Month: September 2020

The Debate

The first debate is over between the President and the Democratic proxy nominee. And at best it was a draw.

President Trump is a “doer”. He doesn’t like to see wasted time. This comes from his decades in business. And unfortunately that doesn’t play well in the world of politics where time wasting is a grand tradition.

So instead of doing the prudent thing and letting Mr. Biden speak without interrupting and thus hanging himself. The President interrupted him (and vise versa) multiple times. Thus allowing the Mr. Biden to recollect his disconnected thoughts and carry on instead of mentally floundering in front of the American public.

This will be one of the President’s biggest hurtles in the next 2 debates. Fortunately the President is coachable and listens to constructive criticism. I hope he gets the coaching he needs on this issue and takes it to heart. It will be tough for him since this aspect of politics goes against his “doer” personality.

Mr. Biden out right lied on multiple occasions. Refused to support law and order. And then tossed his Leftist support base under the bus.

The President on the other hand didn’t condemn the false ideology of racism. He has done so in the past and should have done so again last night. Of course the way Chris Wallace stated it made the entirety of the Right as racist which isn’t true at all. There isn’t a single Right ideology that is racist. They are all on the Left.

The President didn’t go on his record of promises made and promises kept. Yes he hasn’t kept all of them, hell he was fighting against the Left from the moment he announced his candidacy and that fight is still on going it’s hard to win battles when you are constantly under siege.

President Trump did make some blunders during this debate. It was hard and painful to watch them unfold. I hope that with some good coaching from his re-election team he will do better in the next one.

These debates rarely impact any candidate’s base. For the most part those that support President Trump will still vote for him. Despite this fiasco of a debate. However Mr. Biden might have a shift in support since he told his Leftist base he didn’t support what they wanted.

But for those that are still sitting on the fence, that is were the debates can sway a vote in one direction or another. This debate didn’t help them at all. No one won.

The President’s Taxes

What we are seeing with the released income tax information of President Trump is exactly why the present system doesn’t work. Our current system of income tax creates far more issues than it ever solves. And it took a Constitutional amendment in order to even enact it.

The taxation of income is morally wrong. It wastes taxpayer money on enforcement and compliance. It is unfair to the working class and poor. It is over complicated. It has been weaponized against political opponents. And the list goes on and on.

As for the President’s taxes. I don’t care. It isn’t an issue. His income is his business and not mine or yours. Unless you have envy in your heart and covet his wealth. The President’s taxes have nothing to do with how well he will be president or is fit for the job.

Due to our current tax code. President Trump doesn’t do his own taxes. He hires professionals to do that who find all the possible exceptions he can take. Thus reducing his tax burden to mere pennies. I say good for him. I would do the same thing if it was within my means to do so.

This isn’t an impeachable offense at all. This is following the current tax laws and having it benefit the taxpayer. Anyone is able to do this if they either know the tax laws themselves or hire the appropriate professionals. This isn’t an issue with the President. This is an issue with the current tax code.

If you don’t like that the President paid only $750 in taxes. Have the law changed. Abolish the IRS and get the FairTax going. Then you get to keep all of your paycheck and don’t have to report any of it to the government. Or get a better tax professional.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Every so often, a phrase comes along that encompasses a political issue while simultaneously meaning little or nothing at all. This week, the phrase is “peaceful transfer of power.” It seems the Left has been floating an idea that if President Donald Trump doesn’t win the Presidential election this year he won’t leave office like he’s supposed to. Where they got that idea, I don’t know, but the President didn’t do himself any favors by giving a non-committal answer to the question when it was presented to him by a hack…I mean Playboy‘s correspondent in the White House Press Corps.

On second thought, I’m going to stick with hack.

The concept of a peaceful transfer of power isn’t a new one, but since it’s 2020, it might as well be the latest source of outrage within the Left. And a Leftist Lexicon entry to boot!

peaceful transfer of power

What the Left thinks it means – a President leaving the White House with dignity and respect for the outcome of an election

What it really means – the outgoing President acting like an adult instead of a whiny bitch

The concept of a peaceful transition of power has been tradition from George Washington on up to modern times. Then, Leftists had to go and upturn the Presidential apple cart in 2000 after George W. Bush beat Al Gore by actually winning the Electoral College vote. Instead of going the route of a graceful loser, they decided it would be a good idea to wreck a few things in the White House before W had a chance to fill out a change of address card. Granted, it was only $15,000 of damage, but it’s not the only thing that was damaged.

After George W. Bush left office, there were no allegations of damage to the White House or sabotage or even a cross word between the outgoing and incoming Administration. And this after W was accused of being Hitler. Hmmm…maybe it’s not just trash the Left believes in recycling. Nah, it’s still trash.

Before Barack Obama left office, members of the FBI (which falls under the Executive Branch in the hierarchy) started to take action against then-candidate Trump in an attempt to undercut his campaign. One debunked dossier, a few million taxpayer dollars spent on a Special Prosecutor, a farce of an impeachment trial, and a billion talking points later, the Left still hasn’t accepted the results of the 2016 election and are hell-bent on making it impossible for there to be a peaceful transfer of power.

Now, some Leftists are going to imply since there was no violence, there was a peaceful transfer of power. Coming from the side that says both silence and a lack of using the correct pronouns is violence, they should take a few seats. Like, say, all of them at Soldier Field. The point is there wasn’t a peaceful transfer of power because there was and still is active resistance to the transfer. From Lisa Page and Peter Strzok playing hide the salami while looking for an “insurance policy” that you can’t get from an agent to James Comey having a weird sense that destroying evidence necessary in an FBI investigation wasn’t that big of a deal to Sally Yates actively defying an Executive Order because she didn’t agree with it, there is no doubt in my mind the transferal of power from Obama to Trump was as peaceful as ANTIFA, and twice as mature.

Right now, there are threats of riots and violence if Trump wins. Somehow, I get the feeling there will be riots and violence even if he doesn’t win. Call it a hunch based on what ANTIFA/BLM/white Leftists LARPing as revolutionaries have said, but it’s clear there isn’t going to be peace in the midst of a transfer of power should Joe Biden stays awake enough to win the November election. This begs the question of whether the Left actually wants a peaceful transfer of power or if it’s just a convenient partisan excuse to create a self-fulfilling prophecy they have been in control of since 2016.

Guess which one I’m going with.

And, for once, with good reason. The Left believes the ends justify the means and they have a number of people at their disposal to get their hands dirty with the means so the leadership can keep theirs clean. That’s why the Left has been floating the idea of escalating violence leading up to Election Day; to drive up fear of voting for President Trump, which turns into support for Joe Biden or at least a suppression of the vote for Trump. (See, when the Left does it, voter suppression is okay.) Now, consider the Left’s tendency to expect the opposition knuckle-under their demands, even when the Left’s demands are as nonsensical as a spy thriller written by your average TikTok user. They don’t want their ideological enemies to agree to their terms. They want to rub the opposition’s noses in it. (See President Obama’s “I won” comment to Congressional Republicans for evidence.)

Good thing nothing bad ever happens when one side seeks to utterly embarrass the other side after a victory. Nothing like a world war or anything…

The Left clearly doesn’t want there to be a peaceful transfer of power because it plays into the seeds they’ve been sowing since 2016. But they will demand the Trump Administration play by the rules the Left has been pissing on for 20 years when they lose the Presidency. Just like when they oppose seating a Supreme Court Justice now after expecting it in 2016, it’s all about the end result.

Which is why we should take their outrage over President Trump not committing to a peaceful transfer of power with a Great Salt Lake. But it’s also important not to give the Left any ammunition (figuratively, not literally) by reacting to their violence, vitriol, and general jackassery. Consider the notion the Left needs people like us to look, sound, or be violent to “prove” them right about us, and unfortunately there are more than enough people out there who are more than happy to oblige.

However, that doesn’t mean we should be silent when we see the Left saying one thing and doing another. Call them out when you can and if you feel safe doing so, but don’t let the threat of what may come affect your judgment. The Left will not accept a peaceful transfer of power because it’s no longer in their nature. If they win, they will be sore winners, and if they lose, they will be violent losers. Vote for who you want and be mature about it, and the Left will have no hold over you.

Advice and Consent

With the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg the U.S. Supreme Court is down a member. It is the President’s job to nominate a replacement Justice for the Supreme Court. And per the Constitution it is the Senate’s job to confirm or deny such appointments.

Throughout President Trump’s presidency the Senate has dragged its heels in the confirmations of his Administration. No other president in history has had such a delay in getting their nominees appointed or even getting Senate hearings for them. So the Senate certainly isn’t Pro-Trump otherwise this would not be the case.

During the previous administration, there was an opening on the Supreme Court and President Obama did his duty in nominating a replacement Justice. And the Senate did their duty as well.

They rightly refused to have a hearing for the confirmation of Merrick Garland who was nominated by President Obama. The Constitution clearly states that the President needs the Advice and Consent of the Senate to appoint Judges to the Supreme Court. The Senate did not give their Advice or Consent in President Obama’s nomination of Mr. Garland. Yet he didn’t have any issues getting his administration confirmed.

The Senate is under no obligation to give consent to any appointment. That is why there are many still open positions within the Administration of President Trump. The Senate hasn’t given their consent to his appointments. He will either have to withdraw the nominees and appoint someone else or wait to see if it gets filled.

So here we are coming up on a presidential election in November. And President Trump is still the President of the United States until at least January 20th of 2021. And I pray that he is President for the next four years as well.

No matter the outcome of the coming election. If President Trump submits a nomination to the Senate. The Senate has every right to either hold hearings and confirm the nomination or reject it.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled this week to exclude the Green Party and Kanye West on absentee ballots. Kanye, I can understand, but I have to admit I’m a little perplexed by the exclusion of the Green Party. You know who isn’t confused and is pretty happy at this turn of events?

Leftists.

And I’m sure there will be some on the Right happy at this decision because it gives them the ability to exclude other third parties that have the potential to drain Republican votes in upcoming elections. As someone who doesn’t subscribe to the two-parties-and-two-parties-only mindset, I’ve heard a lot of chatter leading up to this year’s Presidential election about how I’m “throwing away my vote” and “need to vote for a winner.” And I’m going to tell you the funny part after the introduction of this week’s Leftist Lexicon entry.

third parties

What the Left thinks it means – fringe kook parties that deprive Democrats of votes

What the Right things it means – fringe kook parties that deprive Republicans of votes

What it really means -parties that deprive Democrats and Republicans of votes because the choices suck

Did you notice the funny part? If not, it’s the fact both the Left and the Right use the same argument to try to persuade people like me to vote for their candidates. Once you decide not to root for the Red Team or the Blue Team, you hear these arguments almost constantly, and they all revolve around the same concerns. “If you don’t vote for X, then Y will win and horrible things will happen! Radicals will get selected for the US Supreme Court! Things you value will be under attack! Nickelback will put out a new CD! It will be Hell on Earth!”

As bad as a new Nickelback CD will be, it’s not a good enough reason for me to overrule my principles to pull the lever for Democrats or Republicans. I’m one of those weirdos who actually wants to vote for someone or something instead of voting against someone or something. This may come off as selfish to some, like a Leftist I interacted with on Facebook. To him, if I didn’t vote for Joe Biden, I was a) selfish, b) a Russian bot, c) not taking the 2020 election seriously, d) voting for Donald “Hitler-Satan” Trump, e) wasn’t being honest, and f) not intelligent. I will cop to that last one, but not the others.

The thing that scares the Left and the Right about third parties is it has the tendency to show how flawed the current two-party system has been for, oh, the past few decades. When your choices are a dog turd sandwich and a cow turd sandwich, at some point you get tired of eating turds and want to order something else off the menu. Granted, some of the third parties aren’t much better, but the result is the same: voters taking their votes to candidates and platforms they endorse more than the Democrats or the Republicans.

That’s why the Left and the Right use fear and shame to get potential voters to stick with the current status quo. Like with the example with the Leftist I mentioned above, he tried throwing out insults, threats (not against me, I have to say), and generally talking down to me like I was Cardi B trying to understand the Electoral College. Maybe she should have gone to the Electoral Junior College first, but that’s just my suggestion. Either way, when people can’t break through with their completely partisan arguments, they hunker down and double down on the very tactics that didn’t work the first time. And as failure after failure mount, the rhetoric gets more and more heated, and the insults break out.

Not a great way to win voters and influence policy.

For me the best argument in favor of third parties is we’ve let Democrats and Republicans run the government for decades and things aren’t getting any better. The national debt is more out of control than a daycare center run by Charlie Sheen. The partisan divide is getting wider by the day. The only way things get done in Congress anymore is with more riders than 2-for-1 days at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch, and even then it’s usually for advancing an agenda that has nothing to do with the original bill, only to have it turned against political opponents if they don’t vote in favor of some of the good things in the bill.

It’s been said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. Guess what, kids? The current two-party system is the best example of insanity we have going. Voters are tired of the same-old-same-old that occurs every 4 years like a quadrennial STD and want something different. Why not give third parties a try? If they suck as much as Democrats and Republicans, they can be voted out in 4 years (except for some third parties who either want anarchy or Democratic Socialism). No harm, no foul.

But that would require Democrats and Republicans to give up power, and we know that’s about as likely as Ben Shapiro putting out a gangsta rap CD. Until the day they decide to grow up and share their toys we can only keep eating dung sandwiches and pretend they’re roast beef.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

In case you’ve been living under a rock (and, given the way 2020 has gone, I don’t blame you if you have), President Donald Trump has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Twice.

That sound you hear is the sound of Leftists screaming in horror and their heads exploding.

I have written about this subject previously, but in the light of the Left’s screeching hissyfit over the President being nominated for it, I figured it wouldn’t hurt to take another look.

Nobel Peace Prize

What the Left thinks it means – a prestigious award given to those who advance global peace

What it really means – a once-prestigious award rarely given to truly deserving candidates anymore

Being nominated for a Nobel Prize, especially the Peace Prize, used to be a monumental honor because it showed you were a champion of world peace. In recent years, however, you could get a Cracker Jack box and receive a better prize with more of an impact to world peace. Especially those temporary tattoos! Those things are sweet!

But the question on the table is why the Nobel Peace Prize means as much as getting valedictorian of summer school. This can be explained by looking at two areas: the recent recipients, and the Nobel Committee itself.

Let’s start with the recent recipients. To put it mildly, the list reads like a Who’s Who of Who Not to Emulate. Sure, you have the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa, but you also have Amnesty International, The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and Al Gore. To put it mildly, if the Peace Prize winners leaned any further left, they would be parallel with the ground.

And let’s not forget the aforementioned organizations have a track record of failure. Oh, they make great promises and have a vision few people would disagree with, but where are the results? I know, I know, societal change takes time, but at some point you have to ask whether the lofty vision and promises are resulting in actual change or are merely a front to score the change in people’s pockets.

Oh, and Amnesty International backs noted Philadelphia cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal, claiming he didn’t have a fair trial under “international standards.” Granted, they were given the Nobel Peace Prize before they stumped for a cop-killer, but hey. Leftists are going to Leftist.

So, who nominates these heads of knuckle for the Peace Prize? Why, that would be the Nobel Committee, of course! Although there are some areas where ideology can’t trump accomplishment, the Peace Prize has become an ideological award more than an award for accomplishments.

Like when former President Barack Obama won the Peace Prize in 2009.

At the time of the nomination, President Obama was lauded by the Nobel Committee for having the potential to bring world peace. Not that he brought it; he had the potential to do it. And this is after his main accomplishment was getting elected President of the United States by beating a weak Republican candidate. That’s like me being awarded the MVP of the Super Bowl because I have the potential to complete a pass against the Cleveland Browns. (To be fair, though, my elderly grandmother could complete a pass against the Cleveland Browns and she’s been dead for 2 years.)

This fact alone is an indictment of the Nobel Committee, or should be if we lived in a just and intelligent world. Given the fact it’s taken until this year for “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” to end, it’s pretty clear our world is neither just nor intelligent.

Even so, the Nobel Committee has the same problem the Left does: ideological blindness. By putting an ideology above picking the best candidate, the Nobel Committee might as well call themselves the Committee to Hand Out Undeserved Praise to Leftists Because Shut Up. And the kicker is by catering to the Left, the significance of the Nobel Peace Prize has gotten, well, less significant. Instead of picking candidates who might have actually done something to advance world peace, they’re picking people who haven’t done anything, but have the right position on issues.

Although President Trump has been nominated twice for the Nobel Peace Prize, I’m not sure I would be keen on accepting it if he wins. Just the company of those who also won the award would be damning enough.  

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The big news of the week was a story by The Atlantic alleging President Donald Trump disparaged veterans and Vietnam veterans specifically as “total losers.” And everyone from Fox News to former Vice President and current Democrat Presidential candidate Joe Biden has run with it like they stole it. Whether you believe it or not depends on something we haven’t really had a chance to discuss in detail for a while.

Unnamed sources.

As it turns out, The Atlantic‘s story relied heavily on unnamed sources, which can be a positive and a negative in journalistic circles. And, thanks to your humble correspondent, you will see why.

unnamed sources

What the Left thinks it means – valuable sources of information that get to the heart of most stories

What it really means – questionable sources of information at best

As a former journalism student, I can tell you unnamed sources can be a mixed bag because their credibility is completely reliant upon how much the reporter believes them. In the past, journalists could sense when there was the ring of truth to what a source said and when it was bullshit. Today, most journalists have a bullshit meter more broken than Matt Hardy. (If you get that reference, that would be DELIGHTFUL, yaaaaaaaaaas.)

Now, imagine a journalist who is predisposed to believe anything negative about President Trump, no matter how absurd it is. Guess what, kids? He/she is going to believe the negative stuff without so much as a first thought (because expecting them to have a second thought would be way above his/her pay grade).

This is where things get sticky. Under normal circumstances, anyone in the media who gets tricked by false information would get called out and discredited to the point not even the local Super Shopper would hire them. In the current media environment, though, that only happens if you’re not in league with the bulk of the media, which might as well be stenographers for the DNC. Even when getting caught time and time again falling for bad information, Leftists don’t lose any credibility. Compare the Left’s treatment of James O’Keefe and Rachel Maddow if you question this.

What does this have to do with unnamed sources? Regardless of the veracity of said sources, the Left has nothing to lose by believing them and reporting what they say. Meanwhile, the Right could get God to certify their statements and the Left wouldn’t believe it.

You know what beats unnamed sources, though? Named sources. With The Atlantic story, they have four unnamed sources. The number of named source? Zero, the same number of delegates Kamala Harris got. On the other side, the Trump Administration noted zero unnamed source, but ten named sources (including people who were there when the President allegedly made the statements attributed to him). Now, I’m no math major, but I’m pretty sure 10 is larger than 0, and that’s not even counting the fact the 10 are named sources.

That’s the double-edged Sword of Damocles when dealing with unnamed sources. Their truthfulness can’t be measured because we don’t know who they are, but the journalists do. That’s one level away from the source, which opens the journalist to scrutiny and questions of bias. And by questions, I mean certitudes. By protecting their sources by keeping them anonymous, they take on the criticism, often willingly, but even though the Left overlooks it, they lose the Credibility Olympics against named sources who come forward because there is no degree of separation from the original source with the latter.

Plus, there’s another thing to consider. There is a known and generally accepted practice of making up sources and/or quotes as needed. When you work a beat, you won’t always get the information you want or need for a story. If you’re being honest, you either find a way to get the information or try to write around it. If you’re a journalist today, you make it up. You know who uses similar practices? The National Enquirer.

Actually, I take that back. The Enquirer has standards.

To be honest, I don’t know who to believe when it comes to The Atlantic‘s piece, but I do know you can’t discount the fact a piece reliant solely on unnamed sources has fewer legs to stand on than Captain Ahab after his prosthetic leg was stolen.