No Party for an Old Man

120 Views

As the 2020 Presidential election crawls towards the Iowa Caucuses, I’ve been watching various candidates on both sides of the aisle looking for one I could support without reservation and…I’m coming up empty. Don’t get me wrong. There are candidates I’m paying attention to, but too few of them actually have enough of what I’m looking for to earn my vote.

Since 2008, I’ve made it a point to vote for a person instead of a party because the latter leads to the kind of political gang warfare that make the Crips and the Bloods look like a Mennonite church picnic. I’m to a point where I don’t particularly care for Democrats or Republicans because they’re both out to screw us, just with different means and different colored ties. These days picking a candidate from both major parties is like determining what kind of shit sandwich you want.

Having said that, I have been paying attention to Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg, and Marianne Williamson for the same reason: they are running mostly positive campaigns. They may call out the other candidates’ positions from time to time (Kamala Harris still has marks from when Ms. Gabbard pimp-slapped her at a debate a few months ago) and call out President Donald Trump’s positions, but they’re running mostly on a positive message. The other candidates in the Democrat Clown Car are too busy repeating the same lines, using the same tired campaign tricks, and comparing themselves to Trump to bother with articulating what their positive vision of the country under their presumed leadership would be. And, no, Senator Elizabeth Warren, saying “I have a plan for that” doesn’t count as actually having a vision.

On the Republican side, there’s President Trump and…a couple of other guys who are running unintentional stealth campaigns. At this point, I’m wondering whether the Republicans challenging Trump are in the federal Witness Relocation Program living under assumed names. Also, there are other potential candidates speaking in hushed tones about challenging the President because…they think he’s an embarrassment to the country and the GOP. In other words, they’re Republicans running on the same platform as the majority of Democrat Presidential candidates.

And that’s where I get off this roller coaster. Running for President because you don’t like the guy currently in the position isn’t enough for me anymore. Yes, I know if we elect a Democrat bad things are going to happen in the judiciary system, but given some of the court rulings I’ve seen recently, I’m not sure electing a Democrat will improve the situation any. Ditto with keeping a Republican in the White House. At this point, I’m looking for a candidate who can articulate a vision for America post-Trump and come up with some actual ideas that I can support. And, if you really want to wow me, be civil about it. I get called a Never Trumper by Trump fans because I don’t think everything he does is amazing, and I get called all sorts of other names from the other side of the aisle because I’m an aging white man who doesn’t think the Left has any answers that don’t involve stupid ideas that haven’t ever worked or marching on Washington, DC, wearing a Halloween costume that would get you kicked out of most bars.

So, where do I go from here? Who can I trust to protect my interests? I’ve narrowed it down to two: God, and myself. And, trust me, I am waaaaaaay down the list from God. I’m at an age where I pretty much want to be left alone, and neither the Left nor the Right are willing to do that right now. Granted, the Right is less likely to be as invasive than a gynecologist moonlighting as a TSA agent, but they’re still okay with some personal intrusions when it suits their aims. And today’s Leftist is only one step removed from being Gladys Kravitz from “Bewitched” (and still six degrees away from Kevin Bacon).

Remember the shit sandwich I referenced earlier?

So, for the time being, I will remain unaffiliated because neither major party wants to build up this country. They would prefer to tear down the other side so they appear better by comparison. I will continue to look for good people who want to do good in the world, and if one doesn’t appear, I will vote my conscience…and vote for my dog.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

99 Views

In case you missed it (or, like me, you were glad to), we recently had another socially conscious holiday/occasion, this one called National Period Day. Already? And I still have up my National Pronoun Day decorations!

The cause behind National Period Day is to underscore how feminine products cost more than their male counterparts, an idea that’s been nicknamed the “pink tax.” Although this raises a lot of questions, like what happens if the products identify as male, it also shows how the Left can take a legitimate issue and turn it into a freak show Tod Browning would be proud of.

pink tax

What the Left thinks it means – additional costs passed on to female consumers solely because of their gender

What it really means – additional costs passed onto all consumers due to multiple economic factors completely unrelated to anyone’s gender

When it comes to economics, Leftists are masters at oversimplifying concepts and completely missing important details that would ultimately affect their positions. For example, the Left’s favorite trope is women make $0.78 for every dollar a male peer makes. As troubling and unfair as that sounds, it’s not completely accurate because the figure omits a lot of details, like paid time off and career/life choices. Once those factors are taken into consideration, in most cases the “wage gap” disappears or tips in favor of the people allegedly impacted by it.

The pink tax has the same basic problem. Yes, female products cost more and often have the same ingredients as male products, but there’s a big red…err pink flag. And this is going to come as a big surprise to the Left.

Women are different from men.

I know! It shocked me when I found out, too!

Because men and women are different, they will respond to different stimuli. Because of these differences, men and women will be attracted to different products for different reasons. A burly lumberjack type may be the man of many women’s dreams, but it won’t make them want to buy a certain brand of tampons. That means these different products have to be marketed differently, which in the corporate world means more money has to be spent on what are essentially the same products. As a result, the cost of doing business gets passed along to consumers.

Read that last sentence again. I said “consumers.” Not just women, not just men, consumers as a whole. You see, even though the products are marketed differently because of gender, the cost is still the same for those who buy them. I can’t go into a grocery store, buy a package of tampons for my wife, and get a “blue discount” because I’m a male. I may get funny looks from the other customers, but I attribute that to being a weirdo.

Although I’m poking fun at the absurdity of the “pink tax,” I have to admit the Left has a point. If the only difference between men’s and women’s deodorant is the scent, why not price them the same and eliminate the Left’s talking point? Not to mention, the first company to do this for any product men and women use will gain a major foothold in the market and earn corporate brownie points at the same time. Although I’m sure the price difference results in a tidy sum, sometimes you have to cut prices to gain volume, which has a funny way of making up for any lost profits from the price reduction. Yay capitalism!

Now, for the gender-specific items, that’s a little harder to equalize. Men don’t use tampons (yes, not even trans women), so you can’t use the same argument you can with deodorant. However, the same principle regarding buying said items applies. That “pink tax” hits men and women equally, but it’s easily fixed by both genders through doing one of the new great American pastimes: complaining. If you want to get a company to look into their practices quickly and effectively, use their social media to complain because that shit always has the potential to go global virally. If you doubt this, I have four words for you: Wendy’s Spicy Chicken Nuggets.

In the meantime, the “pink tax” should be exposed as the uninformed economic talking point it is. Companies don’t see blue and pink outside of their marketing departments. They prefer green, gold, and silver. (For you Leftists out there worried about the pink tax, I’m talking about money.) In order to affect positive change, you have to hit the companies’ bottom lines, not invent a crisis and turn it into a talking point for politicians. If you’re not willing to engage with the problem honestly, you can take your complaints and stuff them.

One more note. National Period Day? Just…ewwwww.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

140 Views

CNN has been having a bad week. Not only is it experiencing a ratings slump that puts the former cable news giant at the public access channel level, but it’s been the subject of a series of videos from the Left’s least favorite video producer, Project Veritas. Seems the Left doesn’t like it when James O’Keefe and his merry band of videographers expose their antics, almost as if the Left is doing something shady and dishonest…

And, as a result, Project Veritas is eeeeevilllllll!

Or are they? Let’s dig a little deeper, shall we?

Project Veritas

What the Left thinks it means – a group of dishonest right-wingers who selectively edit footage to make the Left look bad

What it really means – a group of people doing what the media used to do before they became Leftist lapdogs

Journalism has had its share of investigative reporters, raking through the muck to find the kernel of a story that would bring the powerful and corrupt to heel. Back in its heyday, “60 Minutes” did stunning exposes on dishonest brokers in the corporate sector. This style of “guerrilla journalism” made people like Mike Wallace feared in the deepest, darkest corners of companies because they never knew if or when they would be the next target and be caught on camera trying to defend the indefensible. “60 Minutes” gave rise to “Dateline NBC” and “20/20” and Geraldo Rivera, who took the practice to new heights, and lows as the reporters got disgraced or the companies started catching onto their shtick.

Then, something happened: journalism became PR for the Left. No longer would investigative reporters dig for sources to expose Left-leaning crooks and liars because it would hurt their careers behind the scenes. Just print what the nice DNC press release says, write a scathing piece about how evil Republicans are, and cash the checks. It was simple, albeit dishonest, work. Conservatives and independents, including your humble blogger, cited frequent examples of Leftist bias in media reporting, but these examples were brushed aside as paranoia, ignorance, or even denial of the “fact” the truth skews to the Left.

That changed when James O’Keefe decided to see what he could find behind the veneer of Leftist organizations, starting with ACORN. One series of videos later, and the Left was knocked back as one of its lesser-known branches got caught red-handed being dishonest and downright corrupt. Since then, O’Keefe started Project Veritas and released several other video series that have exposed Google, Facebook, and now CNN. Due to previous practices, critics have labeled the group as dishonest for “selectively editing” videos and engaging in dishonest tactics to try to gain visibility. Some have gone so far as to say they engage in disinformation.

To be fair, some of this criticism is valid, as they have made factual errors in their reporting and have skewed their stories to fit an agenda, namely making Leftists look like buffoons. Having said that, Project Veritas has done something their critics hate: they’ve posted raw, unedited footage of their encounters. In other words, they brought receipts, to use the slang the kids use today. Even so, Project Veritas has gained a reputation (in Leftist circles, at least) as slanted, dishonest brokers who seek to push an agenda in direct defiance of the truth.

So…they’re CNN?

The uproar over Project Veritas can be boiled down to the Left getting a taste of its own medicine, and it’s making them look like the underhanded scumbags they are. That hurts them politically, so they have to do everything possible to discredit Project Veritas, even if the information they’re putting out is inaccurate. Even the “selectively edited” line has been fact-checked into oblivion by Project Veritas putting out the unedited footage. Now, anyone can see the videos in full context.

The thing is the Left doesn’t want to do that because it ruins their narrative, and when it comes down to it, the narrative is all-powerful and must be protected. I’m talking Gollum-with-the-One-Ring-level of protection. As precioussss as that may be to the Left, it’s creepy to me, and it doesn’t square with the facts to anyone else who is paying attention. On the surface, it boggles the mind that an ideological group who insists the truth agrees with them would object to people outside of their group finding the truth for themselves. However, it’s not about the truth, and it never has been. It’s about control.

Like they do with the language, the Left loves to control what is considered to be the truth, and far too often Republicans and conservatives wind up being the victims of these efforts. With Project Veritas, the Left can’t control the narrative as easily on controversial topics, and that scares the Left. Now consider there are other groups starting to emulate what Project Veritas does and throwing open the curtains on what the Left is trying to hide. Just ask Planned Parenthood about how they pay for Lamborghinis.

Yet, as with all people seeking the truth, it’s ultimately up to us to determine their credibility. I would be doing you a disservice if I glossed over the times Project Veritas screwed up or got the facts wrong or tried to frame someone’s words a certain way. You must take the good with the bad and determine whether these folks can be trusted. By and large, I trust Project Veritas, but I always verify, as one of my heroes Ronald Reagan said. The Left doesn’t want you to do any of that. They want you to trust and believe, all to protect a narrative and their own political viability. Anyone who tells the truth will welcome the scrutiny, myself included.

The fact the Left is up in arms over Project Veritas tells you much more than they intend, and it’s not good.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

105 Views

As the impeachment kinda-sorta-but-not-really inquiry against President Donald Trump staggers along like Ted Kennedy after a weekend at the Kennedy Compound, we’re starting to get a clearer idea of what exactly the President is accused of doing this time: obstruction of justice as it pertains to an investigation into a telephone call between the United States and Ukraine. To put it simply, the Trump White House has stated no one from the Administration should participate in the House inquiry due to how the investigation is being conducted.

This is one of those cases where both the Left and the Right have the wrong idea. So, in order to try to straighten out everyone involved, I’m devoting this week’s Lexicon to delving into obstruction of justice. Get your pens and notebooks ready, kids…

obstruction of justice

What the Left thinks it means – preventing Congress from investigating the President

What the Right thinks it means – a crime the President didn’t commit because there wasn’t a crime

What it really means – preventing law enforcement from investigating a crime

Our criminal justice system is based on the idea the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, impeachment is more of a political animal than criminal justice is, so the rules get fuzzier than Nick Offerman in a lumberjack camp. In the political arena, you are guilty even if you are proven innocent in spite of a preponderance of the evidence. And impeachment is no different.

At the heart of the latest impeachment talk is obstruction of justice. This has legal implications, which in the political arena make it easier to make a case for impeachment but requires evidence. That’s where the Left and Right get it wrong. The Left says Trump preventing Administration officials hinders their investigation and, thus, preventing them from getting to the truth of the Ukraine phone call situation. (Which is to say, getting to anything that can be made into a major scandal.) The Right says there can be no obstruction of justice because there was no crime committed.

And people wonder why I take ibuprofen like Tic Tacs these days.

Here’s the deal: you can obstruct justice in absence of a crime, but there really isn’t a crime here, and the impeachment inquiry in its current form isn’t the place to make that determination.

Let’s take the first portion of that statement, well, first. If there is an investigation into an alleged crime, anything you do to obstruct that investigation is illegal. Even in jest. And, yes, even when there turns out to be no crime committed. The fact you hindered a law enforcement investigation is what will get you in trouble. Don’t wind up like Jussie Smollet, kids.

Now, for the inquiry not being the right venue to address allegations of obstruction of justice. First off, there are six House committees involved in the inquiry, five of which aren’t the Judiciary Committee. That means there are five more committees than necessary to investigate the alleged crime. That may be a Leslie Knope wet dream, but it’s wasteful and unnecessary, especially considering the amount of airtime Adam Schiff has gotten off this. And Schiff isn’t even on the House Judiciary Committee! Ironically, he’s the head of the House Intelligence Committee, but then again no one may be better qualified to reflect the intelligence of House Democrats than Schiff.

The other aspect of this that should trouble anybody with a lick of common sense is the fact this inquiry isn’t so much an inquiry as it is an inquisition. Since Democrats run the House, they write the rules, so they can set the parameters of any investigation or hearing. However, since we’re dealing with a specific illegal act, the rule of law should be followed. As it stands, it isn’t. When partisan politics gets involved, the only law that’s followed is the law of the jungle. That may make Leftists swoon in this case, but it comes with two major problems. First, it undermines the legal arguments being made in favor of President Trump’s impeachment. It’s hard to hang your hat on the rule of law when you’re not following it. And second, it sets a precedent. Remember when former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went to a majority vote when it came to federal judge confirmations in the Senate? The Left cheered when he did it, but when current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did it, they lost their shit. I guarantee if the House goes Republican under a Democrat President, there will be investigations galore, and it will have zero to do with the rule of law, and you won’t have a leg to stand on because you literally started it.

In the meantime, the question remains of whether President Trump obstructed justice. Based on what we’ve seen so far, it’s hard to say he did based on the Left’s reactions when he complies with their requests/demands. It’s never good enough for the Left. If Trump released his tax returns, they would ask for some obscure IRS document that ultimately wouldn’t impact his returns, but would make it appear as though Trump was hiding something. Trump released a partial translation of his call with the Ukrainian leader which ultimately showed there was no illegal activity going on (unless you consider investigating Hunter Biden’s apparently shady dealings with the Ukraine while his dad was Vice President illegal). And who backed up Trump’s assessment of the call? The Ukraine.

At this point, it’s easier to pick out the number of “impeachable offenses” Trump hasn’t been accused of than it is to count the number of ones he has been accused of. The Left is using impeachment much like it used the IRS under President Barack Obama: a political tool to bludgeon their opponents while running interference on their own shady dealings. But as far as obstruction of justice is concerned, I honestly don’t see it, and I’m saying this as someone who isn’t a Trump supporter. It sounds ominous and gives red meat (or tofu for vegetarians and vegans) to a group of people already predisposed to hate President Trump to hate him even more and call for his impeachment, removal, imprisonment, and so on.

That’s really what this whole impeachment inquiry fiasco is about. After 2016, Leftists are scared Trump could win again, and given the clown car of candidates they have this time, they are right to be afraid. That’s no excuse for running roughshod over the rule of law, especially when it comes to the impact of impeachment. To put it simply, Leftists want Donald Trump impeached for corruption because he asked an ally to assist in the investigation of corruption that may have had an impact on the 2016 Presidential Election, which is legal to do in the first place given the fact we have an agreement with that ally to do just that. That’s not obstruction of justice; that’s preservation of justice, the same justice Leftists have been demanding since 2016 when they were concerned with foreign countries interfering with our elections. But apparently it’s only a problem when that interference is against the Left’s candidates.

Leftists need to get off this obstruction of justice kick and realize they’re barking up the wrong tree. And the Right need to stop with the stupid “it’s not obstruction if there’s no crime” bullshit because it’s legally and logically wrong.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need some ibuprofen.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

116 Views

If you ever need a clear-cut example of how President Donald Trump lives rent-free in some Leftists’ heads, a recent phenomenon on Twitter will serve nicely. It started with a Tweet (surprise, surprise) from the President (surprise, surprise) quoting an evangelical pastor which read:

If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in the Nation from which our Country will never heal.

Perhaps a bit overdramatic, but not an unreasonable or unlikely scenario. After this tweet, the Left started going ape-shit crazy, claiming the President was inciting violence (he wasn’t) and wanted another Civil War. This started a wave of Twitter hashtags like #SecondCivilWar or #2ndCivilWar appearing on the accounts of keyboard warriors and Antifa goons.

So, saddle up the ponies and let’s ride down into the valley of Leftist Gulch.

Second Civil War

What the Left thinks it means – A war Donald Trump wants in order to scare people into opposing his impeachment

What it really means – A direct misrepresentation to imply President Trump wants a war

Read the President’s Tweet again. It literally (and, yes, I do mean literally as in, well, literally) reads “a Civil War like fracture in the Nation.” In order to get “Trump wants another Civil War” out of that requires mental gymnastics that would make Nadia Comaneci look like I do on the dance floor after I’ve had a few adult beverages. Regardless, the point is the Left is grossly misconstruing the actual message to create a narrative.

Which is by design.

Leftists love to play games with the language to create small battles they can win in the marketplace of ideas. Take “common sense gun law” for example. They try to soften what they really want (gun control laws more restrictive than a 15 sizes too small corset on Rosie O’Donnell) by throwing in a modifying phrase to lessen the blow and try to convince you what they want isn’t all that bad. In this case, though, the Left is trying to prop up the image of Donald Trump as a violent dictator by omitting key words in the Tweet. Hence, “Civil War like fracture” turns into “Civil War.”

Through this bit of linguistic trickery and intellectual dishonesty, the Left creates what is known in rhetorical circles as a “strawman argument,” designed to create a false argument that they can knock down easily in lieu of addressing the actual argument. This may fire up the base a bit, but it shows a level of weakness in how the Left addresses the issue. By skirting it, they ignore the real possibility of what Trump tweeted coming true.

In my opinion, we’re very close to another Civil War as it is, mainly because of the heated rhetoric and the equally as heated actions inspired by it. There are folks on both sides of the aisle who are taking what the President partially said to heart and are preparing for war. All because they can’t comprehend a fucking tweet.

It’s stuff like this that prevents advanced alien societies from making contact.

To be honest, I think a second Civil War may be a foregone conclusion. With political positions getting so personal, we’re one horrific event away from having the whole checkerboard overturned. And with the Left’s misrepresentation of the President’s tweet, it will lead to bloodshed…that they’ll immediately blame on Trump. And for all the times the Left claims the President incites violence, isn’t what they’re doing right now the very thing they accuse him of doing?

Yes, yes it is. But Leftists will a) never admit it, and b) never accept responsibility for it.

Meanwhile, what can we do about it? I’m not sure we can do anything to slow or stop what’s coming, but I might have a few ideas on how to make it more entertaining. Get the extremes from both sides into as large of a warehouse as will fit both sides and let them duke it out. No holds barred. Once one side defeats the other, they’re declared the winner…and then immediately deported. Repeat until both extremes are either tired of fighting/being deported or straighten up their acts.

Naturally I want the pay-per-view rights. And maybe a portion of the souvenir and concession take. You know, whatever makes the most money…I mean helps the situation.

Keep yourselves safe, kids. Oh, and call out the Left for lying about what President Trump said.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

126 Views

The big news of the past week was House Democrats finally initiated an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump for…well, I’m still not sure exactly. They’ve tossed so much mud at the walls that it’s looking like an adobe hut, so please excuse my befuddlement.

Yet, if you watch the Left, you would think they won the White House, House, and Senate for the next five generations. After the Mueller investigation came up emptier than Bill de Blasio’s Presidential Cabinet, the Left needed anything they could hang their collective hats on to continue their quest to unseat the President. So, the start of an impeachment inquiry, at least to them, is a step in the right direction.

Even so, I don’t think our Leftist friends quite understand the process. Fortunately, I’m here to help because, dammit, I care.

impeachment inquiry

What the Left thinks it means – the first step in bringing Donald Trump to justice

What it really means – much ado about something or other

For the first time in a long time, the Left has found itself behind the curve when it comes to messaging, and it’s really hurt them in the quest for impeachment because they haven’t been able to give us a single reason for impeachment. Oh, they’ve thrown out any number of reasons they believe the President should be impeached, but there isn’t a consistent argument so much as there is a lot of vague concepts that when put in a certain way make it appear as though the President committed either impeachable offenses or just pissed off the Left because feefees.

Seriously, though, some of the “impeachable offenses” Leftists have thrown out there border on the absurd and, surprise surprise, aren’t even actual impeachable offenses. The Constitution states impeachment of the President and other federal officials is limited to “high crimes and misdemeanors” which, by its very nature, heavily implies crimes have to be committed. And, having Trump as President isn’t illegal…at least not yet.

As a result of this lack of messaging, there has been a growing unrest within Leftist circles wondering where the leadership is. Then again, when your leadership idols are Adam Schiff and Ted Lieu, you’re already in a hole deeper than the Grand Canyon. For what it’s worth, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has tried to temper the temper tantrums of the “Impeach Trump Now” crowd by lowering expectations and urging caution. She has been waiting for a slam-dunk case to initiate the impeachment process while at the same time trying to get the messaging right. In both cases, I think she has failed, and she has her own party to blame for it.

The biggest problem the Left faces with the impeachment push is they don’t know when to shut up. From before Trump was President, the Left has been filling the airwaves, the column inches, and the Internet with all sorts of allegations of criminal activity and demanding someone do something. We’re going on 3 years or so of this constant drumbeat of “Impeach Trump” and the needle isn’t moving in that direction with any degree of speed, no matter how many times the Left says the same thing. Look, we get it. You want Trump removed from office. How’s about you let it not be the focal point of your entire existence for even a microsecond. Chill out. Have a Pop Tart. Watch Scooby Doo. Just give it a rest for a little while and let your reasons try to persuade us since screeching incessantly hasn’t done it yet. Although, Yoko Ono may sue you for copyright infringement.

This is an example of what I call the Firehose. When you want a drink of water, the firehose may not be your first choice, or any choice for that matter. Oh, you will get water, but you will also get drenched and possibly injured in the process.

Instead, let’s take a more measured approach to the impeachment inquiry. This is the first step in determining whether President Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and under the current House set up, there are going to be six House committees working on the inquiry. Given how slowly government works when it comes to important matters, it’s a safe bet the impeachment inquiry will take a loooooooooong time.

Which is the point. With 2020 being a Presidential election year, the Left has a vested interest in hampering President Trump by any means necessary. Don’t forget impeachment is a political process, which means it can be used as a tool, as it is in this case. However, it’s a divisive tool that can backfire for candidates and elected officials on both sides of the aisle. It’s this fact that should worry Leftists, but it doesn’t. Their hatred of Trump overrules their political reality and perception of public sensibilities.

Say, Leftists, what happened to your nose? Did it get cut off to spite your face?

While the impeachment inquiry isn’t the end of the Trump Presidency yet, I get the feeling it’s not going to end well for the Leftists who think it is. It is the first step on a longer journey, one that has the potential to turn into an utter clown show…oh, wait. Rep. Schiff already did that with his stunt of fabricating the details of a phone conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and then saying it was a “parody.” On the plus side, Rep. Steve Cohen no longer looks like the biggest asshat in the House of Representatives.

With Schiff’s miscalculation, the impeachment inquiry is already off to a shaky start, and people outside of the Leftist hivemind won’t take too kindly to it. If anything, most of them will be indifferent because, like it or not, President Trump hasn’t done enough to sway his base to ditch him, nor has the Left presented a better alternative. With the inquiry in place, Trump has an automatic Get Out of Being Defeated in 2020 Card because he can, has, and will play the victim which will rally support for him or at least make the Left’s alternatives look less stable by comparison.

There are two ways this inquiry ends, neither of which should make thinking Leftists happy. The first is it dies quickly with a fizzle instead of a bang. Although this hurts the Left in the short term, I feel it would be better for them in the long term because it gives them time to focus on coming up with winning issues and stronger platforms. Impeachment fever may be popular in the Leftist hivemind, but with football season and the new fall shows coming out, the average person could care less about whether the President is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The other way it ends is with the inquiry leading to an actual impeachment trial in the House of Representatives. Given how government works like a sloth on a NyQuil drip when it wants things done quickly and the fact there are six House committees working on the inquiry, it’s going to take a long time for impeachment to get to a floor vote. Even though this may seem like the better option because it gives the Left time to win more seats in the 2020 election, it’s still a pretty big gamble. In order for impeachment to succeed, Democrats have to retain the House while securing enough Senate seats to remove Trump from office.

In order to do that, there’s another gamble to be taken: convincing enough people Trump is doing a bad enough job to warrant his being ousted. Even if the inquiry leads to an actual impeachment trial, candidates on the campaign trail will have to decide if they support the impeachment effort. For solid blue or leaning blue Districts, that’s easy. For purple or red Districts, that’s going to be a bit tougher. These candidates will have to figure out a way to appease both the Impeach-A-Palooza crowd and the voters who are either undecided or oppose the impeachment effort. That’s a major Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.

In the end, the Left made it their goal to get to this point, and they’ve succeeded. The next several steps, though, aren’t going to be easy. But at least I’ve stocked up on popcorn! 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

157 Views

Leftist obsessions are like Iowa weather: if you don’t like what you have now, wait a little bit and it will change. This past week saw renewed interest in Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh after a new book by two New York Times reporters revisited sexual abuse allegations that were as substantiated as…well, the first time these allegations were rolled out to the public. Regardless, the authors of the book are now peddling the fruit of their libel…I mean labors and finding themselves caught in the middle of a credibility crisis of their own creation.

Wherever you fall on the Brett Kavanaugh allegations, there is something extremely personal in the Left’s attacks on him. To better explore this, I figured we could take a few moments to try to puzzle this thing out.

Brett Kavanaugh

What the Left thinks it means – a sexual predator whose crimes were concealed by the Senate and who should have never been approved to be a Supreme Court Justice

What it really means – the reason we have due process in this country

The easiest and most obvious reason the Left hates Kavanaugh so much revolves around a fun little Supreme Court decision the kids like to call Roe v Wade. To put it bluntly, the Left has sanctified this decision that, while attempting to set up guidelines, ultimately sucked. If there were any more legal and rhetorical gymnastics in that decision, the Supreme Court would have gotten a gold medal at the Olympics. Without going too far into the decision itself, it created a construct that has been used under the guise of women’s rights to deny life and, in many cases, avoid consequences for bad decisions.

And the Left is perfectly fine with that.

Where Kavanaugh comes into play is with the current makeup of the Supreme Court itself. Based on simple party-line analysis, the Republicans have a 5-4 majority, which the Left sees as a direct threat to Roe v Wade. Kavanaugh was seen as much more conservative than the Justice he replaced, Anthony Kennedy, so naturally the Left went hard with the “Kavanaugh will overturn Roe v Wade” and they would have gotten away with it if it hadn’t been for those pesky kids and people who took the time to listen to him directly and review his rulings. Seems Kavanaugh stated repeatedly Roe v Wade was settled law and he would not take any action to overturn it. So, nothing would change with regards to the decision, and the Left would be unhappy with that?

Beyond that, I have a deeper take on why the Left hates Kavanaugh, and it all goes back to Merrick Garland in 2016. As hard as it is to believe, the Left still hold a grudge over what they call a stolen seat. (It was never his seat to begin with, so it can’t be stolen, nor can Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell be held responsible for following Senate procedures in an election year, but why split hairs?) Since McConnell beat the Left at their own game, they have been so salty merely looking at them discussing this matter will give you high blood pressure. At least until you listen to their opinions, which will give you high blood pressure for a completely different reason.

Anyway, the fact the Left couldn’t get Garland on the Supreme Court has given them a hate boner for Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch could cure cancer, AIDS, and athlete’s foot and the Left would still hate them because they represent what the Left craves: power to shape judicial policy for decades to come. The Left has made it a practice to use precedent as a means to reshape the world and society when they can’t do it through the ballot box. One of the greatest stumbling blocks to that is the Supreme Court, who has the power to overturn court decisions and have no higher court to appeal to if/when the Left’s plans go awry. Once they get to the High Court, it’s one and done. Even though they’ve scored some judicial victories, the prospect of future victories gets slimmer with more conservative and more originalist Justices.

As a result, the Left is going all out to undercut Kavanaugh since their efforts to shatter confidence in Gorsuch were as successful as Beto O’Rourke’s campaign right now. When they’re not questioning his emotional stability, making vague and as-yet unsubstantiated accusations of sexual assault, or suggesting his personal debt was paid off through nefarious means, the Left will track down any and all dirt on Kavanaugh in the hopes of persuading the country to take up their cause.

Guess what, kids? You’re not reaching anyone who isn’t already on your side. And the new book isn’t helping your cause because…how can I put this delicately…you guys suck at research and keeping your stories straight. The fact Kavanaugh has already been through at least three background checks for his previous judicial positions without even a whisper of what you Leftists accuse of him of doing should tell you there might not be anything there. Not to mention, your attempts to use the Anita Hill script and change the ending so you guys win didn’t work, mainly because nobody on your side has put forth a cogent case against Kavanaugh. What you characterized as mental instability was Kavanaugh finally having enough of Democrat Senators who shouldn’t be allowed to ask questions in a game of 20 Questions, let alone in a Senate confirmation hearing, to slime him to score cheap political points.

Your case against Kavanaugh is dead, Jim. Move on and leave him alone.

Want more educational success? Support charter schools – Guest Opinion by Ari Kaufman

248 Views

Self-styled Progressives love to mock America as a “laughingstock” compared to the rest of the world in terms of obesity or gun violence or whatever topic they can obfuscate. 

One area where our great nation truly does lag behind the world is public education, a business solely owned and operated by the Left. And they have zero interest in remedying the failures; only the Right does.

Whereas the USA leads the world in everything from charitable giving, military might and medical innovation to technology, natural gas production and so many more laudable areas, any intellectually honest observer will note we fall far short in K-12 schooling.

In the wealthiest nation on earth, this is rather troubling. But the shortcomings in public education have nothing to do with money or results would have improved long ago. 

American taxpayers pay an absurd $20,000 per student per year from Kindergarten through 12th grade. That ridiculous amount is nearly double the global average of around $11,000. We also pay public school teachers on average more than any country. Yet the average student in Canada, China, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Korea, New Zealand, Norway and other nations that liberals tend to admire, consistently outperform the USA in every subject — despite spending less per pupil!

While no single policy solution can ameliorate these historic pitfalls going back nearly a century, because the issues are so vast, one area achieving grand success are charter schools and voucher programs. These initiatives, which began in 1992 in Minnesota, have long been deemed by scholars and conservative politicians as the “civil rights issue” of our time. The left talks a good game about “civil rights” when they seek votes and power, but on real matters, they balk.

I taught for five years in our country’s second largest school district — with one of the most aggressive and powerful teachers unions — and witnessed public education’s myriad issues firsthand in Los Angeles. I’ve documented them now for nearly two decades with a book and dozens of published articles in various newspapers.

Intense resistance to proven educational successes such as merit pay, tenure extension and any needed reform was intense; charter schools were specifically anathema. While Republicans have long supported charter schools and voucher programs, most Democrats are beholden to corrupt teachers unions and therefore do not. 

When asked about charter schools during their Sept. 12 presidential debate, leading Democrats, including Cory Booker who’s seen their success in his beloved Newark, conveniently tiptoed around the issue. He and the others on stage preferred to change the subject, bash the education secretary or, in the case of Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, angrily shout “pay teachers more” clichés. 

Charter and magnet schools are often based in local townships within a city’s boundaries, and thus, not bound by the bureaucracy and size of sclerotic large districts. Uniforms are frequently donned by diverse populations, discipline is enhanced, while students’ and teachers’ attitudes often change with liberation from outdated guidelines. These schools break the monopoly of “one-size-fits-all” education. Usually located just a few miles from urban decay, it’s a different world. 

Charter schools post higher results across the board than the traditional monopoly we’ve had from time immemorial. Further expansion of school choice options has the potential to liberate children, particularly poorer ones, from a dysfunctional education. The effort is worth it. Most of the country is on board; Democrat powers-that-be, teachers and unions protecting them are not.  They remain adept at perpetuating underachievement.

Evidence also shows more money for schools does not lead to success and often simply ways to waste the funds. In reform circles, there is the infamous Kansas City study, where the large district dramatically increased funding by billions in the 1980s and 1990s. This included increasing teacher salaries, adding glistening swimming pools, fancy computer labs and more. Was there an improvement in test scores and other quantitative results? Of course not. Nor was there more racial integration. Oops. This should be a telling lesson.

In addition to the absurd  “more money for schools” line peddled by vacuous politicians like Harris, a common ignorant retort toward education reformers is that those pushing for change are “anti school” or worse. With urban schools crippling our country’s most vulnerable (minority) children, advocating for experimentation with vouchers is actually “pro child.” It is progress. It is also consistent with America’s free market aspirations.

There were fewer than 2,500 charter schools when George W. Bush came into office. Eight years later, the number had doubled to nearly 5,000, and continues to grow a decade later. 

The former president’s words stand true today:

“These diverse, creative schools are proof that parents from all walks of life are willing to challenge the status quo if it means a better education for their children,” Bush said. “More competition and more choices for parents and students will raise the bar for everyone.”

Between the radical political agendas, insouciance toward students and lack of innovation, I ultimately lost the energy to keep teaching. Attempts to buck the trend and assist students were fought like the Battle of Antietam. I got along well with the parents and loved instructing the kids. But the resistance to change and browbeating of anyone seeking change demoralized me. 

Since leaving the profession and embarking on other careers, I published an entire book and dozens of articles on educational reform in various newspapers. I try so hard. Sadly, I continue to marvel at the preservation of a failed status quo. It clearly does not have to be this way.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

136 Views

This may be a first in Leftist Lexicon history. I have stumbled across a topic where they don’t have an opinion, but rest assured I will still mock them anyway.

Recently, Hong Kong experienced a somewhat peaceful uprising against government corruption. Unlike Antifa here, though, the protestors didn’t burn/break stuff, attack bystanders, or demand government give them anything. Well, that last part isn’t strictly true because the protestors are asking the US government to intervene on their behalf. So far, we’ve stayed out of the fray with the Trump Administration agreeing that these protests are an internal matter and, thus, not our problem. Meanwhile, the Left has been quiet, instead focusing on important matters like trans-friendly cartoon characters or handicap accessible eco-friendly stripper poles.

My fear, though, is we aren’t taking a close enough look at the implications of ignoring or turning away from Hong Kong right now and how this could cause problems down the line.

Hong Kong

What the Left thinks it means – let me get back to you on that

What it really means – an economic powerhouse that can make or break our economy depending on what we do

If there was a foreign city that rivals America in sheer economic potential, it would be Hong Kong. With a population of close to 7.5 million people and a history of being a trading capitol even today, Hong Kong is a major global commerce hub. After it was returned to China in 1997, there was bound to be a battle looming on the horizon between the socioeconomic ideals of the city and the nation. It’s like what we’re seeing in America right now between capitalism and Leftist ideology, where one side wants government to keep its hands off as much as possible and the other wants government to be involved in every aspect of life and the economy.

On paper, this seems like the kind of battle America would be talking about or even helping fight, but we’ve stayed above the fray as much as we can. A large portion of this, I feel, is due to the relationship the US has with China and the mess we’ve made in addressing the issues between the two countries. Sherman, set the Wayback Machine for 1989, when Chinese students were standing in front of tanks and attempting to enact similar social and economic reforms in Tiananmen Square. I was a college freshman at the time and seeing people right around my age taking such a bold and dangerous stance against a government not exactly known for playing nice struck a chord with me. (I think it was a G, but I could be wrong.)

At that time, then-President George H. W. Bush threatened the possibility of offering China Most Favored Nation status unless they dealt with their numerous human rights violations. Of course, we walked back the threat. Then, under President Bill Clinton, China was granted Most Favored Nation Status with no human rights strings attached. Heck of a job, Billy.

Since then, China has become a trading contradiction: a testament to capitalism surrounded by a testament to big government, and for the most part, that contradiction has been allowed to remain intact until lately. Also, since then, China has purchased a lot of our debt in the form of redeemable bonds. That means if China thinks we can’t pay back what they paid for the bonds, they can demand payment and we will have to either come up with the money or default. And remember, kids, these are the same folks who think they can do a better job at managing your health care and health insurance better than you can.

This fiscal Sword of Damocles may be staying our hand more than we care to admit, which is sad. There was a time when America could be counted on to fight for freedom around the world, but somewhere along the line we decided to trade in the grit in our bellies for cheap disposable crap made in China by people whose freedoms are being suppressed. But, hey, at least we’re getting cheap disposable crap, right? At least, they’re not deadly to children, pets and oursellll…okay, so they are.

And another fun fact to chew on is China is a hotbed for piracy, and not the Captain Jack Sparrow kind (although it is vastly more entertaining than the “Pirates of the Caribbean” films). Entertainment and computer piracy have been a steady side-hustle, and there are no signs that will slow down anytime soon. Given how left-leaning Hollywood, the gaming, and the computer industries have been or become, you would think the Left would be all over this, but they aren’t. They’d rather protest the President or fight for trans albino Eskimos’ rights to abortions on demand, especially if they’re male-to-female trans people.

The problem is there isn’t a clear and safe option. If we ignore the Hong Kong protestors, the best we can expect is to cut off a major economic port and market. If we engage China, they can call in the bonds, which can put us in dire economic straits. Right now, we need China more than they need us. When realism collides with idealism, the latter usually loses.

In this situation, though, we have more of a responsibility to speak up instead of forever holding our peace because the protestors look to us for inspiration and direction. The longer we stay silent or put off taking a stand, the worse it will be in the long run for everyone involved. I mean, if we can whip out the tariff threat against China more frequently than Joe Biden has a speaking gaffe, we might be able to spare a moment or two to tell China and Hong Kong to knock it off.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

152 Views

In response to recent mass shootings, the San Francisco City Council decided to tackle the problem head-on by…naming the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization. Such bravery!

Whenever there’s a mass shooting, there is a renewed call for “common sense gun laws” (which most often include stuff that’s already on the books), as well as a renewed attack on the NRA to be defunded, defunct, and disgraced. Whether it’s alleged ties to Russian money or promoting gun sales over gun safety, the Left will stop at nothing to make NRA stand for Not Relevant Anymore. (Hat tip to Dennis Miller for that one.)

Strap yourselves in, boys and girls, because this one is gonna get messy.

the NRA

What the Left thinks it means – a domestic terrorist organization that promotes laws and lawmakers determined to put guns in the hands of dangerous people, a Russian asset

What it really means – a convenient punching bag for the Left to cover up their own failings

In the interest of transparency, I am not a member of the NRA for numerous personal and political reasons. However, I do support their general purpose and gun safety efforts because they support the spirit of the Second Amendment as written, not as interpreted by Leftists. This will get me branded as a “low-IQ gun nut” by those who want to see guns more regulated than they already are, but believe me, I’ve been insulted worse by better people.

If you listen to what the Left says about the NRA, you would think Wayne LaPierre is lounging in a pool filled with the blood of innocent children killed by gun nuts and counting his ill-gotten gains as the Congressmembers he’s bought hang on his every word. They also simultaneously believe the NRA is going broke and needs money it gets from Russia to keep the doors open. Say what you will about the Left, they are consistent in making no sense whatsoever.

As you might have guessed, this dual-prong attack on the NRA has a purpose: to take out the biggest dog in the fight. Compared with gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, the NRA donates more to further its legislative agenda than they do, and the NRA is more effective with its money. Therefore, the Left has to turn the NRA into public enemy #1 whenever possible, and with mass shootings, the Left has the perfect foil for their attacks.

By appealing emotionally to the audience (who are most likely less informed than the Leftists, which is no small feat), the fact-finding process is truncated into a blip on the cognitive radar and the seemingly simple solutions are advanced. Universal background checks! Ban assault weapons! Close the gun show loophole! Call the NRA a domestic terrorist organization! And so on and so on, ad nauseum.

But the problem is when those simple solutions run into facts, like the tiny little detail that none of the recent mass shootings have been committed by an NRA member. Zip. Zero. Nada. Eric Swalwell’s chances of becoming President in 2020 (as well as the number he was polling at when the dropped out). Furthermore, and this bears repeating as often as possible, the legislation Leftists propose to combat mass shootings has largely been a failure. Out of all the recent mass shootings, only 2 have involved someone who wasn’t subject to a background check.

But we’re supposed to believe the NRA is the problem here?

The truth is the NRA does have some issues to address, but by and large they’re not the problem; they’re just the easiest scapegoat for the Left to blame for their frequent failures on this issue. The NRA does far more than push pro-gun legislation or debate the Second Amendment with people who want nothing more than to make it a memory of a bygone era. They offer gun safety courses, including ones for children. I’ve seen some of their materials and they’re anything but advertisements for owning guns. They are informative, safety-conscious, and dare I say it…responsible and reasonable. How many gun safety courses do the pro-gun control Left offer?

Zero.

This fact calls into question not only what the pro-gun control Left wants, but also why they spend so much time bashing an organization that promotes actual gun safety, helps save lives through supporting people’s right to keep and bear arms, and hasn’t been involved in a mass shooting in recent memory. It’s simple; the Left needs people to be ashamed to be a part of the NRA in order to disarm the population (and, yes, this is their main goal no matter how much the Left protests or scoffs at the idea). They can’t win hearts and minds with their arguments, so they poison the rhetorical well to dissuade people from supporting the NRA.

But that’s where the Left runs into yet another problem. The NRA is only one organization of millions of members, but there are others who serve the same or similar functions, as well as those who don’t belong to the NRA and still support their ultimate mission. As you might have guessed, I’m in this last group because I understand the Constitution and want people to be armed if they so choose and are capable of the responsibilities that go along with the right to bear arms. And, yes, I know this last part is going to disqualify a lot of current gun owners, but it’s necessary to take away the Left’s ammunition when it comes to gun owners.

My issues with the NRA revolve around their inability to avoid Leftist traps in the media and in perception. They have let Leftists dictate the rhetorical battlefield too often instead of coming out and telling the truth before the Left has a chance to spin it. In many ways, they’re too nice to those who would love nothing more than to see them destroyed. They rely on intellectual appeals that work, but aren’t as snappy as a Shannon Watts interview. One well-informed NRA member could dismantle Watts in no time. Granted, that’s not a Herculean task, but to stand toe-to-toe with her and refute her statements while throwing a little intellectual judo into the mix would be a welcome change to the standard approved-by-the-PR-Department fare we’re used to seeing.

Yet, as imperfect as the NRA is, it is far better and more committed to curtailing mass shootings than the ones who have deemed themselves to be the ones with all the right answers. Let me put it this way. One side of the gun issue respects the individual and fights to retain the right of said individual to be armed. The other side thinks anyone who owns a gun is a maniac just waiting to shoot up a school, or an uneducated buffoon who would shoot themselves because they’re holding the gun wrong, or someone who is overcompensating for a small member with guns. (Boy, that small member argument is going to surprise Dana Loesch!) One side will treat you like an adult, while the other will always treat you like a slow child. One side tries to prevent people from being victims, while the other side needs a constant stream of victims to sustain itself.

Choose wisely. The life you save with keeping and bearing arms might be your own.