg jealous.

Now, if you’ve read my previous posts on the subject of climate change, you’ll know I think the science is as slanted as a ski jump, so you can guess how I feel about it being added as a criterion of the Doomsday Clock being changed. However, its inclusion at such a late date is telling. Remember how global warming was going to kill us all in the 90s? Yet, the aforementioned brain trust didn’t think it was as serious a problem until 2007, which was when we started seeing how the climate models that all pointed to climate change being a major problem were more buggy than an Amish tailgate party. And it was during the time when global temperatures were cooler than we were being told.

But, hey, science and stuff.

At the end of the day, though, every tick of the Doomsday Clock isn’t based on anything concrete, just feelings. Whoa oh oh, feelings. And it’s not even feelings based on actual data. The last time the Doomsday Clock was changed was in 2018, when it clock read it was two minutes to midnight. (Come to think of it, that would be a great heavy metal song! Wish someone would write it!) The world hasn’t gotten that much more dangerous for a while, but the clock kept moving in spite of the facts on climate change alone.

The more you look into the Doomsday Clock, the more you see the political machinery within it. In their 2012 announcement, the board praised the Arab Spring (which made the world much more dangerous), the Occupy movement (which had nothing to do with either nuclear weapons or climate change, but still managed to leave a lot of trash for others to pick up), and political/social movements in Japan and Russia that still had nothing to do with either of their concerns. The kicker for me was their 2015 announcement speaking glowingly of John Kerry and relying upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for their message on climate change. Don’t pat yourself on the back too much, Mr. Kerry, or you might have to apply for another Purple Heart….

As it stands, the Doomsday Clock is driven by ideology more than ideas, which makes it unreliable as a means of telling anything, let alone time, and it should be treated as such. I trust the blinking 12:00 AM on an old VCR more than I trust the Doomsday Clock because there’s at least some practical logic behind how to change the time. Plus, there’s a chance the VCR might still work, so there’s that. As for the Doomsday Clock, it should be sent to the junkyard where it can keep the rats and the rust company.

And the worst part of the Doomsday Clock? It’s not even digital.

The Trial of the Senate-ury

71 Views

It’s a common belief among the Right that Leftists and their media cohorts exchange talking points prior to a story breaking so everyone can be on the same page. Whether this is true or not is subject to debate, but if there is a case to be made in favor of it happening, we can look to how the Senate trial of President Donald Trump is being covered. It seems everyone and their grandmother on the Left is saying the Senate is on trial and if they don’t put country before party it will prove the Senate ran a sham trial.

Call me crazy (and, believe me, the label fits), but aren’t we in the middle of a trial concerning whether President Trump committed impeachable offenses? How in the hell did it become a referendum on the Senate?

Because the Left needs the Senate trial to be about the Senate, more specifically Senate Republicans and not about the weakness of the House’s articles of impeachment.

I’ve made my opinions on the two Articles of Impeachment previously, so I won’t delve too much into them except to say I’ve seen three year olds give better arguments on far less important matters than the House Democrats have so far on impeachment. Since the House went all-in on Impeach-a-Palooza, it appears they didn’t plan for what they would do if they got it, and it shows in their lack of preparedness and in their repetition of their talking points in lieu of new information or even new tactics.

While the Left has been creaming their jeans over Rep. Adam Schiff’s presentation of the House’s case for impeachment, it’s honestly come off to me like a kid who didn’t read the book he or she was supposed to read and then wing an oral book report on in front of the entire class. Schiff may sound like he’s on top of things, but it’s in the content where the presentation falls apart. How exactly is that an indictment of the Senate? If anything, it’s an indictment of the House because they approved the Articles of Impeachment in the first place.

So much of the ire against the Senate revolves around whether they will call witnesses. The Left desperately wants the Senate to do so, which is why they’re trying to shame Senate Republicans into doing it instead of, you know, having it already done when they were the ones in charge of the impeachment inquiry. Then again, if you remember waaaaaaay back in December, the House Democrats called witnesses to give powerful testimony that amounted to, at best, second or third hand information. One of their witnesses even contradicted their narrative during his testimony. And to think a good number of politicians went to law school without learning the first rule of witness testimony is to know what they’re going to say before they take the oath. What’s more, the House tried to cover up the lack of first hand knowledge by having witnesses talk about their own integrity and qualifications, none of which had anything to do with whether the President was guilty of bribery, extortion, or any of the other charges levied against him. How exactly is that an indictment of the Senate?

The larger rhetorical offensive in play is designed to conflate any action not directly in line with the way the Left expects things to be done as a gross violation of protocol and decency. Granted, this is Congress we’re dealing with here, so they could be right about the decency part, but the protocol part isn’t tied to a desired outcome. And if we’re being completely honest here, the House Democrats broke protocol by going ahead with impeachment without Trump Administration witnesses instead of getting a court to order the witnesses to testify. Now that they’ve gone this far, the House Managers are trying to get the Senate to do the work they should have done before now. If the Senate refuses, however, it’s still not a reflection on them for not allowing witnesses; it’s a reflection on how shoddy a job the House did. And do you know how I know?

Jerrold Nadler maligning the Senate as being guilty of a cover-up…before the Senate had a chance to take up the House Managers’ arguments.

It’s almost as if the Left wants the Senate trial to go poorly so their self-professed self-fulfilling prophecy will come true and they can say, “See? We told you it was rigged!” Then, they will use this narrative to help their attempt to retake the Senate and, presumably, impeach the President all over again provided he gets reelected. Judging from the current clown car of candidates, I don’t think he has much to worry about in his reelection bid.

Meanwhile, both houses of Congress may be in play while the President is running. If Republicans get what they want, they will regain the House and keep the Senate, and the Democrats want the exact opposite. I think the 2020 Congressional elections will come down to whether the public favors impeachment and removal. For once, the Left is playing a long game, but they’re playing it badly. Not only has support for impeachment slipped lower than an earthworm’s belt buckle, but it’s actually drawing people to Trump. Guess what accusing Senate Republicans of a cover-up is likely to do.

If current trends continue, the Left will be reliving 2016 in a few months, just on a much larger scale. The more the Left pushes the idea the Senate is on trial for what they do or don’t do in the Senate trial of President Trump, the more it will backfire. 

Human Lies against Klingons

110 Views

This meme draws the wrong conclusion and is deliberately misleading. As of this writing there is no evidence within the canon of Star Trek that would support the idea that the Klingons had trans rights. So I am exposing this fraud here and now.

This is not evidence of Klingons having trans rights.

Curzon was a male Trill and host to the symbiot named Dax. And Curzon Dax was a beloved old friend of the Klingon Kor. However, Curzon Dax was two separate lifeforms sharing the Trill body. It would be more correct to say that Dax was Kor’s beloved old friend.

A Trill can be surgically bonded with a symbiotic sentient parasite. This symbiot lives within the abdomen of the Trill host. This allows the host and parasite to share memories and skills. Even those possessed by former hosts of the symbiot.

The symbiot itself was a long lived organism. The Dax symbiot was over 350 years old by the time the character Jadzia Dax is introduced in Star Trek: Deep Space 9. Jadzia was the 8th host for Dax, and it would live on to take a 9th host and beyond. Some where male and some where female.

This is not the definition of transgender in the real world today. It isn’t even close to resembling it. Thus this meme is fraud. A lie. And a deliberate one for political and social gain.

Today, transgender is a mental condition that is being forced into acceptance and celebration by western civilization instead of treating it properly as a mental illness. We need to give this unfortunate people compassionate help instead of exploiting them for political gain. It is not two beings sharing one body. It is not two souls sharing one body. It is one soul, one body, and one confused mind.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Bloodshed

94 Views

Today, Second Amendment advocates gathered in Richmond, Virginia, to protest Governor Ralph “Hood or Blackface” Northam’s anti-gun policies. To hear the media talk, we were in for violence, racism, xenophobia, and all sorts of other horrible things inspired by “gun nuts” (and probably President Donald Trump once they get around to it). It was going to be Charlottesville all over again!

Then something funny happened. As in, nothing the Left said was going to happen happened.

As of this writing, there has been no violence, rumors of white supremacists (or as David “I Got Into Harvard by Being a Gun Control White Knight and All I Got Was This Stupid Twitter Account” Hogg put it “Nazi’s” which is how he actually incorrectly spelled it) without substantiation, and…people actually getting along. You know, for a seething caldron of hate, this was tamer than a Mormon version of 50 Shades of Gray.

What the Left continues to miss when it comes to marches organized by the Right is the participants aren’t like Leftists. When Leftists protest, you can count on a few things. One, it will be a mishmash of ideological issues that often conflict with what the Left believes. (Linda Sarsour being a featured speaker at the Women’s March, anyone?) But somehow few people recognize the various contradictions, often because the folks who are impacted the most by those contradictions are excluded from the protest marches and subsequently ignored by not only the protest organizers but the media. The Left protects the narrative more than Gollum wants to protect the One Ring.

Two, Leftist protests have a potential for violence. Look at Antifa. For all their alleged opposition to fascism, they seem to sing from the same hymnal when it comes to violence. Whether it’s threats and vulgarity, throwing milkshakes at people, or…oh I don’t know…trying to hit people with bike locks, Leftists aren’t afraid to start shit. Of course, when their opposition tries to finish it, these same Leftist badasses make the French look like John Wayne as they run for cover in a cloud of dust, BO, and patchouli oil. And they count on numbers and the police looking the other way to get away with it. Since 2016, the Left has shown itself to be destructive when it comes to showing their opposition to whatever they hate, and they always feel it’s justified.

Finally, Leftist protests are always messy. I’m not just talking about figurative trash here, either. If you have a Leftist protest in your community, first I’m sorry, but also try to get before and after photos. Time after time, you will find Leftist protests leave a lot of garbage in their wake, leaving it for others to clean it because…I’m not even sure why and I’m a recovering Leftist. I guess fighting for a living wage means never having to earn a living.

The difference between Leftist and Rightist protests comes down to a simple non-ideological perspective. People on the Right tend to be more inclined to take responsibility for the little things, like cleaning up after themselves and not causing more trouble than they’re worth. Leftists are more concerned with moving the needle, meaning they want to make an impact that sways public opinion in their favor. Another way to look at it is to compare a Boy Scout to a brat throwing a tantrum. One thinks of others while the other thinks of himself or herself. Hmmmm…who might fit in those categories and why? I guess we’ll never know.

In the meantime, let’s take a moment to appreciate the differences between the Left and the Right when they protest. After all, you won’t get half of my jokes if you don’t!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

107 Views

The Iowa State Fair occurs in August, but we’ve entered a new fair season thanks to Leftists. Democrat candidates for President talk incessantly about fair wages. House Democrats are demanding the Senate hold a fair trial. And Leftists are demanding the rich pay their fair share.

All this fair talk and not a single corn dog to be found.

On the plus side, we can revisit a Leftist chestnut in the current context! Not as good as a corn dog, but hey.

fair

What the Left thinks it means – making things equal for the less fortunate, often involving taking from the plenty to give to the less fortunate

What it really means – an arbitrary word that can’t be achieved, even with an overbearing bureaucracy

We all want things to be fair because we’re not assholes for the most part. When something bad happens to us, we demand something happen to balance the scales (usually involving lawyers, some of which appear in TV commercials during “Maury”…not that I know about that, mind you). It’s even written in our founding documents in a fashion when referencing “all men are created equal.” America is a country where fairness is cherished and appreciated.

And that’s why the Left tries to inject it into every policy they advocate.

Take the “paying your fair share” concept. The Left continues to push the idea the rich aren’t carrying their share of the fiscal burden in America. And they’re right; they’re paying more than their fair share. When the top 10% of earners pays in the neighborhood of 90% of the tax burden, that’s not a fair system by any stretch of the imagination. But to the Left, it’s still fair because…the rich make more money, so they can afford to pay more!

In other words, the Left thinks a minority of the people paying the clear bulk of the tax burden isn’t fair, and the only way to make it fair is to have this minority pay more. Seems as legit as a Nigerian prince offering to share his fortune with you via email.

The same concept of fairness permeates the other Leftist ideas I mentioned. Essentially, the Left feels fairness only goes in the direction they want it to go, and it’s usually someone else who has to do the heavy lifting to make it happen. House Democrats put up laughable articles of impeachment, but it’s the Senate who has to call witnesses to ensure a “fair trial”. Workers aren’t getting paid enough, so companies have to bump up pay in order to have a “fair wage.” And anyone who disagrees with these just isn’t on board with fairness and that makes them meanie-heads!

Actually, it means we don’t share the same definition of fairness.

I’m going to rope in a bit of economic theory here, so if you’re not into that, skip ahead a couple of paragraphs. I promise it will be more entertaining than Al Gore giving play-by-play at a curling match.

Leftists believe in a “zero sum game.” If someone succeeds, it’s always at the cost of those less fortunate.  This, of course, is bunk. Wealth and poverty aren’t linked in that way. Bill Gates didn’t get ahead because he stole from Joe Sixpack. Instead, he got ahead by selling Joe Sixpack computers with buggy operating systems. You know, just like Grandpa did it!

The problem with a zero sum game mindset is it ignores the fact there is an infinite number of ways to make a buck, which means there is an infinite number of bucks to be made in our economy. As long as there is a need for a product or service, there will be a way for someone to make a profit. You could have a job that requires no discernable talent (like being a YouTube celebrity or a Congresscritter), but that doesn’t mean someone like me who is, thankfully, neither can’t make a buck or two in the same, similar, or different fields altogether. Our economic system is funny in that way. Just because someone gets ahead doesn’t mean we can’t get ahead, too.

There is another term to describe the Left’s concept of fairness, and that word is vengeance. The Left doesn’t want things to be fair because it cuts into their schtick, which is to convince people of how unfair everything is and then con them out of money to try to make things fair. And once they have your attention, it gets easier for them to manipulate you into agreeing with Leftist policies. They might even convince you that you’re a victim of unfair treatment and you need to make things right by sticking it to The Man.

See why I think vengeance is a better descriptor of what the Left means when they talk about fairness?

The part that escapes the Left more than their unintentionally ironic definition of fairness is it can never be totally achieved, even under the Leftist utopia being promised in all the brochures. That’s because we’re all different with different skills and abilities, educational backgrounds, socioeconomic circumstances, and so on. As much as I love to play basketball, I know I can’t turn it into a job with the NBA (not on a winning team, at least). Instead of trying to make the NBA put me on a team while talking about how unfair it is that I’m not already a starter, I’ve accepted my limitations, namely my entire basketball-related skill set. I don’t begrudge anyone using their talents to make money.

And that’s what the Left can’t do. Without a potential victim, the Left has no way to convince people how unfair things are in America. Maybe that’s because there are comparatively few actual victims of unfairness in America. We have a ways to go with the justice system and certainly with taxation, but by and large we are a fair country and always strive to do better. Some things can’t be fixed with more taxes on the wealthy, a $15 per hour minimum wage, or calling witnesses at a Senate impeachment trial, but a lot of things can be fixed by recognizing the Left only wants fairness for themselves, not for everyone. Even when they call for fairness, they feel they have to be on top.

And believe me, that would be the least fair result ever.

San Francisco 2020 – A Musical Parody

119 Views

With apologies to Scott McKenzie

To the tune of “San Francisco” by Scott McKenzie


If you’re going to San Francisco
Be sure to wear some work boots on your feet.
If you’re going to San Francisco
Watch out for needles and poop in the street.

For those who come to San Francisco
Be sure to grab a poop map
For the streets of San Francisco
Are literally filled to the curbs with crap.

All across the nation
Folks cry in frustration
“Where is Pelosi?”

It’s a bad situation
In need of sanitation
Where is Pelosi?
Where is Pelosi?

For those who come to San Francisco
You’ll find a lot of homeless people there
If you come to San Francisco
The horrid stench’s everywhere

If you come to San Francisco
You’ll want to get out of there.

Unrepentant Ilhan Omar brings more ignorance to open 2020 – Guest Opinion by Ari Kaufman

208 Views

Last year in print and electronic media I pondered, exposed and commented upon Rep. Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic rhetoric, anti-Americanism, divisiveness, and tendencies toward bigotry. 

While analyzing this ongoing horrid situation in my state is imperative, I wish I didn’t have to, but I will so long as she continues to supply it.

Despite a half-hearted apology last February saying she’s “listening and learning,” Omar instead doubled and tripled down on similarly insidious commentary throughout last year, with already more controversy to open 2020.  

During a Jan. 8 news conference while Iranian bombs targeting American military sites flew in the sky, Omar audaciously remarked she “felt ill because of everything that is taking place. And I think every time I hear conversations around war, I find myself being stricken with PTSD.”

Yet in the same press conference, cameras caught Omar laughing while Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee speciously tried to score political points by discussing U.S. service members killed in the Iraq War.

Omar’s ludicrous analogy perturbed many of our nation’s veterans who sacrifice so much to keep Americans (and Muslims) safe. 

But don’t take my word; my cousin, age 37 like Omar, served two tours of duty during the War on Terror. He texted me right away. 

 “I found her comments offensive and completely out of touch,” he told me, clearly frustrated. “Many soldiers I served with suffer from war-related PTSD after putting their lives on the line on a daily basis. I highly doubt her experiences warrant a similar feeling.”

Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN), a rising conservative star and military veteran just two years older than Omar, agreed. He said the first-term congresswoman’s comments were “offensive to our nation’s veterans who really do have PTSD after putting their life on the line to keep America safe.” 

Banks also tweeted Jan. 10 that if Omar hates war, she should thank the Trump administration “for keeping us out of war with Iran, but instead her hate drove her, Pelosi and others to vote to tie POTUS’ hands & prevent our troops from defending themselves in the case of an attack.” 

For background, Banks is not a person of “privilege” as his critics will immediately say, since that’s a common attack line when lacking facts. 

He grew up in an Indiana trailer park while his father worked at an auto plant and mother cooked. With origins in rural Kentucky, Banks was the first college graduate in his family and joined the U.S. Navy at age 33 while serving in the Indiana legislature, deploying to Afghanistan in 2014.

We should not mock the plight of refugees, but Omar’s comparisons are a stretch. She moved to America as a child more than a quarter-century ago and comes from an educated family of civil servants and teachers. According to a glowing 2016 piece in the left-wing Minneapolis City Pages, Omar lived a “blessed life” in Somalia.

Additionally, her views of our country that fought to save her, allowed her family to settle in freedom, and jumpstart her political career just a few years after college graduation no less, remain backwards and appalling. Omar’s unrelenting rancor deserves opprobrium. 

Last summer, she proudly crafted anti-Semitic policy by introducing a resolution supporting Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS)—a rogue movement that the German parliament recently condemned as akin to Nazi campaigns targeting Jews. 

Massive bipartisan opposition (398-17) defeated the execrable measure, and even prominent Democrats concurred that BDS “seeks a world where Israel does not exist.” 

Additionally, in a now notorious March 2019 speech to the Council of American-Islamic Relations in Los Angeles, Omar claimed, “CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that Muslims in the U.S. were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”  

“Some people did something” and over 3,000 Americans were killed? Talk about minimizing the worst tragedy in American history. Incidentally, CAIR was founded in 1994. Omar, perhaps purposely, changed the date. 

To put it kindly, Democrats struggled to condemn iniquitous comments about Israel and Jews from Omar and her squadmate, the noxious Palestinian propagandist Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) — she of the appalling “Holocaust gives me a calming feeling” rant last May and “Impeach the MFer” the evening of her 2019 inauguration  — but Omar was conveniently not stripped of her Foreign Affairs Committee assignments, as many demanded, nor has she suffered any real punishment. Nancy Pelosi is not too brave.

It is thus no surprise that Omar and Tlaib support repugnant Bernie Sanders for president, a communist and the most anti Israel 2020 candidate. She’s also expressed a fondness for anti-Semitic socialist British politician Jeremy Corbyn, who failed massively in his December prime ministerial bid. 

In fact, Omar maintains outsized influence in the Democrat Party and is one of their top fundraisers (does hate sell?), though her donations and incessant corruption have come under scrutiny. 

Omar had at least nine violations of Minnesota campaign-finance law last year and, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, “a pattern of carelessness and/or self-dealing with legally restricted funds.”

In a June piece, which was the most read all of 2019, the paper’s editorial board reprimanded her: 

“Omar’s political rise has been marred by a series of unforced errors, including intemperate remarks and tweets earlier this year that were widely perceived as anti-Semitic. Every month seems to bring a fresh problem. More is expected of her than the symbolism attached to her victory. Omar has a special obligation to be worthy of the trust so many have placed in her, including many still-new Americans who expect better.”

Even from a left-leaning newspaper, this excerpt is damning and not debatable. Never vetted before running for office, Omar continues refusing to answer questions or turn over documents that could debunk what she claims is conspiratorial. 

Investigators with multiple federal agencies finally began reviewing the alleged crimes committed by Omar Jan. 17, mostly centering around her marital history. These include perjury; immigration, student loan and tax fraud; and, yes, bigamy.

As a resident of Greater Minnesota, I can confirm that Omar, who was rushed into her current role by identity politics-obsessed liberals, is disliked across the state. By now she’s probably even alienating voters in the provincial D+28 Fifth congressional district; yet the Somali Muslim somehow faces limited primary opposition and, unless the nascent-but-impressive campaign of Iraqi refugee and war journalist Dalia al-Aqidi catches fire, Omar should win re-election this fall. 

Pres. Trump received just 19 percent of vote in 2016 in the radical urban fifth district, yet more than 50 percent in the rest of Minnesota. 

This was fellow Muslim Keith Ellison’s seat prior, and he was infamously antagonistic to Israel and Jews. Sadly, a place with the largest Jewish population in the Land of 10,000 Lakes — and one of the largest in the Midwest — has been deemed “the anti-Israel seat” since 2007.

Patriots, freedom lovers and honest brokers should continue to expose extremists like Ilhan Omar. When recent weeks saw a massive amount of anti-Jewish attacks in New York (highest in three decades), with a 40 percent national rise to over 1,000 per annum, why are such reprehensibly un-American, anti-Semitic actions tolerated or excused?

A former school teacher and military historian, Ari Kaufman has worked as a journalist in various roles since 2006. He has lived in 11 states and currently resides with his wife in Minnesota. 

The Bernfire

158 Views

During the 2016 election cycle, Senator Bernie Sanders had quite a following. But he didn’t get the Democratic Party nomination because of the power and corruption of the Clinton’s.

Four years later, Senator Bernie Sanders is again surging in popularity among the useful idiots. Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist and has no business being in the government, let alone the White House. But he has a greater chance at getting the 2020 Democratic nomination.

Time will tell if his popularity increases after the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary. If Senator Sanders wins both of these contests but doesn’t get the nomination. Then there may still be some hope for the Democratic Party. It will also mean that the corruption within the party runs very deep.

If Senator Bernie Sanders is the nominee for the Democratic Party then it will be an interesting Presidential election cycle. And a strong contrast between capitalism and socialism.

In the end though President Donald Trump will be re-elected in a landslide victory. Winning both the popular vote and the Electoral College by wide margins. And we will have four more years to save the Republic.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

158 Views

House Democrats, after not learning their lesson about how impeachment backfired on them worse than Wile E. Coyote in a Road Runner cartoon, took another step towards trying to rein in President Donald Trump’s powers in the aftermath of the Iran attack. After not being briefed before the President launched the attack that took out Iran’s number 2 military leader (now he’s numbers 2 through 1 billion), the House passed a non-binding resolution that would forbid the President from blowing up more Iranian terrorists without Congressional approval. This was done under the auspices of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, also called the War Powers Act.

Although the War Powers Act (I’ll call it that for the rest of the piece because it’s shorter and I like it) has been used in a handful of situations since its inception, people, and most notably our elected officials, still don’t quite understand it in full. Even your humble correspondent had to do a bit of research on it to make sure I understood it, and if I can do it, people who get paid to write laws can do it (hopefully).

And with that being said, let’s get right into it.

the War Powers Act

What the Left thinks it means – a Congressional check on the President to avoid getting us into wars Congress doesn’t approve

What it really means – a bad idea made worse by partisan bickering

In short, the War Powers Act gives the President the authority to enter a military conflict for a limited amount of time before Congress needs to declare war and, in exchange, the President has to brief Congress within 48 hours of any military action. In the recent Iran situation, only one of the conditions was met, that being the military action. As far as the briefing, one could argue they were informally briefed by the media covering the action, but a formal briefing wasn’t offered. That angered House Democrats because…well, I’m not completely sure. Given how some Democrats were upset that President Trump didn’t act sooner, you would think they would be happy we finally did something.

And they were…kinda. But that’s a blog for another time.

The point here is President Trump is now under the microscope again for attacking Iran after they attacked our embassy and may have planned further actions against Americans in the region. We can argue the ethics of what happened all we want, but there is one thing that is crystal clear: President Trump was authorized to take action under the War Powers Act without getting Congress to sign off on it.

I can understand why the President may not have wanted to let Congress about his Iran attack ahead of time. Between the leakers, the Muslim sympathizers, and the general dullards, I wouldn’t trust them with my junior high locker combination, let alone something like information about a missile strike. Even after they were briefed, Congressional Democrats weren’t satisfied with the information and said there wasn’t enough persuasive information that Iran was going to attack again. Of course, the 40 years of Iran yelling “Death tp America” might have been a hint, but hey.

Although I believe the President was legally authorized under the War Powers Act to take action against Iran, I have to say it’s bad law because of how it circumvents the Constitution and cheapens the act of war. The President is the Commander in Chief, meaning he controls the military. Congress, on the other hand, has the authority to declare war. By allowing the President to engage in war-like activities, even if it’s done in the name of protecting us, Congress’ role in the process of war is negated. What good is getting Congressional approval to engage an enemy if the President can order an engagement prior to even talking to Congress? It’s like giving your credit card to a shopaholic for a week before setting limits to his or her spending. You know, like Congress does with our tax dollars.

What’s more, the War Powers Act ignores the human toll of war (or pre-war if you will). For every death or injury, every father or mother deployed under it, every family that is disrupted even temporarily, the War Powers Act doesn’t justify it. If we are going to strike at an enemy, it has to be done under the auspices of an actual declaration of war, not a 60-90 day window that can be extended with a Congressional vote. Not only is that far too late in the process for my tastes, it’s disrespectful to the men and women of our military and their families. We owe it to them to have the courage to put forth a united front against an acknowledged enemy.

And that’s impossible in the current political climate. Between the two poles, there is a lot of moral posturing and hatred that prevents the sober analysis of the facts necessary to declare war. Just look at the number of Leftists who blamed Trump for Iran taking down a commercial airliner because they claim it wouldn’t have happened if President Trump hadn’t acted. There’s an entire ideological side determined to blame the President for every ill and the facts be damned. And there’s an entire ideological side determined to defend the President, also with a facts be damned attitude. Meanwhile, those of us in the middle are getting exhausted trying to reason with both sides to try to get us all on the same page. As it stands, we’re not even reading the same book in the same language, which makes the likelihood of getting people to rally behind a common enemy like Iran pointless and impossible.

Which makes the War Powers Act one of the most dangerous laws on the books right now.

RIP Neil Peart

195 Views

Yesterday the music world was shattered to learn of the passing of Neil Peart, the drummer and lyricist of the Canadian progressing rock band Rush. He was just 67 years old.

The band had just recently retired from touring after completing their 40th anniversary tour in 2015. It was a great show. And Rush never disappointed their audience. I should know, I have been to many of their shows over the years as the band has been in my top 3 favorite bands for decades.

Neil was a very private person. What few interviews he did he expressed that he left the meet and greets to his bandmates Alex and Geddy. It just wasn’t in his nature to share things with strangers. And thus we learn of his passing a few days after the fact.

His life had some tragedies, the lost of his only child and his first wife was shattering to him. It took a massive journey across three continents for Neil to heal from this loss.

As a drummer, Neil is the paragon. The top apex. Many have called him a drumming god. And if you ever had seen Rush perform and the drum solo of Neil behind his kit in that element you would agree.

He also wrote the lyrics to most of Rush’s greatest hits and most of their other songs as well. Not only could he write such profoundly deep songs. He also has authored several books and short stories. One of them is called “Ghost Rider” which chronicles his healing journey after the death of his daughter and first wife. All worth reading.

Neil passed away after a three year private battle against brain cancer. Heartbreaking to learn that his mind was attacked by that dreaded disease.

It is the wish of his bandmates, Alex and Geddy, that those wishing to express their condolences can choose a cancer research group or charity of their choice and make a donation in Neil’s name.

Rest in Peace Neil Peart. You are loved and missed.