“Never met a Commie he didn’t like” – Guest Opinion by Ari Kaufman

208 Views

“The whole quality of life in America is based on greed. I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”

It’s no surprise Bernie Sanders stated these iniquitous lines but would you believe this occurred more than 50 years ago?  

Perhaps in 1963 when he lived on a radical Israeli kibbutz called “the Young Guard”? 

Once that left-wing system failed and the nascent Jewish State progressed into a thriving democracy, and our lone ally in the world’s most volatile region, Sanders moved on to lauding Cuba, the Viet Cong, the Chicoms, USSR and, yes, those bread lines.  

Sanders spent most of his life as an angry agitator who accomplished very little, even pilfering electricity from his landlord via an extension cord.  

Despite a nice inheritance from his father and elite private college education, he was writing worthless fiction and making slideshows for schools “from an alternative point of view” into his late 30s about his lifelong political hero, socialist Eugene Debs.  

He didn’t receive a steady paycheck until age 40. Nearly four decades later, Sanders still only receives a taxpayer-funded salary.  

Sanders, who’s current wife is a white collar criminal, also has never passed a relevant bill during his three decades in Washington. And yet the collegians and aging hippies think this economic illiterate deserves the power to run our finances.   

Even his devotees might confess that yelling is what Sanders is “best” at; and it’s non-stop pablum, about the billionaires, how every nation is superior to America, and how our great country is institutionally racist. He deflects serious questions and rarely has an original thought. It’s truly surprising he didn’t go into academia.    

Instead Sanders tried politics, starting his own fringe anti-war party. During the 1970s, he ran four times in four years for statewide office, losing each time and never receiving more than single-digit support, even in Vermont.  

Sanders’ current nationalization plans for our innovative health care system, energy sector and other vital industries will destroy over a million jobs, make heating/cooling, gas production and general progress unaffordable, while taking away health insurance from nearly 200 million Americans during his first term.  

Formerly a protectionist, he now says he’ll end deportations, defund the heroes of Customs and Border Protection, while granting amnesty to illegal aliens. None of his beloved Scandinavian countries allow this.  He actually has little interest in Scandinavian systems, other than using them to obfuscate his real totalitarian idols.  

The stock market will, of course, crater and the “rich will get richer” as their educational loans are inexplicably paid off by lower middle class taxpayers. Want more “income inequality”? Vote for a Sanders regime and good luck portraying that as anodyne.  

The most noxious anti Semites support this campaign — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Keith Ellison, Pramila Jayapal, Michael Moore, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib to name some of the worst  —  including his chief of staff and top campaign officials. These are folks he’ll place in his cabinet. Hide your children.   

Sanders doesn’t like the long-standing Israel-American alliance. He instead calls the venerable Israeli prime minister, and our staunchest ally, a “racist” on national TV. Sanders prefers to support many of our worst enemies. 

Unsurprisingly but appallingly, Sanders, who claims to be Jewish, is boycotting this week’s annual AIPAC event. He did so with an odious ad hominem attack. Naturally he’s never attended the massive bi-partisan pro-Israel gathering.  

Sanders also wants to cut U.S. military funding but increase spending everywhere else. Almost $100 trillion in new “well intentioned” taxes to fight normal weather patterns? Profligate, to put it mildly.

He writes admiringly of Cuba, the USSR and most rogue dictatorships. He once said John F. Kennedy “made him physically nauseous” for being against the Cuban Revolution. He still defends left-wing Latin dictators in Bolivia, Nicaragua and Venezuela today.  

Like anti-freedom radicals, Sanders never met with brave Cuban or Soviet dissidents in America, even when Nobel Prize Winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn lived just an hour away in Vermont.    

Sanders, who once told students that our military actions in Vietnam were “almost as bad as what Hitler did,” is simply a useful idiot like Lebron James, Colin Kaepernick or John Legend. He is a devotee of Lenin and Trotsky, just like America haters Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. Glorification of evil sans penitence.  

And while it is true that Castro implemented a “literacy program” — mostly Communist propaganda — after seizing power in his bloody revolution, Cuba’s literacy rate was already high among Latin American nations. About 80 percent of Cubans knew how to read by 1959. It was an educated nation with figures similar to highly-educated Costa Rica, except Costa Rica did so without the heinous dictatorship Cubans have endured under the Castro regime for six decades.  

Lastly, it’s often mentioned that Fascism is remembered as a crime in schools and film, whereas Communism is glossed over or treated like a mistake. It’s mentioned because it’s true. Has recent movie portrayed the evils of the Great Leap Forward or Stalinist gulags and collectivism that killed more than 100 million?  

But I am sure Sanders has a Che Guevara shirt and probably saw recent hagiographic films romanticizing the Argentine-born Marxist. That Guevara was a mass murderer who supported ignominious policies that placed homosexuals and dissidents in concentration camps? Bern prefers to talk about literacy programs.

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

139 Views

There is a phrase that has been batted around lately more than a tennis ball during a long rally at Wimbledon: rule of law. But for once, it’s not the Right that is doing the batting. It’s the Left. It seems they’ve become acutely aware of the concept after claiming President Donald Trump believes he’s above the law due to his recent impeachment acquittal in the Senate. On top of that, the President has also suggested the Department of Justice look into the conviction of former Trump associate Roger Stone (and with good reason if the recent news around the judge and jury in his case are accurate). Now, the Left is on their outrage soapboxes demanding the President and the Right respect the rule of law.

As you might guess, I take the rule of law seriously, or at least seriously enough to write a weekly blog post highlighting the Leftist take on the phrase.

rule of law

What the Left thinks it means – following the letter and spirit of the law

What it really means – following the letter and spirit of the law even when it’s politically inconvenient to do so

The Left may have the trial lawyers in their back pockets (and their hands in the back pockets of the trial lawyers for that matter), but that doesn’t mean they have a healthy respect for the law. What they do have is a healthy respect for those who can create laws through rhetorical or contextual devices that judges who are already predisposed to agree with the outcome will allow to stand in court. From the bizarre arguments from Roe v. Wade to the more recent, yet equally bizarre, legal arguments requiring Christians to act against their faith to accommodate same sex marriages, the Left figured out how to get what they want without consulting the voting public: file a lawsuit! Then, it’s just a matter of crafting a legal argument so seemingly air-tight that no appeals court could overturn it and, voila, you have a law and the rest of the country has to go along with it.

Of course, once that happens, the Left demands everyone follow the letter and spirit of the law with no deviations whatsoever. On the other hand, if it’s a law they don’t like, they feel it’s morally justified to defy the law. Sanctuary cities, anyone?

It’s this duplicity when it comes to the law that rings hollow when the Left talks about the rule of law. The recent impeachment fiasco…I mean trial is a nice microcosm of this. Remember when the Left jumped all over Mitch McConnell and other Republican Senators to recuse themselves because they already made up their minds on impeachment? On the surface, it seems like a reasonable and legally justifiable position. Of course, that same argument could have been applied to Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and a whole host of Democrat Senators who had not only made up their minds to impeach the President, but made it a part of their regular communication with followers, constituents, and fawning media types.

And let’s not forget one of the articles of impeachment had zero basis in law, but it didn’t bother Senate Democrats enough to make them vote with the law and not with their party. But hey, party over country is a Republican thing, right?

If you haven’t recognized this Leftist tactic, it’s right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. They are trying to hold the Right to the rule of law (or at least the Leftist version of it) while ignoring it themselves, and until recently it was virtually foolproof. Then, as more conservatives and Republicans began to educate themselves on the Left’s tactics, they started to call out the Left and flip the script on them. Not only did the Right flip the script, but the Left flipped their lids, as well as their talking points, to the condition we’re in now. To use a more modern bit of terminology, we’re in the Upside Down.

Or at least some of us are.

Although it’s nice to hear Leftists take the rule of law seriously for a change, it’s based on the politics of the situation, not out of any core principles they have. In fact, the same Leftists going after President Trump for alleged violations of the rule of law were conspicuously absent when President Barack Obama took similar action on matters more pressing than a Tweet about Roger Stone.

This is where it’s important to take the politics out of the rule of law. President Obama violated the law on several occasions and many, including your humble correspondent, were justifiably outraged. President Trump, I feel, has violated the law as well, and only some of us are outraged. By letting our politics guide our decision-making, we can justify poor behavior for the sake of rooting for “our team.” But wrong is wrong, no matter whether we love or loathe the criminal. An eye for an eye may be a boon for the eyepatch industry, but it’s a poor way to enforce the law. It has to be enforced across the board for the rule of law to have any weight.

That is why Lady Justice is blind. Either that or it was an unfortunate recreation of a scene from 50 Shades of Gray, but in either case, we need to be absolutely sure we are standing for the rule of law in every case. Donald Trump isn’t my cup of Earl Grey (not of the 50 Shades variety), but I want him to be extended every legal opportunity I would get as an American citizen. The Left doesn’t want that, though. They want to prosecute first and ask questions never, all under the guise of defending the rule of law from the man they’re trying to prosecute. Call me crazy, but doesn’t that sound a lot like abuse of power? And, if so, where are the Left’s rule of law hawks on impeaching Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, and the whole cast of characters involved with the impeachment process? I’m sure they’re working on it, right after they try to impeach President Trump for something else that may or may not be against the law.

After all, it’s not like Leftists are known to be hypocrites, right?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

166 Views

With President Donald Trump being acquitted by the Senate on both counts of impeachment, the Left has gone crazy…well, crazier than normal…and normal is relative when it comes to the Left. Let’s try this again. The Left hasn’t taken the President’s acquittal by the Senate very well. Some have gone so far as to say we’re on the verge of a dictatorship, while others say we’re already there. After all, the Left has all this evidence of President Trump acting and sounding and looking like one, so how come nobody else can see it?

Well, to paraphrase a former President, that all depends on what your definition of dictatorship is. Which is great for me because it gives me this week’s Leftist Lexicon topic!

dictatorship

What the Left thinks it means – a form of government where there is an all-powerful leader, what we are experiencing now or will be experiencing soon

What it really means – the go-to excuse for when the Left fails in imposing their will, used interchangeably with fascist

The Left thrives on oppression, real or imagined, as a means to control how people think. Most of the time, this oppression is imaginary, but it’s just as effective at getting mush-minded people to agree with them and act accordingly. After all, if you feel you’re oppressed, it means you are and, thus, can claim victimhood, which is the coin of the Left’s realm. Of course, the more boxes you can check off on the Oppression Checklist, the more oppressed you are. After that, there’s a whole hierarchy of oppression that is an M.C. Escher/Rube Goldberg/Pink Floyd’s “The Wall” flowchart, and there isn’t enough booze or drugs to make heads or tails out of it. Needless to say, you shouldn’t even try unless you want to end up like Keith Richards and be 1000 years old.

That need for victimhood drives the Left’s perception of the Trump Administration being a dictatorship, more so after the Senate acquittal. They complained about the Senate trial not allowing witnesses (in spite of the fact the House Managers called 17 witnesses and didn’t bother to do even a little legwork to enforce the subpoenas filed against members of the Trump Administration so they might get home for Christmas break sooner). They said it wasn’t right for Senate Republicans to coordinate with the President on a defense. They screamed about how it wasn’t fair some of the jurors in the Senate trial said they would vote to acquit before the trial began (while saying nothing about the multiple Democrat Senators who said they would vote to convict before the trial even began). All of this and much more is proof the President is now a dictator and above the law, and it has the Left protesting loudly on social media and in public.

Let that last sentence roll around in your heads for a moment. Leftists say we’re in a dictatorship while they complain online and in public…without the President arresting them for speaking out against him. Either Donald Trump is the most incompetent dictator in world history or, now hear me out here, he’s not a dictator. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say the President isn’t a dictator, and not because he hasn’t arrested me for making fun of his haircut. In fact, has anyone been arrested for just making fun of President Trump? Not that I’m aware of. Even most of the people who have openly opposed him haven’t seen the inside of Gitmo or any other prison for that matter. It’s only the extreme cases that get a visit from the Secret Service because that’s their job. Even if you humor the Left on this, the lack of incarceration for protesting the President is hard to overlook when making the case we’re in a dictatorship.

Good luck trying to convince Leftists of that, though. They are bound and determined to be under a dictatorship even if it doesn’t kill them. The odd thing is they aren’t opposed to being in a dictatorship as long as they’re in control of it. Some of the same folks who paint Trump as a dictator are strangely quiet on actual dictatorships in the Middle East or try to whitewash Leftist dictators like Pol Pot. For some examples closer to home, check out some of the antics the Left pulls on college campuses to stifle conservatives. That’s what makes their vocal opposition to dictatorships so disingenuous to me. You can’t pick and choose when it comes to dictatorships. Once you allow one to curry your favor, you lose the moral high ground.

Let’s just say the Left ceded that moral high ground a looooooong time ago.

In the meantime, we have to stay on our toes to ensure we don’t become an actual dictatorship. For all of the faults I find with President Trump, wanting absolute power doesn’t seem to be one of them. I understand he likes to be in control of situations based on the way he’s conducted business, but I’m just not seeing where he’s enacting anything that would lead to him becoming President for Life. If anything, he’s acted better on improving things at home by removing government regulations and making a positive impact abroad by expanding gay rights protections in countries that don’t have them. You know, like those Middle Eastern dictatorships the Left conveniently overlook?

Just because President Trump was acquitted by the Senate of two of the weakest impeachment articles in our history doesn’t mean we’re becoming a dictatorship or that we’re already there. It simply means the House Managers didn’t give the Senate much to work with. Even in real criminal trials, you can’t try to prosecute someone for a crime and expect the defense to prove your case for you. And no amount of screaming, pouting, fuming, or general jackassery will change that.

Of course, it makes it easier for us to spot the loonies, so at least we can be entertained.

In Defense of the Iowa Caucuses…Or At Least Some of Them

161 Views

Well, it happened, pretty much as I predicted. The Iowa Caucuses are over, the candidates have moved on, and the Hawkeye State is the center of some controversy because we don’t know who actually won the caucuses on the Democrat side. As a result, the country is looking down at Iowa for being disorganized and incapable of counting beyond ten without taking off our shoes.

But here’s the thing. There were two sets of caucuses going on, not just the one for Democrats. The Republicans had one, too, which was more of a formality than anything else. President Donald Trump won the Iowa Caucuses for the GOP with 97% of the vote. How do I know?

Because the Iowa Republican Party has its shit together.

I’ve participated in the Republican caucuses and observed the Democrat caucuses, so I have an idea of what the internal processes are. The Republicans take their time, but not in excess because they’re there to complete the tasks before them and get out. Democrats, on the other hand, play a game of Red Rover where they try to attract/bully other potential voters to abandon their first choices if they’re not considered viable and add them to the roles of those supporting viable candidates. This process can be quick, and other times it’s more painful than watching the Socialist Socialite trying to explain how gum works.

Last night was the latter on steroids.

And it was made worse thanks to an app developed by the totally non-scary-sounding Shadow Inc. with a website listing none of its board members or leadership and made up of people who worked on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Then again, given how her campaign turned out, I’m not sure I’d want my name out there on anything. Maybe there’s a Witness Relocation Program for failed Presidential campaign staffers, especially ones that couldn’t even win a rigged election….

Adding to the intrigue is the fact Shadow Inc. is associated with Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who just happens to be one of the Democrats running for President. Let’s not forget what the DNC did to Bernie Sanders in 2016, too, in understanding the magnitude of fuckitude we’re dealing with here. If the DNC were trying to exorcize the demons of 2016, they didn’t do a very good job of it here because these little niggling issues make it look like there is someone or something pulling the strings. I’m not usually one to indulge in conspiracy theories, but let’s just say I’ve made a tidy profit after investing heavily in tinfoil.

So many moving parts, and so many fingers being pointed at the wrong people, namely President Trump, Russia, and Iowa in general. The Iowa Caucuses are run by the Democrats and Republicans, and the President and Russia have nothing to do with the chaos that occurred with the Democrats. Iowa as a whole isn’t to blame, either. Remember, the Republicans didn’t seem to have trouble reporting the outcome, only the Democrats did. (Maybe the non-Democrats in Iowa need a hashtag, #NotAllIowans?) As such, the slings and arrows of outrageous commenters should be pointed not at the entire state, but at the Iowa Democratic Party.

But that can’t and won’t happen, thanks to the Leftist mindset. The Left hates Iowa and Iowans (but, surprisingly, not their votes and money). They consider us to be ignorant hicks lacking in the sophistication that can only come from living on either coast. They see us as a roadblock to progressive success and want us to take a back seat to what they want and what they feel we need. The caucus debacle only helps to make their case.

Or so they think.

When you dig a little bit deeper, you see this was a self-fulfilling fuck-up. The Left needed the Iowa Caucuses to fail so they could better make the argument why Iowa shouldn’t take such a prominent role in determining who gets to be the Democrats’ nominee. Just like with Obamacare (with a healthy hat tip to Tammy Bruce for making and inspiriting this same point), the solution to the problem was meant to fail so a larger objective could be achieved. In this case, the Iowa Caucuses served many purposes, including a continuation of the “Russia hacked our elections” narrative that has become gospel to the Left since Hillary Clinton lost. If the Left can repeat the notion our elections aren’t secure, they will cast doubt on whomever wins in 2020 (except, of course, if it’s a Leftist who wins because that only proves we were able to overcome Russian interference). Funny how that works, isn’t it?

Yet, the failures of the Iowa Caucuses only point in one direction, and it points to the party that claims to be smarter and more moral than we are. Oh, and who want us to adopt Medicare For All as a solution to what they think is a health care crisis. If they can’t run a caucus that they control, that makes the best argument for why they shouldn’t be allowed to run anything come November.

It’s (Not) Dead, Jim!

161 Views

If you haven’t noticed from all the death of the Republic talk going on out there, the impending acquittal of President Donald Trump is going to signal the end of the Republic as we know it and usher in an age of authoritarianism. You know, like the totalitarianism the President has already put in place, only much bigger and scarier?

A Facebook friend of mine and I had a civil discussion about the end of the Republic. While she was lamenting the end of our great experiment, I posted a YouTube video of the scene from “Ghostbusters” (the good one, not the 2016 “woke” version) where the guys were talking about the apocalypse coming if they didn’t stop Gozer, the part that talks about “human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together, MASS HYSTERIA!” She asked me to indulge her, which I did.

But for the rest of you Leftists, I won’t. Not anymore.

For as much as you lament about the impending Senate vote proving your fears to be justified, you ignore one of the obvious duplicities of your arguments. On the one hand, you claim Donald Trump is an idiot. On the other hand, you say he’s heading up a cabal of villainy worthy of a James Bond movie. I haven’t heard that strange dichotomy since…why, it was George W. Bush! Same plays, same playbook, same overreaction, different President. It’s almost as if you guys are recycling your squawking points! And it composts quite well.

But here’s the thing, and it’s something I pointed out to my Facebook friend. The President didn’t cause the current alleged weakness in the Republic; he’s just the easy scapegoat. Since the turn of the century, we’ve seen any number of threats to the Republic coming from our elected officials. The PATRIOT Act, although passed with good intent, contained a lot of mandates that undercut individual freedom and privacy. The Arab Spring? That remains an existential threat on a global scale. Using the IRS to go after political opponents? Certainly not innocuous to the Republic when you consider the incredible (and law-defying) power they have.

And where were you Leftists when this and other actual threats to the Republic were being rolled out? With the exception of the PATRIOT Act, you were scarcer than the food at an all-you-can-eat buffet after Rosie O’Donnell and Michael Moore leave. And even with the PATRIOT Act, your opposition was targeted at the wrong parts.

That’s how I know your current freak-out is faked. You don’t give one-one hundredth of a damn about the health of the Republic. If you did, you wouldn’t be Leftists. Instead, you’re breaking out the American flags and red, white, and blue bunting to attack the Senate Republicans for voting in favor of acquitting the President and doing so in a way that draws the most amount of attention to you. While you fawn over Adam Schiff’s weaker than Mormon Irish coffee presentation, you ignore the fact he a) didn’t present a case that resembled the alleged crimes, b) has some apparent ties to some of the particulars of the investigation that would have gotten him thrown off the case due to conflicts of interest, and c) only got his pathetic case to the Senate after a rushed and extremely flawed process that defied existing precedent, and then expected the Senate to do the job he failed to do.

The House failed the country, not the Senate, and not the Senate Republicans. And if you are being honest with yourselves, you would pin the blame for the downfall of the Republic on…well, you. By your silence when it mattered because you liked the man in power undercutting the Republic and by your hyperbolic overreaction over something that doesn’t threaten the Republic because you hate the man in power, you have become the monster you have tried to create for your own ideological purposes.

Instead of hyperventilating over what you see at the death of the Republic, take account of the fact we’ve survived people in power I wouldn’t trust to run a marathon, let alone the United States, and we will continue to do so. Why? Because we’re stronger than one President or one group of people.

And we will continue to be as long as people are willing to be honest with each other. The Left isn’t interested in this because they know they will be called on the carpet for the stuff they’ve let loose on the country, just as the Right would be. Face it, there are no white hats here, just hats that are varying shades of dark gray. If you really want to save the Republic, start with cleaning up your own house, or House of Representatives if you prefer. The fact Adam Schiff is being lauded as a hero instead of run out of Washington, DC, on a rail for pulling the crap he did isn’t a sign of honesty. It’s a sign you are willing to sell out the Republic if you can justify the cause and the Republic be damned in the process.

For all the crying you do about Republicans putting party before country, you shouldn’t have such a blind spot for doing the very thing you pin on the GOP.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

159 Views

Ah, early February. The sun is on the verge of shining. The birds are still wintering in Boca, and the nation’s attention focuses on my home state of Iowa because, for a little while, it becomes the center of the American political universe. Front-runners, also-rans, and never-should-have-been-allowed-to-runs show up in big cities, small towns, and various eateries in an attempt to persuade potential caucusers to support them.

And after the votes are counted, they disappear like Bill Clinton’s pants at a sorority sleepover.

As a native Iowan, I wanted to give a bit of insight into the caucuses, especially from the standpoint of the Left, who aren’t fans of the state or the caucuses in general.

the Iowa Caucuses

What the Left thinks it means – a pointless venture that eliminates potential Presidential candidates before more important states get a chance to vote

What it really means – an excuse to pretend to give a damn about Iowa every 4 years

As a native, I can tell you Iowa isn’t exactly the epicenter of excitement, especially for people who don’t come here on a regular basis. The media tend to treat Iowa like an undiscovered country where they are the ones to make first contact. Coming from people who refer to Iowa as “flyover country,” it’s not surprising. The Left doesn’t like people who aren’t from the upper East Coast or the West Coast, and it comes out in how they try to approach people like me to get statements for their fluff pieces masquerading as hard news.

Once you get beyond the media coverage and the Leftist derision, the Iowa Caucuses are a pretty interesting dichotomy in how the two major parties operate. The Republicans gather in their precincts, hear from supporters of different candidates, hold votes for the candidates, elect delegates to the next level of the party nomination process, maybe vote on planks for the state party platform, verify who will submit the results to the party, and adjourn. The process usually takes an hour or two depending on the contentiousness of the debates, which is to say they’re as contentious as an IBM management meeting. It’s focused, allows for discussion, and efficient.

For the Democrats…let’s just say herding cats is more structured than their process. They get together in a room and gather in groups depending on who they favor. After some candidates are eliminated due to lack of viability, the other groups can persuade the supporters of the “non-viable” candidates to caucus with their candidates. This process can go on for hours because sometimes it can take quite a lot of cajoling to get someone caucusing for a candidate to get him or her to switch teams.

On a side note, I’m surprised that doesn’t cause more chaos given how emotional Leftists get. I mean, if you spent months canvasing for Joe Blow only to have Joe not win the nomination, how likely would you be to put your full support behind one of Joe’s opponents? And on the other side of the equation, how pissed would you be if you did the same for Joe’s opponent and to have to give up a delegate spot to someone who didn’t support your candidate from the jump? (And for the record, this is typically what happens on the Democrat side to secure a “viable” nominee gets proper representation.)

And remember, kids, these are the same people who want the government to provide for us because they think we’re too dumb to look out for ourselves.

Underneath the shaking hands and kissing babies is a media whose job it is to cover the campaign for people outside of Iowa. And make no mistake, I would say most of the media folks hate being here. Granted, when they come here it’s usually cold, windy, and snowy, so it’s hard to put our best foot forward without getting frostbite. Even so, with the kind of attitude Leftists give off, it’s not unusual for Iowans to still be friendly and genuine. That can be off-putting for someone who is used to having to be wary of people who will stab them in the back, figurative and possibly literally. This happened to a friend of mine from New York City who came to cover the Iowa Caucuses for a website I used to run many many years ago and she was struck by how nice everyone was. And before you knew it, she and her husband moved to St. Louis and are now enjoying the Midwest niceness.

Maybe that’s why the media think we’re uneducated rubes. In their cynical minds, no one can be that honest about their intentions, so it’s obvious we’re the defective ones and we need the Left to tell us what to think and do because that’s what they do! But here’s the thing: Iowans are what we are and we’re smarter than you think. Granted, it can be argued the Democrats’ caucus structure proves otherwise, but that’s the outlier here.

Along with the condescending Leftist attitude, there’s an idea in Leftist circles that the Iowa Caucuses shouldn’t be first in the nation because it prevents bigger states like California from voting for who they want when it gets to be their turn. They also mention Iowa is mostly white and doesn’t represent the diversity of the country, so naturally Iowa isn’t a good place to start a Presidential campaign. Try telling that to campaign financiers. For all of its faults, Iowa has media markets that are far cheaper than the media markets just in one community. And, if you really think about it, the sheer expense of running a single 30 second ad on a TV station in, say, Los Angeles would prevent other states from voting for who they want because it would knock out or prevent lower-tier candidates from getting votes.

Funny how the Left doesn’t think about that, isn’t it?

This year, the Iowa Caucuses are going to be a chance for Democrats to showcase their clown car of candidates, while the Republicans should be able to go home early. And after the confetti and the parties, the campaigns and media move towards New Hampshire and Iowa becomes a political afterthought until Election Night.

And you know…that’s the way we like it.

The DILLIGAF Defense

177 Views

Since 2015, Leftists have been wracking their brains trying to figure out President Donald Trump and why he maintains a level of support that they feel normal people wouldn’t/shouldn’t maintain. For all of their big-brain thinking, the best they’ve been able to come up with is…it’s a cult. And you know it’s a cult because Trump supporters make the same comments and believe the same things Trump does, even if it hurts them personally. You know, like Leftists.

Admittedly, it’s taken me a while to wrap my head around the pro-Trump phenomenon, but I think I have a line on it and I have pop culture to thank for it. There is an abbreviation for a particular attitude that seems to fit the President and his supporters quite nicely: DILLIGAF. It stands for “Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?” and it represents an attitude of dismissive apathy. Like me when I hear another Tyler Perry movie is in theaters.

The Left and the media (but I repeat myself) have lined up firmly against President Trump and aren’t afraid to show their utter contempt for him and the people who vote for him. There are many ways to react to this kind of vitriol from ignoring it to returning the vitriol in some fashion. The Left wants you to react negatively so they can use you as an example of “the typical Trump supporter.” What they don’t like is when you flip the script on them because they don’t know how to handle someone who doesn’t take them seriously. They require their targets to treat their statements as gospel in order to manipulate the targets into thinking and acting like the Left expects.

There are two effective ways to deny the Left their pound of flesh. For me, I prefer laughing at the statements, but President Trump adopts DILLIGAF, which accomplishes the same dismissal of the Left’s squawking points in a different way. With either approach, the Left can’t handle the pushback and they try to escalate their attacks, which makes it easier to volley back with the same dismissiveness used previously. Eventually, the Leftist will give up, but not without throwing out more invectives than Andrew Dice Clay with Tourette’s.

Take the situation between the President and CNN’s Jim Acosta, for example. After getting shut down repeatedly, Acosta resorts to more “gotcha” style questions and more outrageous behavior to try to get the President’s attention/derision. And the more he does that, the more Trump brushes him aside (and deservedly so, in my not-so-humble opinion).

That’s the thing about the Left. They can only escalate a situation, never deescalate it, because they let their emotions overrule their intellect. And given the intellectual prowess of Hank Johnson and Joe Biden, that may not be that tough to accomplish. Even so, the Left’s emotions become their weaknesses when dealing with someone whose fresh out of fucks to give.

Someone like Donald Trump.

And the more Leftists howl with derision or outrage at whatever he says or does, the fewer fucks the President gives, which enrages the Left even more…and so on and so on. I may not agree with President Trump on everything, but I agree the DILLIGAF defense is effective when dealing with people who hate you for doing nothing more than looking at things differently than they do. 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

188 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

183 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. 

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Bloodshed

173 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!