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. 

We can, but let’s not

238 Views

Leftist memes all have one thing in common. A deliberate noted false premise or conclusion. So in this article we will examine another one from Social Media and expose the fraud within it.

This particular one has a lot of incorrect language usages. This is a tactic of the Left. They change the meanings of words to control the thoughts and minds of the common people. We will correct some of these first before diving into the meme as a whole.

Healthcare is not the same thing as health insurance. Unfortunately these two terms are used interchangeably due to the manipulation by the Left. Healthcare is receiving medical attention when required due to illness or injury. While health insurance is the usual method used for payment of the healthcare that was received.

So with that correction to the language lets expose the Leftist fraud presented in the meme.

Other countries, places that don’t have the same values or culture, have socialist and non-socialist aspects. Among these aspects are universal health insurance, this is taxpayer funded without the private sector. Instead of a board of directors determining the payouts to medical professionals the legislature determines what the payouts will be to them. And even who gets care as its not worth the taxpayer’s money to fund a transplant to an elderly patient. This has happened in these other countries that have universal health insurance.

I am opposed because I don’t want my taxes used to fund the poor health and lifestyle choices of someone else. It was their choices that lead to events of poor health or injury. They need to pay it themselves.

Higher education, aka “college”, which isn’t always necessary in some industries is again paid through taxation in the “free college” of other countries. This means that little Jimmy down the road gets to go to whatever college he wants to attend and my tax money pays for it. Even if I don’t have children. Why am I paying for his education?

The other 3 points on this meme are misleading. In the United States we have paid vacations, paid maternity leave, and multiple political parties. Why are they here? To mislead the reader in thinking that they don’t exist and the Left is always out to divide and conquer.

The amount of time and qualifications for paid vacations and maternity leave are determined by your employer. This is based on a ton of different factors that generally are unknown to the average person who doesn’t run a business. And if you don’t like what your employer is offering then you can do something about that. You can attempt to negotiate to a more desired outcome, you can get another employer that offers the desired benefits, or even go into business yourself and set your own terms.

As to the multiple political parties. We have those already. Now the United States has what some call a 2 party system but that is misleading. We have, by tradition, only 2 major parties. And we have had them since the beginning but we aren’t limited to those parties

They have come and gone and that can be an article of its own at a future date. But multiple parties exist. If you favor one over the majors by all means support it. Run for office under it. Get it out there so it can grow. Maybe it will become more mainstream that way. It takes work, time, and people to grow a political party. Create the momentum and see what you can do with it.

And lastly we aren’t propagandized or convinced that we can’t have socialist aspects here. We already have many of them and just don’t want any more. Socialism doesn’t work. History is the best teacher of this fact. Every other country that has embraced socialism has caused the death of its own people. Lowered the standard of living and created poverty on wide scale. It crushed individual freedoms and liberty.

There is a reason why the United States is the richest and most powerful nation on Earth. We have avoided most aspects of socialism instead of embracing them. Let’s keep it that way.

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. 

Human Lies against Klingons

201 Views

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

This is not evidence of Klingons having trans rights.

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

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

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

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

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

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Bloodshed

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!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

192 Views

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

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

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

fair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

549 Views

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bernfire

231 Views

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

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

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

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

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