Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

160 Views

One of the most striking elements to Leftist ideology is how strident you have to be to follow it. Any deviation from the hivemind turns you into an evil right-winger. Just ask Kanye West. On second thought, don’t. That would require talking and listening to him, and I believe that may be against the Geneva Convention or, at the very least, any concept of sanity.

The latest victim of this stridency is Tim Alberta, a man who is not only named after a Canadian province I’ve visited, but also was tapped to be a moderator for an upcoming Democratic Presidential debate. At least, until it was found out Alberta worked for National Review, a…conservative magazine! DUN DUN DUNNNNNNN! The reason the DNC gave for their objection is they didn’t feel Alberta had the right “ideological credentials” to moderate the debate.

Yep, that’s a new one on me, but at least it gives me a topic for this week’s Lexicon!

ideological credentials

What the Left thinks it means – certification of one’s beliefs and whether they correspond with the right beliefs

What it really means – non-ironic discrimination to protect Leftist fee-fees

If anyone wants to debate the media don’t lean Left, ask them to explain this bullshit. The fact the DNC could even make this complaint in the first place tells us they’re waaaaaay too comfy with the media. But that’s a blog for another time.

The entire concept of ideological credentials is absurd because it sets a requirement that shouldn’t even be in question…because it shouldn’t be there. Journalists and reporters used to be taught to hide any biases they have on a subject in an attempt to achieve a balanced accounting of what happened. That went out the window decades ago when the journalism profession started being DNC stenographers and the higher-ups allowed it.

Being a debate moderator is different than being a reporter, though. There are additional responsibilities, like…asking questions concerning issues? Totes different!

Seriously, a biased debate moderator can be detrimental to a candidate. That reminds me, where is Candy Crowley these days? I haven’t seen her since she…conducted an erroneous fact check against Mitt Romney…during a Presidential debate in 2012. But I’m sure it was okay because ideological credentials.

The problem with this line of thinking is Alberta was tapped to be a moderator at a debate for Democrat candidates only. These are men and women who want to be the President of the United States, so they might have to deal with opinions and positions other than their own. And, now hear me out, they might have to make tough decisions as President. If you’re afraid of a question from someone outside your ideological bubble, you really aren’t ready for being the leader of the free world.

But the ideological credentials argument isn’t about fitness for office; it’s about protecting the ideology from being exposed on issues that matter to Americans. On the surface, the Left’s positions seem reasonable, but a little critical thought makes those positions seem as reasonable as making Charlie Sheen our Drug Czar. That’s why the Left has to hide their policy endgames. Once people do a little bit of digging, their perfect plans to fix everything from healthcare to the common cold wind up getting ruined.

And here’s the greatest irony of all. By invoking ideological credentials against Alberta, the Left has created a political precedent that will come back to bite them. First, the Democrat candidates by and large are trying to show voters how they’re different from President Donald Trump. And what is a common knock against Trump? He’s too thin-skinned and can’t take being challenged. So, what does that say about the candidates who go along with the DNC’s ideological credentials argument? It tells your humble correspondent they’re not that different from Trump after all.

Second, it gives the President and the RNC the perfect excuse to exclude the Left’s media foot soldiers when it comes to Presidential debates. After all, by excluding a moderator with one notable conservative credential in his past, the DNC has made it okay to raise Hell about any of the potential debate moderators for their ideological biases. Well, there goes, say, 99% of the available talking heads out there. Then again, would that necessarily be a loss?

The biggest knock on the ideological credentials idea is it presumes one cannot change his or her political leanings over time. That is short-sighted and wrong. Over time, people can and do change their minds about issues and even entire ways of thinking. (I’m one of them. As is Leftist favorite David Brock.) To be fair, I haven’t read much of Alberta’s work, so I can’t tell where he is on the ideological teeter-totter. Having said that, contributing to National Review shouldn’t be a determining factor of how good or fair of a moderator he will be, let alone the sole determining factor.

So, let’s not pretend the DNC’s complaint about ideological credentials has any weight. Let’s just call it for what it is: an excuse to avoid having potential Presidential candidates answer questions tougher than “What’s your favorite ice cream flavor?”




Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

132 Views

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

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

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

impeachment inquiry

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

What it really means – much ado about something or other

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

255 Views

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The former president’s words stand true today:

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

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

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

240 Views

When you consider the clown car of Democrats running for President right now, there are some names that come to mind. Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren, for example. Somewhere further down the list is Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii. To put it mildly, she’s not quite as entrenched in Leftist ideology as most of the people in the clown car with her. In other words, she has her head out of her ass.

Recently, Ms. Gabbard gave a speech at the “She The People” conference where she was attacked, not by conservatives, but by Leftists including the Women’s March because she…refused to call herself a woman of color. If that isn’t grounds for her to be drummed out of the country, I don’t know…what in the blue hell the Left is thinking! At any rate, we have an opportunity to delve deeper into the concept of people of color.

people of color

What the Left thinks it means – groups of diverse individuals whose experiences should be recognized and celebrated

What it really means – another way for Leftists to separate people

The Left loves to break down Americans into labels they determine and, thus, control. In the Leftist hive-mind, every person is the sum total of their parts: race, gender, gender identity, economic status, and so on. Once they figure out what constitutes you, they take this information and create concepts intended to appeal to those different elements of who you are and make you into Leftists.

And for the most part it works, but not always. So, what happens when you refuse to abide by the Left’s interpretations of what you should be? They “otherize” you. It’s like you don’t exist, or they try to make you feel you like you shouldn’t. Just ask Tulsi Gabbard.

The funny thing is the only diversity the Left doesn’t care about is ideological. Although Gabbard is not the second coming of Ronald Reagan by any stretch of the imagination, she is more conservative than Leftists like. The fact she didn’t mention anything about her own status as a woman of color at the She The People event is one of the smartest things she could have done because it shows she doesn’t subscribe to the concept of using that status to advance her political career.

But not to Leftists. The fact she is a woman of color means, in Leftist thinking, she has to make it the focal point of her entire being. And because Gabbard isn’t doing that, the Left sees it as a betrayal of all women of color. After all, if a woman of color breaks off from what the Left thinks women of color should be, it might…inspire others to follow suit. And once that happens, they might…stop voting for Leftists! And we can’t have that, can we?

To borrow a phrase from a certain former President, yes we can.

The Left’s strengthening by division only works if you don’t feel you have any power to affect your life in any way. Once you realize what kind of power you have, the Left’s promises don’t look so good, especially when you have to give up your individualism to fit in. And there’s no guarantee you will stay in the Left’s good graces, even if you do everything they say and think the way they do.

Just like Tulsi Gabbard.

The thing is people of color don’t need to fixate on their race to get ahead, and conservatives don’t want them to. They just want you to pull your own weight. If you do that, you’re cool to the Right And most of the time, they won’t tell you what to say and do. They’re too busy working to bother with running your life.

I don’t care what you call yourself or how you self-identify, but just know that when you do, you’re purposely separating yourself from the rest of the world. That will build walls where they may not be needed and keep us separated as a country. Be proud of who you are, but don’t let it become your totality. I want you to expand your horizons, not because it hurts Leftists, but because it will make you a better person.

And when you really think about it, we’re all people of color. So, why would it matter what color you are? In short, it doesn’t. Only to people who wish to control you think it matters. But here’s the kicker. The Leftists attacking Tulsi Gabbard for not identifying as a woman of color when it’s clear she would be considered as such shows their commitment to diversity isn’t even skin deep.

And it also shows how clueless the Left has become.

Lattes and Leftists

112 Views

Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks, announced recently he is running for President in 2020. You would think Leftists would be happy (or at least less pissy than they usually are), but they’re not. Yes, dear reader, Leftists are unhappy that the CEO of the Mocha Mecca of Leftist ideology is running for the highest office of the land because…they don’t think he’ll win. To be fair, though, I could have been just as accurate if I had stopped after “think” in the previous sentence.

The Left is doing their best to make Schultz as unappealing as possible within their ideological bubble, up to and including inventing conspiracy theories about why he’s really running. The most popular one (and the one that is debunked with a little bit of research) is that Schultz running will mean Donald Trump will win reelection by splitting votes on the Left. The main problem with this idea is creates a built-in excuse for the Democrats if their candidate doesn’t win, but it doesn’t address the problem: maybe their candidate sucks on ice. For all the people who blame Ralph Nader for siphoning votes away from Al Gore, I don’t think many of them stopped for a moment and considered Gore could have been less like an animatronic display at Disney’s Hall of Presidents and more like an actual President and been more popular, or possibly even adopted some of Nader’s positions as a means to undercut Nader’s popularity.

But that would require insight and honesty not available in the current model of Leftist.

And that’s exactly what Schultz is bringing to the table. He’s been described as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, meaning he knows how to make money and then piss it away again. He hasn’t adopted some of the current Leftist must-haves, like support for Medicare for All (a plan that would make Obamacare look like a well-oiled machine, or at least a website that worked), and he’s made an appeal to the right of many of the current Leftist darlings, like Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. That means the Left hates him. Well, that, and the fact he’s a billionaire who isn’t “paying his fair share” or “paying his dues” by running for a lower office first.

Of course, all of these excuses hold less water than a bucket made of air.

The real reason the Left is attacking Schultz is because he left their utopia. In earlier statements, he has lamented how far left the Left has gotten and expressed how he no longer identifies with them. The Left may not want to admit this, but Schultz’s story rings true to a lot of people, and that means more potential voters for his campaign. It’s not exactly a secret that the current incarnation of the Left is driving away or at least muting the voices of more moderates and right-leaning Democrats, so a Schultz candidacy might do what Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, and Bernie Sanders couldn’t do: put a public end to the notion the only two choices are Democrats and Republicans.

And that scares Leftists shitless.

Once people break out of the two-party concept, it leaves people of all political stripes the freedom to choose someone who more closely aligns with their beliefs if it isn’t a Democrat or a Republican. As much as the Left loves to talk about choice, the only choice they support is one they agree with (or can make money from).

I, on the other hand, welcome Mr. Schultz to the Presidential arena/clown car. In fairness to him, I will listen to what he has to say and determine if he’s worthy of my support. I may disagree with much of his platform, but I won’t know until I hear him out, something the Left doesn’t want me to do. And instead of focusing on trivial matters, like whether he’s really self-made, I want to ask the important questions.

Like how he justifies paying $5 for a large cup of coffee flavored milk that tastes like the beans were roasted in Mt. Vesuvius.