COVID-19

112 Views

It has already been asked. But it is worth asking again and again. Is the cure worse than the disease when it comes to COVID-19. The world’s economy is on the verge of standing still. Locally everything is shutting down.

We have lost sporting events that some communities rely on for their livelihood. Most of their income comes from these events. People are being laid off, fired, or having their hours reduced. Celebrations of all kinds are being cancelled.

Even the Church has closed it’s doors. This didn’t happen even during the Black Death. But this will cause some small churches that need parishioners in order to pay the mortgage to close permanently.

Many events can happen with teleconferencing (audio or visual too). Some can happen via email or other electronic means thanks to modern technology. We can can Facetime our friends we want to see but cannot meet personally due to social distancing.

Schools are closed and all the children are home. Now being taught by their parents. Those who home school already wont have any issues with this facet of the cure. However, those who never thought they would be home with their children have to adapt. Personally, I think it’s a great thing to get all the children out of public schools but that is something for another post.

Life has been turned upside down by COVID-19. The cause of the virus is subject to a multitude of reasons. Mostly false at that. And there are large numbers of conspiracy theories surrounding it as well. The virus isn’t man made in a laboratory. Nor is it the after affects of 5G mobile wireless technology.

The economic impact of this virus is staggering. It could cause another world wide collapse and depression. It would take a few years to recover from it if that happens. Our Liberties are being threatened as well by this virus as governments local and national restrict the inalienable rights of the people.

So how dangerous is this virus? You determine that for yourself. Look at the numbers. We are no were near the last major pandemic of N1H1 in cases of infections or deaths on the global scale. Local numbers may very from this of course. The problem with COVID-19 is there is no vaccine available at this time. There are trials and tests being ran around the world. But that’s what makes this one “scary”.

I think the overall reaction is extreme. Yes by all means practice good hygenie. But we should already be doing that anyway. Don’t sneeze and cough on one another. These are all no brainers really. If you are in public place sneeze/cough into your elbow. Again these are basics people. These practices will lower your changes of getting the cold or flu as well.

I also don’t like going to the ER or Urgent Care. There are too many sick people there and I don’t like the idea of going and catching something there. I like the video doctor idea far better. Talk to someone and determine if you need to take the risk of being seen. I might just do that always from now onward.

This virus wasn’t created as a weapon. But it’s been turned into one. And those that did so should be held liable and accountable.

“Coronavirus crisis calls for the opposite of socialism” – Guest Opinion by Ari Kaufman

219 Views

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wants the U.S. Senate to take quick action on a trillion-dollar stimulus plan to help Americans with expenses due to the Coronavirus pandemic.

The government would send a check after calculating an amount per individual or couple based on a taxpayer‘s adjusted gross income from 2018. Aid would be phased down at income thresholds of $75,000 per person ($150,000 per couple) and those individuals who earned six figures two years ago receive no relief.

This is an unnecessary exercise in jumping through federal government hoops to obtain a questionable result. McConnell is too shrewd a leader to fall for this. Democrats, meanwhile, seem mostly concerned with the name of the virus, bashing “corporations” and using straw man clichés like “workers over shareholders.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House Bill was so rushed that it needed nearly 100 pages (!) of corrections and arguably would accelerate small business lay offs.

The most straightforward objection to the Senate bill is why base everything on 2018 AGI. Two years ago, many people’s lives were different. You may have sold a business, bought a house, or married since. There is no good rationale in going back two years to test incomes.

The people who most need help to financially survive the current panic lack income because their jobs disappeared this month, thus swift action surely is needed. 

Injecting liquidity is key to stabilizing the economy. Hospitals need help. Folks require money for groceries, rent, and maybe some proprietors can pay their remaining employees instead of shutting down.  A public school teacher, “non essential” government worker, or an accountant still being paid their same salary every fortnight does not need money urgently. They’re doing just fine.

Think instead about the entrepreneur who invested his life savings in a business only to see his customers vanish. Or ponder the recent college graduate with $50,000 in student-loan debt — not ironically taken on with the encouragement of Elizabeth Warren types — now laid off from her first job.

And if someone who receives a check is not desperate, have faith that he or she can figure out where to donate the money without government edicts.  

Two of the most impressive senators in recent days, as often is the case, are Marco Rubio and Ben Sasse. Both men offer realistic, responsible solutions. 

Rubio told CNBC last week he wants to use a network of lenders for an existing program to help small businesses and employees. He hopes to “figure out the most effective way to get cash into the hands of small businesses so that they can maintain payroll for at least a six-week period.”

The Florida Republican is sponsoring legislation to match President Trump’s call for $50 billion in loans from the Small Business Administration.  

Sasse, the only senator who lives his life completely outside the Washington bubble and has authored two recent books on related topics, gave a stellar St. Patrick’s Day Speech on the Senate floor. Everyone should watch it on YouTube.

The Nebraska Republican prefers letting governors direct spending instead of Washington-driven bailouts akin to “shoveling money out of a helicopter.” He instead called for most economic relief spending to be administered by state governors. He claims governors know how to target money more efficiently than U.S. Senators.

Sasse says we can’t mindlessly go down same path with spending people’s money. A dozen years ago, for example, President Obama irresponsibly tossed trillions into supposedly shovel-ready projects; most still can’t be found today. 

“This is not an opportunity for Washington’s connected insiders to exploit personal relationships, to put their pet projects first on things that they wouldn’t have been able to get passed if it weren’t a time of crisis. We don’t have to go down that path. Instead, we can more efficiently and more wisely spend the people’s resources,” Sasse said. “We can give our states and our governors the lead in making sure the majority of the money and the majority of the resources get where they’re most needed. We can help families and businesses keep afloat during this storm by admitting that 50 laboratories of democracy are going to be more effective than a rifle shot approach from Washington.”

The Senator is non-partisan, sentient, and correct.

Governors know their people, what their workforce needs, how to target money, and how to build public-private partnerships. Minnesota is not California, and Nebraska is not New York. Every state has unique needs that others may not. 

Polls show the least popular governors in America are still more popular than almost any DC-based Senator. There’s probably a reason. 

While state and local governments aren’t miracle workers, they have the capacity to restore companies and livelihoods to their prior economic standing better and more quickly than Washington.

No industry, company or person has an innate right to public money, no matter how severe the crisis. The principled Nikki Haley, likely already the 2024 GOP presidential frontrunner, was correct to resign her board seat late last week over Boeing’s pursuit of a government bailout. 

As an important Wall Street Journal staff editorial examined late last week:

“The politicians in Washington are telling Americans, as they always do, that they are riding to the rescue by writing checks to individuals and offering loans to business. But there is no amount of money that can make up for losses of the magnitude we are facing if this extends for several more weeks. After the first $1 trillion this month, will we have to spend another $1 trillion in April, and another in June?”

These are good questions. Bernie Sanders, who wants more and more spending and to “revolutionize” America and perhaps nationalize much of the economy, has no answers. 

Instead we receive the standard vacuous “these policies seem like socialism to me” claims from retired schoolteachers and assorted lazy lefties. 

They ignore that it’s PRIVATE companies developing a mass testing system, treatments and vaccines for coronavirus. Several private companies now have in place reliable testing systems already being mass-produced and distributed. 

A government-run “single-payer“ Bernie Sanders healthcare system is clearly not the answer in times of crisis (or normal times).

That would sap innovation, research and incentive. No cures would be found. We’d probably have millions dead already. As usual, the private sector works best for perilous moments. 

But let’s give state and local governments a shot at this before another capricious, bloated federal plan. 

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

119 Views

The big news of the past couple of weeks has been the corona virus, mostly because the Left and the media (but I repeat myself) keep talking about it. While a lot of heat surrounds President Donald Trump because of the way the Left has framed his actions and his use of the term “Chinese flu” to describe the corona virus, there is another player who needs to feel the heat a lot more than the President.

I’m speaking of China, the little country that could…be responsible for the corona virus. Of course, the Left doesn’t want you to remember that because…Orange Man Bad, I guess. But we shouldn’t take our eyes off China because they hold a lot of cards.

China

What the Left thinks it means – a country that is being unfairly maligned for the corona virus and is being used by President Trump to stoke racism and xenophobia

What it really means – a country that has a long history of shadiness

It wasn’t that long ago the media were using “Chinese flu” or “Wuhan flu” to describe the corona virus. I’m talking, say, two or three weeks ago. Now, they’re saying using “Chinese flu” is racist. (Of course, they’re not because they’re the good guys! Just ask them!) Oddly enough, it was also around this time, say two or three weeks ago, that China started saying how racist the term was.

And just like that, the Left became the official American mouthpieces of the Chinese government. Given their proclivity to hate America and especially Trump’s America, I’m guessing it didn’t take thirty pieces of silver to get them to jump.

Of course, this overlooks a tiny little detail: the first cases of the corona virus came from Wuhan, China. Whether it came from a lab or from bats is still being hotly debated, but we won’t delve into that because 1) it distracts from the main subject of this edition of the Lexicon, 2) I don’t know what to believe, so I’m staying silent, and 3) it reminds me too much of Champ Kind’s restaurant from “Anchorman 2.” Chicken of the cave, indeed!

In recent years, China built a reputation as a global economic superpower, due in no small part to having Hong Kong as well as a place for cheap products and even cheaper labor. Also, they were starting to ramp up their industrialization and using more coal and oil than they had in previous years. Now, who could be helping them with that? Could it be…Russia?

Yep.

Over the past century or so, China and Russia have been mortal enemies and convenient allies, but lately they’ve been the latter more than the former. And they both have a burning desire to see America go the way of Betamax. Having Russia and China being chummy is a bad sign, as anyone who remembers the former Soviet Union and communist China can tell you.

What is also troubling about China is the fact they own a significant portion of our national debt. All it takes for them to send us into an economic F5 that would make the 2008 mortgage crisis look like forgetting a can with a nickel deposit when you go to the recycling center. To put it more crudely, they have America by the short hairs.

Then, the corona virus happened. Not only has it caused medical and economic distress, it has exposed China as a bad faith player in global affairs. They hid the outbreak, told the world everything was under control, and downplayed the severity. Of course, they have a vested interest in lying to us because they don’t like us very much and feel no responsibility to look out for anyone but themselves.

And now, they’re blaming America for their screw-ups and the “racist” language of using “Chinese flu” or “Wuhan flu” to describe the corona virus. Nothing like a little scapegoating and virtue signalling between enemies, right? But the more information that comes out about the corona virus, the more it seems China is neck deep in the quicksand.

As I’ve said with Russia, I’ll say with China: they cannot be trusted and should treated with the Ronald Reagan “Trust but verify” approach. Given how China has bungled or mislead its way through the corona virus situation, we cannot afford to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, the Left will point to Donald Trump and say we can’t trust him because he’s lied about the corona virus. This is a diversion from the actual issue and provides cover for China while at the same time advancing an ideological end. And, for now, it seems to be striking a cord with Americans. Depending on what poll you read and/or believe, up to 60% of Americans don’t think the President has done a good job handling the corona virus. The Left hopes this will make the President easier to beat in November.

The problem is, like the corona virus, this too will pass and we will have to deal with the reality of the situation. China is still a major player in this situation, and no amount of blaming Donald Trump will change that. The sooner we can find a way to get out from under China’s thumb, the better.

Considering they’re the ones making our vaccines, that will be easier said than done. Neither the Left nor the Right have a good enough handle on China to take the steps to that end. As we’ve seen, the Left wants to be propaganda partners, while the Right wants to be business partners. In order for us to make any progress, we need leadership who understands China is as trustworthy as a Bill Clinton wedding vow. I’m not convinced President Trump quite gets it yet, but I get the feeling he’s starting to get it.

In the meantime, we should keep an eye on China and how often they lie to us in the name of national self-preservation, but we should also temper our reaction to them lying. The corona virus is no excuse for attacking people who appear to be Chinese. It’s also not an excuse to stock up on toilet paper, but here we are. And we need to focus our criticism on the Chinese government, not the people themselves. The citizens are just as much victims in this situation as we are.

But we should still mock the media and the Left for swallowing China’s lies so easily. These are the same people who call Trump supporters dumb, so any backlash they get for being taken in by China is something they’ve earned. And far be it from me to deny them the ridicule they’ve so richly deserved!

What is Socialism

142 Views

I do enjoy how the Left provides me with an endless supply of memes to debunk and ridicule.

So we will examine this one now making the rounds on various social media platforms.

The first thing that needs done is to correct the definition of socialism. We are presented with a false one at the beginning of this meme. This definition given above in the meme. Has never been the definition of socialism.

Socialism is really defined as:
1) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

2a) a system of society or group living in which there is no private ownership

2b) a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3) a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

A standard tactic in the Left playbook to control language. Thus the reason for New Speak in the book 1984. If you control the meaning of words. You can control thoughts. And the people behind those thoughts.

Since we now have the correct and true definition of Socialism. We can look at the list and remove those items that are not Socialist.

These are definitely not Socialist/Socialism:
The Military/Defense
Highways/Roads
CIA & FBI
Polio Vaccine
VA
GI Bill
Hoover Dam
Bridges
National Weather Service
Sewer System
Jail/Prison System
Court System
Health Care 9/11 Workers
State Construction
State Snow Removal
Public Street Lighting

Now these things are definitely Socialist/Socialism and should all be abolished too:
Medicare
Social Security
Public Schools
Farm Subsidies (all Subsidies to industries)
Free Lunch Program
SNAP (Food Stamps)
Unemployment Insurance (this should be in the hands of the public sector)
Medicaid
Disability Insurance (like all insurance this should be in the hands of the public sector)

The Police are a special case. As the Police are organized today, they are a socialist institution. We need to go back to our original roots of the elected Shire Reeves to keep the peace. People we can trust not those who are tax enforcement officers of the state at any level.

Now some may disagree and they are welcome to that opinion. But these are a gray areas:
Public Libraries
Fire Departments
Student Loans and Grants
EPA
Museums
Public Parks
FDA
OSHA
USDA
Town/State Run Beaches

That sums up the list on the meme itself. Not everything on it is socialist at all. Some things are of course. And that is how the Left attempts to deceive you.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

141 Views

As the dust from Super Tuesday settles, there are still matters to be resolved, as in picking which of the remaining members of the Democrat Clown Car gets to run against President Donald Trump in November. However, there is a common thread within the Left that has been making the rounds as we get closer to Election Day: Trump has to go.

As with all great (and not-so-great) things in modern America, it started with a hashtag, #votebluenomatterwho. The idea, much like the people who seem to be putting the hashtag on anything they Tweet from political observations to tuna noodle casserole recipes, is simple. No matter who the Democrat candidate is, the Left has to unite behind that candidate if he or she (but most likely he) is to beat President Trump. As a rallying cry, it’s effective. It’s short, has a nice cadence to it, and you can dance to it.

So, put on your dancing shoes and read along (unless you get motion sickness, then you don’t have to do both simultaneously) as we delve into the Twitterverse again.

#votebluenomatterwho

What the Left thinks it means – a slogan to unite Leftist voters behind any and all Democrat/Leftist candidates in November 2020

What it really means – a slogan that encourages lazy knee-jerk thinking to benefit the Left

Back in the good old days when men were men and women were men and everybody was really confused, we didn’t have political parties. We just has people considering the facts of an issue, weighing their beliefs against the beliefs of public officials, and voting for the best candidate. Then, somebody came up with the idea people couldn’t be trusted to do all of that, so political parties were born, or spawned from the depths of Hell if you prefer. Nowadays, all you need to know about a candidate is if he or she had a D or an R behind his/her name to determine whether the candidate gets your vote. It’s made things simpler, for sure, but it’s also made us simpler in the process.

Somewhere along the line, we were told if we belonged to Party A, Party B was less trustworthy than CNN’s reporting, and those were your only two choices. That’s like saying the only two ice cream choices are chocolate or vanilla. And if you decided to vote for, say, Rocky Road, you were throwing your vote away or, even worse, your vote other than for chocolate or vanilla was actually a vote for chocolate or vanilla. (Yes, folks, that’s just as stupid as it sounds.)

Well, the #votebluenomatterwho comes from the minds of those who came up with the idea that not voting for one of the two major parties means you voted for one of them. It’s a nice little shortcut that takes the pressure of getting informed before voting for a candidate off your shoulders, so now all you have to do is go to the voting booth and pull the lever, mark the box, or touch the screen so only Democrats get your vote. Or you can make it easier and just assume room temperature. Then, you don’t even have to come back from the dead to vote because the Left will do that for you!

Meanwhile, we the living (an interesting and depressing book by Ayn Rand that’s worth at least one read-through, by the way) are left to figure out why we should follow the hashtag’s instructions in the first place. Are Democrats/Leftists better capable of addressing matters of state? Not really, as evidenced by the Iowa and Nevada Democrat caucuses this year. The fact they made a simple process of counting votes into a living modern art piece that not even the participants fully understand should disqualify any Democrat/Leftist from ever holding office higher than city librarian, and that’s with the added stipulation that they are closely supervised so they don’t eat and/or sniff the glue. And if that isn’t enough justification for you, let me point out that of the handful of candidates remaining, only two of them can remotely be considered mentally stable enough to assume the Presidency, and one of those is Joe Biden. In a race where your safe candidate is a guy who at any moment could start a nuclear strike because he thought the red launch button was an Easy Button from Staples, you know you’re screwed.

That underscores one of the major flaws in the idea behind the hashtag: it assumes the eventual candidate can’t do any worse than Donald Trump. Given the folks still vying for the Democrat nomination, that’s a pretty big assumption.

Another major flaw in the #votebluenomatterwho is it buys into the two-party idea. I haven’t always voted for Republicans or Democrats, but when I have it’s because I believe the candidate was the better person for the job. As I’ve gotten older and much more cynical about the two-party system, I’ve decided to keep the voting-for-the-best-person part of my strategy and dumped the party model altogether. And I’m proud to say I’ve written in candidates when I wasn’t convinced anyone else on the ballot was up to the task. If you want to vote for a Democrat/Leftist for President, go for it, but do it because you think he or she is worthy of your vote. If you still have qualms, don’t just relent in the hopes the next talking head with delusions of adequacy can do the job. In the end, the only way anyone is going to know who you voted for is if you tell him or her. That’s the beauty of a private ballot: you’re not required to report on your vote and justify it. This isn’t the former Soviet Union where your choices were a Communist who already had the job and a different Communist who wanted the job and the Party made sure you voted for one or the other. You can vote for who you want. If you hate Trump and hate the eventual Democrat candidate, seek out the other parties’ candidates and see if you like them or even just hate them less. Then, the only one you have to be accountable to is yourself.

This last major flaw, and this is a big one, is it strips away voters’ freedom to choose. For an ideology that claims to love choice, the Left gets mighty prickly if your choice isn’t what they want. Now, consider how many women vote for Leftists because of abortion on the basis of “my body, my choice.” Well, if it’s a woman’s body and a woman’s choice, why should she be forced to vote for a Democrat? If you think she’s perfectly capable of terminating the life of a child inside her womb, you can’t turn around and say she’s not capable of deciding on who to vote for, and of the two scenarios, only one guarantees the death of one of the participants. Take a break from your Handmaid’s Tale cosplay and try to reason this out. Or, if you don’t mind spoilers, you can’t, not because you’re not capable of doing it, but because it makes zero logical sense. It’s infantilizing women to think they can’t make up their own minds about whether to vote for a candidate. Why vote blue if you lean more Green, as it were? And why should anyone, let alone women, be subjected to the No True Scotsman of ideological litmus tests?

While the Left tweets #votebluenomatterwho as a means to rally the troops, it’s something far harder to justify and remain consistent. Then again, if the Left worried about being consistent, they would have dumped the lot of the candidates they had running in the first place. 

The Real Losers of Super Tuesday

212 Views

With Super Tuesday rapidly becoming a thankfully fleeting memory, political pundits (and cranky curmudgeons like yours truly) are naming winners and losers. One of the more prominent losers, however, isn’t being discussed, mainly because I don’t think the people who get paid the big bucks to come up with tepid takes with good PR have even considered it.

I’m talking about progressivism.

Whether it was in the Presidential race or local races, progressives took a beating up and down the ticket, even in California where you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a progressive, self-professed or otherwise. Or if you’re a member of PETA…you’d be providing the dead cats.

One race that really stood out for me because of who was involved was the race to replace former Representative and nude hairdressing aficionado Katie Hill. Among the candidates was founder of The Young Turks and progressive internet celebrity, Cenk Uygur. If you listen to him (and to be fair, why would you), he was the progressive candidate in the race. He talked the talk, walked, the walk, and promptly wound up getting stomped by his Democrat opponent…and two Republican candidates. Mr. Super Progressive pulled down 5% of the vote. Put another way, I didn’t even run and I came within the margin of error of tying and/or beating him.

And again, this is in California.

If that doesn’t signal how disliked progressivism has become, we can look at the Super Tuesday results. Of the active Democrat candidates at the time, two of them (Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) were the clear progressive choices. And how many states did they win?

Zero. Zilch. Nada. Goose egg. The big donut/bagel. One fewer than Michael Bloomberg.

Up and down the ticket, progressives saw defeat after defeat. Even candidates backed by the Socialist Socialite couldn’t propel them to victory. And now other progressives like the aforementioned Uygur and Representative Ilhan Omar (who just happens to be a vocal and visual Sanders supporter) are offering up excuses. It was the media! It was the lack of a unified progressive movement! It was comments taken out of context! It was everything and anything except for the real reason progressives lost.

Progressivism isn’t that popular.

When I think of progressives these days, there are two ideas that come to mind. One is they tend to be more grassroots and people-driven than the Democrats. And two is they’re bat-crap insane. Where they excel in the former is on social media. Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook (to some degree) are filled with progressives expressing themselves to the masses and getting noticed. You can’t log on without seeing someone you know retweeting a hashtag or putting it in a post or message to show you and the world how they feel about an issue.

The problem is social media isn’t the real world. The best way I can describe it is social media is like the elementary school playground where you can find any number of ways to get attention. Hanging upside down on the monkey bars, eating worms, or getting into fights will get you noticed and may keep you popular for a time, but eventually the novelty wears off. Pretty soon nobody cares how many worms you eat because there’s another kid on the other side of the playground who eats bugs. And eventually no one cares about what you eat because they’ve all grown up and figured out new ways to get and maintain popular status, like having a cool car or being good in sports or having a lot of money.

Right now, progressives are still on the playground hanging out with themselves because everyone else “sold out”, i.e. grew up. And instead of taking the hint and figuring out what type of car gets the most attention, they’re clinging to those bug/worm eating days as though they were the best years of their lives. (If Greta Thunberg gets her way, though, you folks will be totally cool again!) Meanwhile, those who gave up that kind of life to enter into a more adult environment are doing well, or at least not sucking as much as progressives have. And that makes progressives mad, mad enough to want to tear down what Democrats have built just so everyone will be equally miserable.

And that makes for great content for me, so…I guess it’s a win-win.

In the meantime, progressives will be on edge after Super Tuesday put a major kink in their plans to take over the Democrats and may lack the introspection to realize why they failed. Oh, they’ll have reasons, but none will be the right one because they don’t want to admit their ideas, and subsequently they, aren’t as popular as their echo chamber says they are. Until they realize where they went wrong, we will be in for a lot more progressive tantrums.

But, like I said, more content!

Super Thursday Results

143 Views

Former Vice President Joe Biden has taken the lead in the delegate count in the Democratic Party nomination race over Senator Bernie Sanders.

The next vote will be on March 10th. But right now it looks like none of the candidates will have the 1991 delegate majority needed to win the nomination without the Superdelegates voting.

This is of course the nail in the coffin of Senator Sanders’ hope at getting the nomination by delegate count. The DNC will not give the nomination to someone who isn’t really a member of the Democratic Party. And the establishment choice is Mr. Biden.

So here is my early congratulations to Mr. Biden, the Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2020 election.

The question becomes who will be Biden’s running mate. And will Senator Sanders again submit to the DNC choice like he did in 2016 or will he run as an independent candidate for President with his supporters.

2020 will be an interesting election for sure. A three-way race would be something to talk about. But I’m just going to go ahead and congratulate President Trump on winning the election to his 2nd term as President of the United States.

An Observation

164 Views

Every organization gets fringe members. These members are generally those who are the most visible, the loudest, and even the most aggressive. At times they can actually benefit a movement, but in the end, they are more destructive than helpful.

There comes a time in the life of every movement that they need to face the facts that the fringe members have reached a point of critical mass. And action needs to be taken.

Actions can be allowing the fringe to become the mainstream and driving force of the organization. Determining the agenda and direction the organization takes going forward. Of course this means that the original base becomes the minority and maybe totally ignored.

The movement may attempt to censure or punish the fringe members. To bring them back inline with the movements primary goals. This is not always successful and to those outside of the movement. The fringe is still the movement.

Lastly the organization can split. This creates 2 or more organizations. Sometimes with opposing views against their former allies. This does however preserve the original organizations primary goals and purpose. It also disassociates the fringe from the organization as well. Which can boost public opinion.

Historically, most movements will do either the first or last of these options. They are the most successful and have the best benefits. But it depends on a lot of factors.

This time of critical mass has arrived for not just one but for two organizations within American society. And it seems that the fringe in both of these will take over the original organization. Displacing the core base of both to their detriment.

The first is the Democratic Party that has a loud and growing powerful Socialist fringe. They are just one election away from the destruction of the original Democratic Party and being replaced by pure Socialists with a hatred for all things American.

The second is the LGB movement. Now called the LGBTQ+, which has allowed the fringe TQ+ elements to take over their movement and prove correct all the fears mainstream society ever voiced about them.

Do either of these organizations take back control or do they let the fringe define them going forward.

“A yearn to quell the Bern” – Guest Opinion by Ari Kaufman

191 Views

After his 30-point primary loss Saturday in South Carolina, and considering relatively low turnout in earlier states, people are not “coming out in large numbers” for Bernie Sanders. He is apparently not “bringing in new voters,” as he often shouts. 

Perhaps the do-nothing senator has too many toxic radicals — the infamously misogynistic Bernie Bros; Jew haters like Marc Lamont Hill, Ilhan Omar, Al Sharpton, Rashida Tlaib, Cornel West and more  — supporting his campaign, harassing political opponents and throwing tantrums when their idol is criticized.

When Sanders constantly bemoans bigotry, he should look at the fringe company he keeps and the tyrants he’s praised around the globe. 

Of course he recently denied all these troubling issues, since Sanders often avoids facts like he ignores the limitless cost of his programs. He says “Russian bots” are the ones spewing hatred. But as James Kirchick recently explained in Tablet magazine:

“Such unpleasant behavior is an inherent function of his brand of holier-than-thou utopianism. If you’re running on a platform decrying our country’s entire political, economic, and social system as rotten to the core, if you believe that America’s world role has almost exclusively been for the bad, and that wildly better alternatives are easily available, then anyone who opposes your promised penny-ante nirvana becomes complicit in terrible evil.” 

It should be reiterated that Sanders has the same preposterous views as when he lived on a secular Israeli kibbutz more than a half-century ago. 

He once claimed, “We could wipe out economic hardship almost overnight. The problem is that the great wealth and potential of this country rests with a handful of people.”

Familiar rhetoric? Most of us know banal hard-left apologists akin to Sanders who excuse despots and value victimization over achievement; his rallies are full of ne’er-do-wells who believe America is a terrible place, but none of his ilk has been this close to the Oval Office.

He also repeatedly deems America a “racist society.” This is mendacious and offensive.

As Bill O’Reilly, who rarely makes overtly partisan statements on candidates, wrote last week:

“To buy into Sanders’ irresponsible statement, you must also believe that the United States’ social system, by design and execution, denies the equal pursuit of happiness to millions of its citizens based on skin color. There is absolutely no factual basis to support that heinous point of view. Yes, individual bias exists, but to allege it is national policy is a lie. And Bernie Sanders embraces that lie.”

O’Reilly claims Sanders, nearing age 80, and with a recent heart attack to boot, is the most dangerous person to run for President in his lifetime. Those supporting him, per the former Fox News host, “are enabling a dangerous point of view that would directly harm me and my family.”

He’s right. More conservatives, moderates, and every day Americans should speak out. I said this five years ago. And the Vermont Senator must be stopped now. 

Democrat candidates instead dithered and balked on exposing their new thought leader for over a year, set up an absurd primary calendar, and allowed way too much early voting. It’s been pitiful to witness. 

Contradicting ongoing theories, the DNC also did everything to accommodate the aggrieved socialist this election cycle. They changed the rules for 2020 — even though he agreed to the 2016 version — so Sanders got exactly what he wanted with chaotic direct democracy and more. Now this career politician complains? He is a pathetic hypocrite and playing the victim.

The next 36-48 hours are crucial. With Pete Buttigieg dropping out Sunday night, Joe Biden and Mike Bloomberg — a combined 155 years old — are the last chance for Democrats, a party of octogenarian white men.

Otherwise, Donald Trump, a President with mediocre debating skills, a short attention span, a deficit of small government principles, and a propensity to speak admiringly of Sanders’ populism, may be our last chance to do so; Democrats, meanwhile, either agree with Sanders or are too feckless to make cogent arguments any sensible 7th grader could to expose the vacuous authoritarian.

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

149 Views

Politics isn’t touch football, as recent Presidential campaigns have shown. When you decide to run for President, your life goes under the microscope so your opponents know where to attack you for maximum effect.

With Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, that seems pretty easy, but the Left can’t quite bring themselves to attack him directly on substantive matters. Instead, the focus is on his supporters, colloquially called “Bernie Bros.” Not every Bernie supporter is the same, but there seems to be a common thread with the Bernie Bros that doesn’t help the candidate nor make the Left look good.

Which is why I’m bringing it up in this week’s Leftist Lexicon!

Bernie Bros

What the Left thinks it means – a group of primarily male Bernie Sanders supporters who act like violent, racist, misogynistic goons whenever anyone criticizes their candidate

What it really means – a group of Bernie Sanders supporters acting like, well, Leftists

Recent populist Leftist movements seemingly come from diverse backgrounds, but beyond the outer wrapper, they share many traits, ranging from a belief capitalism has failed worse than Joe Biden’s ability to know what state he’s in to universal health care to a $15 per hour minimum wage, even suggesting the rich in this country should be held accountable for economic inequality. Some groups like ANTIFA or Occupy Wall Street don’t publicize all of their beliefs, but they’re there in the fine print.

So, which candidate of the past few years has found a way to coalesce the various groups with the same or similar beliefs? Why, it’s Bernie Sanders, America’s favorite Grandpa (next to Grandpas Jones, Simpson, and Munster, of course)! And with that combination of grassroots support comes the various negatives of said groups. You know, like violence, sexism, and general buffoonery?

This is not to say all Bernie supporter act like the Bernie Bros. Many are good people who just want a new direction and fairness for all across the board. (Oddly enough, many of them also haven’t passed Econ 101, but that’s not important right now.) As with any group of political supporters, there are going to be scumbags and bad hombres. Donald Trump has them, Joe Biden has them, even Hillary Clinton had them. (This latter group was called “Hillary’s 2016 Presidential Campaign Staff.”) And now Bernie has them, thanks to the Bernie Bros.

And just like with ANTIFA and Occupy Wall Street, the Left has little or nothing to say about the Bernie Bros because these group represent potential Leftist voters. So, they plead ignorance or try to deflect the criticism by invoking Donald Trump and MAGA supporters who “did worse.” The problem is…well, the Bernie Bros have not only done worse, but more frequently and with larger political implications. The Left paints Trump supporters like uneducated troglodytes who are threatened by anything that could interfere with their ways of life. They’re set in their ways and have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a better (i.e. progressive) future. In some cases, the Left has Trump supporters pegged. Now, what if I told you the Bernie Bros are a variation on that theme?

Bernie Bros have verbally attacked women, blacks, gays, and others who either disagree directly with Bernie’s positions or who don’t actively agree with them. They paint anyone who isn’t slurping the Kool Aid like the enemy. There is no middle ground with them; it’s their way or the highway.

Hmmm…sounds eerily like…the way the Left describes Trump supporters! Dun dun DUNNNNNNNNN!

The politically damaging part comes at the ballot box. The more Bernie Bros act up and get called out on it, the harder it gets for Bernie to gain traction in the communities affected by the Bernie Bros’ behavior. If the choice in November is between Trump and Sanders, there will be a number of voters in the aforementioned blocs that would either not vote or vote for someone other than Bernie. If the former occurs, it hurts Democrats down ticket by siphoning votes away from preferred candidates. Want to keep the House and take the Senate and White House in November? That ain’t the way to do it!

On a larger scale, the Bernie Bros present a unique challenge. As much as the Left tries to brush boorish behavior by trustworthy Leftists under the rug, they really can’t do that with the Bernie Bros. For one, the Left still doesn’t understand internet and social media culture as well as they think. Just having a Twitter handle and an Instagram account doesn’t make you PewDiePie. Just because you have the tools doesn’t mean you know how to use them, and as we’ve seen with the 2020 Democratic Clown Car, they’re treating everything like a nail (which would be great if their only tools were hammers, but they’re packing Whiffle bats).

To his credit, Sanders has disavowed supporters who treat others poorly (albeit he didn’t call them out by name like President Trump did with white supremacists). But until the Bernie Bros realize the jerks he was disavowing were themselves, they aren’t going to change, and the Left isn’t going to make them because they value the White House more than the rhetorical structural integrity of their platform. No matter how much the Left hates Donald Trump, it’s hard to defeat him when the guy running against him has supporters who actively dissent from stated Leftist ideology when it suits their needs.

Leftists not being good long-term thinkers. Who saw that coming?

In the meantime, it will be interesting to watch Bernie Sanders simultaneously support progressive causes while accepting support from people whose support for said causes are tied more to him than to the causes themselves. Bernie Bros aren’t the albatross around his neck; they’re the millstone around the neck of the albatross around his neck, and Bernie’s wearing cement galoshes.