Author: Thomas

I'm a writer and a ranger and a young boy bearing arms. And two out of the three don't count.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I know this is going to come as a shock to many of you, but I have a confession. I…am a white man.

And I’ll bet a number of you reading this may also be white. With that skin color comes a lot of baggage according to the Left. We have privilege (although I’m still waiting for some of that privilege to kick in because I want a Dodge Charger), but we’re also pretty protective of that privilege and our egos. The Left has a general term for the various aspects of being white: whiteness.

Better grab a lunch, folks, because this one is going to take a while to unpack…

whiteness

What the Left thinks it means – the condition white people have that makes them hypersensitive to legitimate criticisms about their socioeconomic status

What it really means – the oversimplification of white culture to justify racism against whites

The Left accuses America of being a racist country, and there is merit to that position. The problem is the racism isn’t solely going in the direction the Left wants us to think. When you really look at this country objectively, there seems to be one group of people who can always be seen as racist, but never be seen as the victim of racism. That group is whites, or as I prefer to be called Honkey-Americans.

Look at the application of hate crime laws, for example. In case after case, there is reluctance to apply these laws when whites are the victims, even when Stevie Wonder could see the crimes were racially-motivated. But when the criminal is white, law enforcement immediately looks for racial motivations.

Of course, Leftists will brush this criticism off as “white fragility” or justified by pointing out white criminals who have gotten more lenient punishments than others, but it’s deeper than that. The same Leftists who decry the lack of “all people are created equal” when it pertains to justice for people of color want to make some people more equal than others. In a related story, the George Orwell estate is suing the Left for copyright infringement.

It should be pointed out, however, the Left has its own issues with whiteness, but in a different way. Instead of being overly sensitive of their privilege, they exercise it to the point of absurdity. The Wall of Moms in Portland (or as I call it San Francisco North) has found itself in the center of controversy, not because they’re grown women trying to defend spoiled brats throwing the worst temper tantrum in history, but because they’re a) primarily white, and b) taking over a movement started by Black Lives Matter. And this isn’t some white male outsider’s position; the blacks on the ground in Portland are saying it.

To borrow a phrase from that great philosopher Tom Jones, it’s not unusual for Leftists to do this. They see themselves as virtuous souls taking up for the causes of people of color, all while saying they want to get more people of color into positions of leadership. (I wonder how many of these Leftists supported Mia Love or Tim Scott because it would be really inconvenient if they chose not to support people of color for leadership positions on the basis of partisanship. But we know that never happens, right?) These folks see themselves as literal and figurative white knights, but the problem is they’re not helping anyone but themselves. Ditto with those on the other side of the equation who are prostrating themselves to blacks to show how “woke” they are and to apologize for being white. Nothing is gained by either speaking for blacks or bowing down to blacks except making white Leftists feel better. They see their skin color as a curse, but not so much of a curse as to prevent them from taking their self-righteous place as heroes and spokespeople for blacks.

Which, not surprisingly, is racist as fuck on multiple levels.

Which, also not surprisingly, makes them not that different from white supremacists, who are also racist as fuck on multiple levels.

Maybe it’s me, but I don’t see why a person’s skin color is a reason for pride or shame. You can be any color under the cultural rainbow and still be an asshole (See: Rev. Al Sharpton and the late Fred Phelps). Contrary to what Rachel Dolezal, Michael Jackson, and Shaun King tell you, you can’t choose the color of your skin. What makes someone worthy of praise or contempt is what he or she does. White Leftists are at cross purposes with their race, which makes their contempt of whiteness all the more humorous to me and frustrating for blacks in particular.

The Left wants everyone to be ashamed to be white because most of them feel ashamed and they feel anyone who is proud to be white is racist. (Of course, they already believe anyone who doesn’t think the way they do is racist, so it’s not much of a stretch for them.) The way to counter this is to focus on personal elements that have nothing to do with skin color. Be the best person you can be and you’ll never have to bother with the Left’s attempts to make you feel inferior. Remember, the Left wants to make everyone as miserable as they are, so if you take their comments with a grain of salt the size of, oh, the Great Salt Lake, you can rebuff their advances.

Better yet, you’ll confuse and annoy Leftists, which is fun in and of itself.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As the situation in Portland continues to cement the idea of how gonzo the Left has gotten, the media are doing their parts to minimize the PR damage being done. Who knew trying to set a federal courthouse on fire and leaving trash everywhere would be bad for the image of a movement? Right now there are two narratives being expressed. One is based on on-the-ground videos of rioterrrrr…I mean protesters doing what is being attributed to them. The other is based on trying to downplay the situation to give the impression what we’re seeing isn’t what’s really going on.

Guess which one the media are running with.

As the Left tries to contain the blowback, they’ve come up with a turn of a phrase: mostly peaceful. Seems nice, doesn’t it? Well, I’m about to be the black fly in your Chardonnay if you believe that.

And no, I’m not being ironic, and yeah I really do think.

mostly peaceful

What the Left thinks it means – the best way to describe what’s going on in Portland well before Donald Trump sent his government stormtroopers to cause problems

What it really means –  a phrase designed to make you think what you’re seeing play out on live video isn’t what is happening on live video

To better understand the Left’s narrative, we need to figure out why it seems plausible. Since the rioterrrr…I mean protesters aren’t keen on letting people know who they are and what their motivations are (Spoiler Alert: it’s most likely socialism), it’s hard to pin down whether their motives are peaceful or violent. While this would be a problem for normal people, it’s actually a boon for the Left because it’s impossible to discern who is the second coming of Gandhi and who is the second coming of Guy Fawkes. With this uncertainty of motives, it’s plausible to say it’s only a handful of people committing the crimes, leaving the others’ hands clean.

On a larger scale, too, the Left’s narrative makes sense. The vast majority of Portland isn’t Beirut with better coffee shops. In fact, most of the chaos is contained within an approximately six block area that just so happens to be located in the same neighborhood as a federal courthouse. So, in all actuality to the Left, Portland is mostly peaceful.

If you’re expecting a “but” out of me, you know it’s about to drop.

Let’s take the “handful of criminals” aspect first. Appropriately enough, the Left’s own rhetoric against the police department destroys this idea. One of the Left’s favorite slogans during this flaming fiasco and others of a similar vein is “Silence Is Violence.” In essence, if you remain silent when there is a crime against another person being committed, you are condoning it. (Granted, these are some of the same nozzleheads who also say words are violence, but that’s a blog post for another time.) Now, let’s apply that same thought process to Portland. If you see bad actors using your platform to cause harm to someone or something else, shouldn’t you be considered someone who condones the actions being taken? Wouldn’t your silence be violence, in this case literally?

As far as the larger Portland area is concerned, it’s true there’s only a limited area negatively impacted at the moment. However, when you have the Mayor and Governor giving silent consent for the anarchy going on, the fact it’s been contained to that six block area is a miracle in and of itself. What happens when that good fortune runs out and that six block area gets wider? Based on riots…I mean protests in other cities, it’s only a matter of time before the downtown folks decide to head to the suburbs (provided, of course, they don’t already live there in Mommy and Daddy’s basement). Then, the permissiveness granted previously might not survive much beyond the first incident between the protesters and the private security guard at the gate.

Even if I buy the notion Portland is mostly peaceful because the criminal activity is limited, it’s hard to argue with the video coverage. And, yes, you can claim these videos are out of context, but until you provide a viable alternate context, I have to go with what I see, and what I see is a less-than-peaceful protest. No matter how many shields you make and show off, no matter how many moms (or alleged moms) show up to form a wall, no matter how many veterans (or alleged veterans) supply support, no matter how many fathers (or alleged fathers) show up with leaf blowers, we have to believe what we’re seeing.

The Left can’t have that, though, so they’re trying to get us to disbelieve what we’re seeing. It’s a mild form of gaslighting, which is a grossly overused term these days to describe when someone tries to get another people or group of people to doubt themselves through psychological means. The Left’s tactics here are subtle, but evident and need to be called out for what it is: an attempt to downplay criminal behavior by ideological allies because the Left think it helps them against President Donald Trump in the upcoming Presidential election. In order for this to be successful, however, they have to lie repeatedly. Some are small, some are large, but all of them are lies.

That’s why their gaslighting attempts won’t work. We can see what the rioterrrr…I mean protesters are doing in the videos and livestreams. Spin it all you want, Leftists, but it’s clear these activities aren’t remotely peaceful, let alone mostly peaceful. The more you try to make it look and sound otherwise, the more foolish you look.

Then again, your partners in crime are LARPing as revolutionaries, so maybe you’re used to it by now. 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Just when you thought the rioting…I mean protesting in Portland couldn’t get much weirder, the federal government stepped in to show the Mayor of Portland how to really fuck things up. With the introduction of contractors working on behalf of the government, allegations of government overreach started flinging like poop in the monkey house.

And speaking of poop, that brings us to the Left. In recent days, they dusted off their copy of the Bill of Rights and found a concept they hope will turn the rhetorical tide in their favor: states’ rights. They argue the state and local governments are the ones who should be handling the situation because, well, they’ve done a bang-up job of it so far.

But do they have a point, aside from the ones atop their craniums? Let’s dive into this topic a bit more.

states’ rights

What the Left thinks it means – a Constitutionally guaranteed right to prevent the federal government from overstepping its bounds

What it really means – a concept the Left usually hates

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To put it in layman’s terms, if the Constitution says the federal government can’t do it, the States and/or the people take the reins. Granted, that’s like letting Kanye West run for President (but thankfully that will never happen right?), but it’s there and we abide by it.

Well, all except for the Left. Although they’re big fans of states’ rights now, they have a pretty long track record of “forgetting” the concept when it suits their needs. Gay marriage, sanctuary cities, and abortion all come to mind as examples of issues where the Left has told states to shove it because the federal government knows best. So, why the sudden 180?

President Donald Trump.

As much as the Left hates any power denied the federal government, they hate Trump more. Even after Portland Mayor Ted “I’m Not a Real Mayor, But I Stayed At a Holiday Inn Express Last Night” Wheeler bent over backwards for the protestors like a Cirque du Soleil performer at a yoga class, the protestors still hate his guts and want him to resign. Pro Tip for ya Teddy: these are not your friends, nor will they ever be. Yet, who’s leading the parade to defend the protestors? Ted Wheeler, because he hates Trump more than he hates being a target for a bunch of whiny children LARPing as badasses.

The Left loves to use the federal government, but hates when it’s used against their aims. Fortunately for them, there are enough Leftists in the federal bureaucracy to choke a Clydesdale. Unfortunately for them, most of that bureaucracy isn’t in the departments currently handling the Portland situation. That’s why it’s funny to me that they whip out the states’ rights card right now. Normally, the Left would be the ones in the SWAT gear tramping down the rights of the states (and, yes, I mean that metaphorically because I doubt they could pick up a check, let alone a helmet with a face plate).

More to the point, the Left may have one (a point, that is) depending on what is actually happening in Portland. One of the justifications for sending in the federal government was that protestors were trying to destroy federal property. If the boots on the ground are protecting said property, arresting the perps, and nothing else, the states’ rights argument goes out the window. Where things get tricky is if/when the federal government goes beyond protecting and arresting. If the contractors are just picking up random people on the streets without probable cause, then it opens up a whole new can of legal worms, but it has nothing to do with states’ rights. The rules of evidence and the rights of the accused are addressed at…the federal level. Oops.

And it’s this fundamental misunderstanding or purposeful distortion of such a simple concept that makes my weekly Leftist Lexicon missives necessary and somewhat entertaining. The Left manipulates words to evoke emotions so people don’t take a moment to realize they’re full of it. Once your brain kicks in, the Left doesn’t stand a chance.

Although I’m not a fan of sending in the federal government to handle domestic issues like we’re seeing in Portland, it’s hard to see where states’ rights has a role in it except for the Left to use it to provide cover for the assholes making Portland into San Francisco North. When the kids start going after federal property, the federal government has the authority to step in. I would hope it wouldn’t exercise it, but given the failures at the state and local levels, it was only a matter of time before President Trump acted.

The saddest part of all of this is the reason for the protests/riots has been lost. Right now, the Portland protests have zero to do with the death of George Floyd or holding police accountable for bad actions. It now has everything to do with advancing Leftist ideology at the expense of a city. George Floyd has become a footnote to a group of people who use his name and their hatred of the current President to justify bad behavior and even worse leadership.

But, please. Tell us all how destroying federal property helps. I’m sure your explanation will be as full of shit as some of Portland’s streets have become.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Although I know you guys love it when I talk COVID-19 and 2020 is more screwed up than Charlie Sheen on a coke bender (or, as he calls it, Tuesday), I did want to take a brief detour into a subject that is making the rounds this election year. The Left has been pushing for a one-size-fits-all-but-actually-fits-no-one approach to economics, especially as it pertains to the working class. In their efforts to sway voters, they’ve created the notion workers are entitled to a fair wage (and, of course, blamed the CEOs for not sharing the wealth). One of the ideas the Left has promoted is Universal Basic Income, or UBI for short. It was heavily promoted by former Democrat candidate for President Andrew Yang, and it’s picking up steam in Leftist circles due to COVID-19.

Now, just because it’s a Leftist idea doesn’t make it a bad idea. However, if you stick with me over the next several paragraphs, I’ll show you it’s a bad idea regardless of who promotes it.

Universal Basic Income

What the Left thinks it means – giving every citizen a certain amount of money on which to live regardless of their circumstances as a means to curtail poverty

What it really means – letting the government tell you what your time and effort are worth

Capitalism isn’t a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination. Any economic system that lets Gwyneth Paltrow sell candles that smell like her hoo-hah needs some work. However, out of all the other economic systems out there, it’s the best because it allows for the greatest amount of freedom, the greatest chance for mobility, and the best use of one’s talents. It’s the reason LeBron James gets millions of dollars while telling the world how oppressed he is. (By the way, King James, how much are you getting from China for not calling them out on their oppressive regime?)

What the Left gets wrong about capitalism has filled many a book and opinion piece, including blogs from your humble correspondent. With UBI, their track record is still perfect in that regard. As I’ve noted before, the Left believes all money is finite and those who have more have a moral obligation to share it with the rest of the world because “they can afford it.” Although Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and others have jumped on this bandwagon, it’s not necessarily one you should jump on because everyone else seems to be doing it.

Here’s what I mean. In a capitalist system, you are paid by how much the owner(s) think your time and labor are worth. You can quibble about the dollar figure when it comes time for your annual performance review, but by and large that’s what it boils down to. Under UBI, the decision of how much your time and labor are worth gets made by the people who run the DMV or pay $500 for a hammer because it’s not their money they’re spending; it’s yours in the form of taxes. Because of this, no consideration of the amount or quality of work getting done or the skills you bring to the table can be made. You are merely given X amount of money no matter if you dig ditches or trade internationally.

This problem goes beyond how much you get paid, too. As with any budget not written up by Arthur Andersen or the federal government, you have expenses as well as income. UBI advocates say these expenses would be covered as part of the UBI calculation, but they don’t consider other expenses that separate you from your neighbor.

Let’s say you’re a construction worker who has been on the job for 20 years. (Not the same job, mind you, but several jobs.) Not only have you amassed a considerable knowledge base in that time, but you may have accumulated health issues, like bad knees or high cholesterol, that require the outlay of more money to address. Then, there’s a kid fresh out of high school with a fraction of the experience and none of the health issues. UBI treats you both the same, which is a boon for the high school graduate and less of one for you. In short, UBI punishes you for being different.

Hmmm…now, where have I heard of that happening with other socioeconomic systems? Oh yeah, in socialism and its various offshoots.

UBI and socialism work great on paper where you can control the variables, but in practice they fail because you cannot force people to be uniform. We come out of the womb different and we will be that way for the rest of our lives. No matter what government program you propose or regulatory agency you create, no two people will be the same, period. And when the champions of diversity are the ones trying to force conformity, you know there’s something amiss. Or, for the feminists out there reading this, ams.

The biggest drawback to UBI is it stifles creativity and work ethic. The former Soviet Union saw this happen when workers who did better than their quotas were punished while those who underperformed weren’t. The reason? Everyone was getting the same pay regardless of what work they did. If you can make a guaranteed $15 an hour badly working the shake machine at Burger World, why bust your ass to get better?

Of course, this feeds into the current societal mindset where people want to make more money for doing less work. See any “YouTube celebrity” for proof of this. This also explains why so many Leftists support UBI. For the rest of us, though, it’s a mixed bag, especially for those of us who have a good work ethic. Although we might not mind making money without much effort, there will always be a part of us that doesn’t feel right about it. Why, it’s almost as if…we want to earn our pay!

But UBI doesn’t allow that. You get paid what the government says you get paid, no matter what. I know Leftists want us to be in a nanny state, but apparently they want us to pay for everyone to be wards of the state.

If you know someone who is convinced UBI is the way to go, ask them what figure the UBI should be and how they calculated it. If they give you an answer, ask them if they trust someone like President Donald Trump to distribute these funds. I guarantee you they won’t, but it will make the point that government isn’t the best entity to make the kind of financial decisions the Left wants them to make.

Plus, who wants to be governed under an idea whose abreviation sounds like a misspelled urinary tract infection?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If 2020 has taught me anything, it’s that inevitably everything bad can and will be pinned on race. Just within the past year or so, everything from chess to Dr. Seuss has been deemed racist by some member of the Left, and not ironically I might add. The reasons for this are simple: 1) it’s identity politics, and 2) they’re morons.

Yet, if someone like me were to try to push back, the Left would accuse me of “white fragility.” Personally, I’m more into blues, but I wasn’t aware fragility was color based these days. I did, however, know it may be Italian.

To keep everyone in the loop on this, let’s explore white fragility in all of its…I would say glory, but there’s nothing glorious about it.

white fragility

What the Left thinks it means – a negative reaction from whites in reaction to people of color pushing back against white-controlled entities

What it really means – racism against whites

The Left will disagree with my definition of white fragility because of their own definition of racism. To them, whites can’t be victims of racism because whites have power, while people of color don’t. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say the cities where Black Lives Matter members/supporters have burned and looted might have a different opinion of how powerless people of color are. Regardless, this notion is at the core of white fragility because it implies whites are scared of people who don’t look like them exercising the rights whites have been able to exercise themselves.

Which, of course, is crap fostered by the Left in their attempts to be the Great White Hope to people of color.

The Left truly believes they are the only ones who can speak for people of color, and too many people believe it even within the POC community. (Apparently a lack of irony is not just a Leftist phenomenon.) Yet, when it comes to white people like me who openly question why race is such a factor in these types of discussions, the strong white Leftists and their POC counterparts all assume it’s because we’re scared of the change they say is inevitable. Yes, whites will no longer control anything and will have to pay for the sins of systemic racism because…reasons.

And really that’s what it comes down to: reasons devoid of reason.

Any pushback against this sort of thinking is deemed as “white fragility,” but it’s not. In today’s society, taking a stand against racism is pretty much the current societal default setting. The issue is being against all racism, not just the acceptable racism against whites that is so pervasive on the Left. Although the Left has watered down racism to the point of Rep. Eric Swalwell’s Presidential aspirations this year, there is still a definition of racism that works pretty well: the idea that one race is superior or inferior to others. The entire concept of white fragility has its foundations in the notion whites are weak and incapable of adjusting to a situation where whites aren’t the majority.

Guess what, Leftists. You’re racists! Congratulations, and don’t forget to grab your racism starter kit before you leave. And since you believe only whites can be racist, you have no defense.

Once you get beyond the delicious irony of white Leftists being the actual racists in this situation, there is another level of delicious irony when you consider Leftists are the ones who say words are violence. Let that sink in for a moment. The people who love to use “white fragility” think words are violence. If that isn’t fragility, I don’t know what is, but it’s good to know I can use my vocabulary to bludgeon a Leftist figuratively and quite possibly literally.

At the end of the day, it’s night, but it’s also the height of white Leftist snobbery to use white fragility as a response to anyone who isn’t down with their imaginary struggle. If anything, it takes a strong person to stand up against the Left’s bullying these days, so fragility isn’t even in the equation. What is in the equation is the lengths the Left and their POC allies will go to protect the Leftist narrative at the expense of the very POCs white Leftists claim to support. Using racist terminology while proclaiming utterly unrelated things as racist weakens the concept of racism, thus making it harder for actual racism to be confronted. And using “white fragility” to dismiss concerns, legitimate or otherwise, doesn’t help. All it does is create divisions where there don’t need to be.

Granted, there are entitled white folks (Karens, Chads, etc.) who can be used as examples of white fragility, and rightly so. As a white (or if you prefer Honkey-American) man, I can tell you most of us are sick of these idiots, too. Not all of us are like that, though. And shouldn’t we avoid condemning an entire group of people because of the actions of a few?

Or does that standard only apply to Black Lives Matter? Asking for a friend.

Keeping the Faithless

The US Supreme Court has a long history of getting court cases right, but an equally long history of getting cases wrong. For every Brown v Board of Education, there seems to be a Plessey v Ferguson.

And now, we have the most 2020 USSC decision ever. Today, the High Court ruled “faithless electors” who defied the popular vote count of the state in which they are electors could be punished for not voting for the winner of the state popular vote. Two states, Washington and Colorado, successfully defended this stance due to the notion the popular vote should determine who wins the Presidency. I’ll get back to that in a bit, but it’s important to note what has happened since the decision.

The Left is overjoyed because this decision is another step closer to eliminating the Electoral College. To them, the Electoral College is outdated and unfairly allows states with less population to affect the outcome of Presidential elections more than the more populous states. (Of course, these same folks see nothing wrong with California getting more Representatives than, say, Montana, and that representation affecting national laws more than less populous states, but that’s neither here nor there.) In response, the Right is arguing in favor of the Electoral College for the right reason: it prevents larger states (namely California and New York) from overruling smaller states in Presidential elections.

Although the Left may ultimately be right…errr correct on this point, the argument is about the wrong topic. The issue isn’t the viability of the Electoral College; it’s whether electors have the option to vote for who they want. And, surprise surprise, the Left wants to deprive electors their choice when it suits their needs. Remember who brought the matter before the USSC: Washington and Colorado. Both are currently bluer than a choking victim at Ice Station Zebra, so the chances are any faithless elector would be voting against the winner of the popular vote. In other words, the ruling makes it possible for Leftists to punish people for voting against the Left’s candidate. Granted, the punishment may be monetary and easily paid for by the people who get to become electors in the first place. Having said that, it is a step in the wrong direction that can (and knowing Leftists, will) go far worse down the road.

The thing to remember about Leftists is they are more concerned with short term victories than long term consequences. This USSC decision will give them power to coerce electors into voting “the right way.” However, this doesn’t take into consideration the nature of current politics. As we’ve seen in our lifetimes, the balance of power changes from time to time so the party/ideology in power today becomes the Tamaguchi of politics tomorrow. And with each swing of the pendulum, the victories of today becomes the cudgels of tomorrow because, well, politics. Just ask former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about the “nuclear option” for judicial nominees.

This USSC decision has all the makings of a Harry Reid-esque blunder because it doesn’t account for the current drift within the Left towards being more radical. Even kooks like Nancy Pelosi are being portrayed as sell-outs by the Socialist Socialite Squad because, now get this, Pelosi isn’t Leftist enough. It’s the same argument Leftists have used against Dianne Feinstein for years, all while holding their noses and voting for her because “she’s not as bad as a Republican.”

What makes this decision even more screwed up than a Joe Biden monologue is it underscores a fundamental lack of understanding of how the Electoral College works. The Left keep banging on about every vote counting (well, except if those votes are for Republicans) which is their fundamental argument against the Electoral College. The problem? The slate of electors who gets to vote for the President is determined by…wait for it…the popular vote. Granted, there are some states who apportion the electors based on the percentages each candidate wins, but for most states it’s winner-take-all. Yet, in either case, people still cast one vote, which in the Left’s own logic, means the current system is… exactly what they say they want.

Since each state has the power under the Constitution to choose how electors are chosen, I say we do away with the winner-takes-all approach and switch to a proportional system as to allow each candidate running a chance to have a say in the final Electoral College vote. Heck, this would also open up the possibility of third parties getting to the table for a chance, which means my candidate Pat Paulsen might actually get a vote for President. Sure, he’s dead, but if you’ve seen some of the people who ran for President in 2020, we could have done worse.

In either case, we are going to see the aftermath of this USSC decision sooner rather than later and, unfortunately, our leaders and media folks aren’t going to see it until much later.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

They say politics make strange bedfellows, but in 2020, strange is the new normal. Although President Donald Trump has a ton of support within the Republican Party, there are a number of Never Trumpers who think he’s not a “real Republican” and should be defeated in November. Out of that pushback came The Lincoln Project, an organization whose sole purpose seems to be just that.

And, not surprisingly, the Left loves The Lincoln Project.

Let’s delve into the Left’s new favorite Republicans, shall we?

The Lincoln Project

What the Left thinks it means – a group of Republicans who want to restore decency and honor to the White House

What it really means – a group of Republicans the Left can con into doing their work for them

To put it mildly, Donald Trump is not everyone’s cup of Earl Grey. He’s brash, confrontational, and not at all the kind of man who has occupied the Oval Office in our history. Yet, he’s still President and, at least according to his voter registration, he is a Republican, which gives him as much stake in being called one as, say, Mitt Romney whose Republican credentials are as strong as watery Tang. Not that it matters to The Lincoln Project, mind you. They feel they are the only ones who can keep Republican values alive.

Oh, and did I mention they’ve endorsed Joe Biden for President this year?

The Lincoln Project’s entire mindset is based on a logical fallacy known as “No True Scotsman.” The fallacy involves stating what a true believer of a particular idea would or would not think, say, or do under a particular set of circumstances. That assumes the person invoking this notion has a clue what a true believer would think, say, or do. And although I’m sure they think they’re the last bastion of Republican thinking, they’re out of phase with the bulk of the party right now. Contrary to what the Left and The Lincoln Project think, the Republican Party is diverse, at least ideologically. That’s how people from Susan Collins to Ted Cruz can all be under the same political tent even though their personal politics are light years apart.

Although it’s easy to pass them off as dissatisfied Republicans, The Lincoln Project touts some insider clout, including the husband of Kellyanne Conway, George. Although she’s risen to prominence in recent years, Ms. Conway has been known in conservative circles for years, which means she has more than likely made some Washington insider friends. And that means powerful people looking to curry favor for political gain, people used to getting what they want from the politicians they pay.

What happens when they can’t buy off a politician? They turn on him or her. I can’t say for certain because the most inside I get is my belly button, but I get the feeling more than a few of The Lincoln Project’s members are playing the spurned lovers in this political telenovela. That makes them the perfect foils for the Left. They both hate Donald Trump, support Joe Biden for President, and want to remake the country in their own image where only elites matter. Patty Duke couldn’t have asked for a better identical cousin.

With every new attack ad against the President, the Left doesn’t have to spend money producing the same content, which works out great for them. As of April 2020, the DNC was getting trounced like Justin Bieber at Sturgis in campaign donations and even though they love to spend other people’s money, they had to find ways to cut costs. Not to mention, it helps them politically because, let’s face it, they’re trying to turn Joe Biden into a viable Presidential candidate after his first two failed attempts. Then again, they thought Hillary “What Difference Does It Make?” Clinton was viable after losing to Barack Obama, so their judgment is as questionable as the quality of truck stop sushi. When The Lincoln Project came about, the Left knew they had the pigeons they needed to do their bidding, save money in the process, and continue to do a major rehab job on Joe Biden. Brilliant!

“But aren’t the Left and the Right on opposite sides?” you might ask. Well, yes and no. There are members of both ideological camps who will cross the aisle and collaborate to achieve power. Whether The Lincoln Project knows they are helping the Left isn’t known at this time, but knowing politics like I do, it’s not outside the realm of possibility. Of course, if they don’t know they’re being used by the Left, they shouldn’t be anywhere near the reins of power of a convenience store, let alone America.

Although I empathize with The Lincoln Project’s stated purpose (returning class and maturity to the White House, not the getting rid of Trump part), I cannot abide by how they’re trying to get it done. Not only does its foundation rest on a flawed premise, the people involved with it are seemingly acting out of personal gain rather than national gain. I’m not President Trump’s #1 fan by any stretch, but I’m not going out there proclaiming myself to be the Alpha Republican by which all other Republicans are to be measured because a) I’m not that egotistical/delusional, and b) I’m not a Republican. I would have more respect for The Lincoln Project if they were straight with us about why they exist: they hate Trump. As it stands, I see them as either unwitting tools of the Left or knowing conspirators with delusions of adequacy. The fact these folks call themselves real Republicans while openly supporting Joe Biden for President should tell you how committed they are to Republican values.

In the meantime, keep an eye on The Lincoln Project for no other reason than to see what tactics the Left will be using against President Trump in the upcoming Presidential election. And to see how the left-leaning fringes of the GOP react to the latest Trump “scandals.” Take their advise with a salt lick because a grain of salt just won’t cut it.

CHOPped Short

If you had the under in the CHAZ/CHOP betting pool, go to the window to pick up your winnings.

After three weeks of murder, mayhem, and general government incompetence, the Seattle Police Department spent a few minutes of their morning today to retake the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest compound. And I do mean minutes. If they had retreated any faster, the French would have sued for copyright infringement.

The funny thing is their failure was not only imminent, but predictable. In order to be autonomous as CHOP claimed to be, there is a need for personal discipline and a respect for others. Needless to say the Left doesn’t subscribe to either of those. They want what they want when they want it and they don’t care how they get it, but once the bill comes to pay for what they want, the only thing you see of them is the cloud of dust as they leave as quickly as possible.

This is in contrast to the way libertarians (small and capital L) and some conservatives approach the idea of self-governance/autonomy. Although they passionately believe in Man’s natural desire to be free, they also understand the necessity of not infringing on other people’s desires to be free as well. Without the latter, any society built on the former will not succeed.

Although I would hope we would see more of the right-leaning philosophy on autonomy take hold, I’m not confident it will happen. Society today has made a lot of people self-absorbed and unconcerned about the plight of others (which, oddly enough, is kind of what motivated the CHOPpers to start their little social experiment in the first place). We have become so fractured and distant from people who live across the hall, across the street, or across the country that self-governance even on a small scale will be a flop of “Gigli”-esque proportions.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to appreciate those little moments of freedom that come not from a government or a warlord, but from the conscious decision to live my life as I see fit with an understanding of the implications of my decisions on others so I do as little harm to them as possible. At a time when we can’t get a chunk of the population to wear masks in public to protect others from possibly catching COVID-19, it’s important we balance rights and responsibilities for no other reason than because it’s the right thing to do for everyone involved. If you’re constantly looking out for number one, you invariably wind up as a piece of number two, if you know what I mean.

And speaking of number two, there will be a lot of that to clean up, literally and figuratively, from the CHOPping grounds, and it won’t be the CHOPpers who get to foot the bill. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from being a Leftist it’s they never think they have to pay for their failures, no matter how badly they’ve screwed everything up. They’re like the rowdy kids who will always come to a party, but leave right before it’s time to start the clean-up. To the Left, it’s the intentions that matter, not the results. Which is good for the CHOPpers because they accomplished exactly nothing. Bad cops are still out on the streets, good people are still getting murdered, theft and violent crimes continue, and CHOP turned out to be…well, the aforementioned “Gigli”-esque failure it was destined to be.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen what the CHOPpers would have done over the next couple of months, maybe even into the fall when temperatures drop and Seattle’s climate turns a bit cooler and wetter. Oh, well, I’m sure there will be another CHOP site somewhere that will provide me with more giggles. It’s only a matter of time before history repeats itself.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Have you ever heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences? If not, the gist is sometimes what you want to happen comes with strings attached that you didn’t anticipate. Like eating gas station sushi on a long road trip. You may be happy in the short term, but further down the line you’re going to wind up puking your guts out at a Rest Stop outside Laramie, Wyoming.

Not that that’s ever happened to me, mind you…

Anyway, the Left is experiencing a gas station sushi situation of their own, thanks to a little something called cancel culture. When the Left wants a conservative marginalized from the open market of ideas, they do everything they can to discredit and silence them, expecting them to either apologize (which the Left will never accept) and comply (like confessed liar and Media Matters founder David Brock) or to go silent to avoid further persecution. Now, some prominent Leftist celebrities are watching this practice boomerang against them, and now they’re being held to the same standard they held for others.

And somehow it’s the Right’s fault.

This looks like a good time to look at cancel culture and mock it.

cancel culture

What the Left thinks it means – a movement co-opted by the Right to silence anti-Trump speech

What it really means – the Left not getting the message of 1984

I’m not a fan of silencing people for offending modern sensibilities because it tends to drive their message underground where it can thrive away from the attention of the offended. However, the Left and some members of the Right believe the ends justify the means. They’ve tried with Rush Limbaugh, Chik fil A, Fox News, and others with varying degrees of success. Mostly failure, but I want to be generous.

The entire idea of cancel culture, much like most of Leftist ideas, is absurd at its face. However, with the Left’s dominance of media, those ideas have been given absolute power, and in this case absolute power screws up absolutely. Keep this point in mind because it’s going to get even weirder.

Recently, Leftist celebrities are being called out for using blackface in sketches and shows. Jimmy Kimmel, Sarah Silverman, Joy Behar, Tina Fey and others are facing legitimate criticism and apologizing for offending people. And in Fey’s case, she’s asking for the episodes of “30 Rock” that used it to be taken off any platform that replays her show. Although the apology and the removal of the offensive material may be enough to satisfy the cancel culture club, it doesn’t change the fact Fey and the producers of “30 Rock” made the decision to allow blackface in the first place.

That may be the biggest shock for the Left right now. Not only have they thought, said, and signed off on racist activities, they’ve championed the very tools of their own destruction…when those tools are used against other people. Although it’s fun to point and laugh (because, believe me, I have), it astounds me how tone-deaf these people are. It’s almost as if they thought they’d never be held to the standards they’ve set for others because their ideology made them immune. They say the right things, they support the right causes, so in their minds, they can’t be batting clean-up behind Adolf Hitler in the World’s Worst People Softball Tournament. It’s almost as if they never expected to get caught and suffer the consequences of their actions.

In other words, they’re all Hillary Clinton, circa 2016.

Leftists have tried to get in front of the cancel culture story by saying it doesn’t exist, but that was only after several people were caught up in cancel culture that the Left decided to say it wasn’t real. Just a teensy bit late on that, kids. Meanwhile those of us who paid attention in history and any literature class that included George Orwell in the reading list could see where this was going because it ends the same in fiction and reality: eventually everyone gets the axe in one form or another. Even the most stalwart believer of an ideology can be called an infidel at some point and, in fact, it’s the Leftist approach to everything. If they can’t find some reason to expel you, they’ll invent one. Paging Juan Williams…

So, how do we fight cancel culture? By not giving into it. The Left need you to be scared of being publicly shunned to force compliance or silence. Social media is a breeding ground for this kind of insanity, so either be completely non-offensive so they can’t find dirt on you or be loud and proud of who you are. Not everyone will be able to be as brash as Candice Owens, so find your comfort level and stick with it. Also, keep your emotions in check. Once you lash out at someone for an opinion that differs yours, you’ve sprung the trap that will allow you to be canceled at some point.

Above all else, though, try to be as intellectually diverse as possible. I don’t like Samuel L. Jackson’s politics, but I enjoy his work as an actor and I would never want him to be censored by anyone. As long as he’ll let me be me, I’ll let him be him. That’s the thing the Left doesn’t get. You don’t have to be in lockstep with everyone you like, and anyone who says you have to is an idiot. By keeping an open mind and accepting not everyone will dance to the beat of your own drum, not only will your life be more open and interesting, but you’ll recognize those who think they can tell you who you should and shouldn’t see are missing out. Plus, if you learn about ideas and concepts outside your comfort zone, you may become a fan of them or at least a better-informed critic.

On top of that, you can prove you’re not an immature brat like the Left. So, double-bonus!

Those Who Do Not Learn from History Are Doomed to Tear Down Statues

As an Iowa boy, I’m familiar with cow-tipping. At the risk of Flyover-Country-splaining, cow-tipping is when people push a cow over so she falls. I’ve never done it, but from what I’ve heard it’s a fun activity, or at least it’s a fun activity for Iowans because we’re just now getting actual entertainment here.

Lately, though, people have taken to statue-tipping because they’re upset with the racism in our history. Some Leftists on Twitter have even offered suggestions on how to topple statutes or, in one case, the Washington Monument. As humorous as this seems, allow me to take it to Orwellian heights while attempting to sprinkle in a bit of humor along the way.

As the debate over whether statues of Confederate generals deserve to be preserved rages right now, there is an underlying issue that’s a bit tougher to overcome, although the Left finds it easy to disregard. I’m talking about American history. Like it or not, our past is full of incidents that make us look like David Duke, but it’s still our history. We fought a civil war at least in part on racial issues, and although the Confederacy lost, it’s hard for me to get past the notion they are still part of American history.

“But we’re not trying to erase history,” Leftists love to say. “History will still be taught.” Except it’s not being taught well in today’s public schools, thanks to people who agree with taking down statues of people they find objectionable. The Founding Fathers, for example, aren’t being taught as seriously because they owned slaves and, thus, aren’t worthy of study or consideration (according to Leftists). Yet, without one of these slave-owners, we might not have expressed our independence from England, nor would we likely have had a Constitution. Instead of teaching these perspectives, the Founding Fathers are being “memory-holed.”

George Orwell is holding on Line 1, kids.

This is not to elevate the Confederacy to Founding Fathers status. Instead, it’s to underscore just how important it is to consider the impact imperfect people have had on our nation. If we pretend Thomas Jefferson didn’t exist because he owned slaves (as well as getting freaky-deaky with at least one of them), we erase the positive impact he had. With Confederate generals, that argument is a much harder sell, but the point remains. When we erase history on the basis of current sensibilities, we do a grave disservice to the past, present, and future.

And that’s where the Left gets it completely wrong.

Toppling a statue of a Confederate general may be righteous in the Left’s eyes, but it doesn’t address the underlying issues that caused the statue to be erected in the first place, nor does it eliminate any good that person did. Like it or not, Robert E. Lee was a military strategist. Even if he was on the losing side, that can’t be taken away from him, no matter how many statues you wreck or history lessons you don’t teach in school. Now what? You’ve pretty much destroyed public property for nothing. Brilliant!

Now, here’s where the Left’s logic about offensive statues will come back to bite them in the backside. As with any movement, eventually the winds of change will make it obsolete and the ideals of said movement can be used to justify actions never intended by the movement to be done. Put another way, the statues you topple today may get erected again and other statues you like will get toppled tomorrow, and you have only yourselves to blame. Congratulations! You’ve not only accomplished nothing, but you’ve opened the door for others to take the same actions that will accomplish nothing. But hey, at least you owned the Right, right?

This next part is a bit of a tangent, but it relates to the matter at hand because it shows how little the Left knows about history and how little they regard context. Some of the same folks who like to topple statutes are trying to get Huckleberry Finn banned because of its frequent use of the n-word. Of course, these morons haven’t taken the time to either a) read the book, or b) understand the reason why the word was used. Mark Twain used the language of the time (of which he was familiar) to expose the idiocy of the racism shown in the book. Of the characters, Jim was by far the most noble while the white characters (including Huck for a time) were irredeemable. That’s a context you miss if you’re just looking for the n-word. Not to mention, this was tried back in the 1990s and it failed. As my old high school history teacher used to say, “Those who do not learn from history get to take it again next semester.”

It appears a lot of Leftists skipped that class the second time around as well as the first.

Other Leftists are arguing the removal of these statues on the basis of them not being art. May I introduce you to the Right and their attempts to remove the works of Robert Mappelthorpe back in the late 80s and early 90s? You guys are going to get along great!

The thing about art is it’s subjective, and the thing about being an adult is you’re not required to like everything and you can ignore what you don’t like. Hear that, Leftists? You don’t have to like everything and you can ignore it. If you get upset over a statue, first of all you have much bigger problems than just the statue, and second of all you can walk away. Tearing down monuments you don’t like is a childish solution to a non-problem. If you want to tackle racism, do it, but don’t do it by acting like a child.

That’s why the toppling of statues today (even people like Ulysses S. Grant who fought in the aforementioned Civil War) is, to borrow a Leftist term, problematic. And why it’s extremely humorous to me.