Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

While we are waiting for a stimulus check from a government that didn’t have to go without during COVID-19, a potential stumbling block came up in the form of a separate bill related to foreign aid. Although this is a global pandemic, the stuff our money is being spent on is…well, peak 2020 levels of insanity. One of the big ticket items, and I swear I’m not making this up, is funding gender studies programs…in Pakistan. Now, I’ll admit I don’t follow Pakistan that closely, but I’m thinking they have worse problems than gender studies. Maybe it’s so if/when India drops bombs on them, they know how to sex the bombs?

Regardless, at a time when Americans are struggling to find ways to make enough money to survive, it seems absurd we would continue to spend millions of dollars overseas, gender studies programs or no. Even at times when the only pandemics we worried about were the ones in the game Pandemic, we would be spending moneys in foreign countries like drunken sailors. Wait, wait, I take that back. I’d trust the fiscal responsible of a drunken sailor before I would trust the federal government to buy a pack of gum, let alone spend money.

Since we have the time, let’s take a look at foreign aid.

foreign aid

What the Left thinks it means – money and goods we give to foreign countries to help them

What it really means – money and goods we give to foreign countries to curry favor with them

Here is a fundamental truth the Left doesn’t understand: no matter what sociopolitical ideology you subscribe to, the world speaks capitalism. Whether you’re an anarcho-socialist or a corporate type, everything you believe comes down to how similar or different it is from capitalism. The same concept applies to foreign aid. No matter if you think capitalism is the Great Satan or the great savior of the Western World, if somebody gives you money, your first instinct is to take it.

Let’s just say the American government has been very generous with our tax dollars and the recipients have yet to decline it.

And usually that comes with some strings, namely that the recipients do something or not do something as the case may be in exchange for the money. In some cases, like with Israel, the foreign aid comes with easier strings, namely not letting the country be turned into glass or into the Jerusalem franchise of ISIS. For others, it’s a bit more complicated, i.e. contradictory to anyone playing along at home. (I’m looking at you, Iran, but we’ll get to them here in a bit.)

But that’s only part of the issue. The other part of the foreign aid issue is there are no consequences if the countries receiving the aid don’t follow through on their promises. And when you consider some of the recipients of our largesse hate our guts, it’s kind of important that we hold them to their word. That brings us back to Iran. (See? I told you we’d get to them!) After the Obama Administration freed up funds allegedly owed to Iran since the hostage crisis, Iran took the money and…continued its nuclear weapons program. You know what was done?

Nothing. Not even a sternly-worded memo.

Regardless of whether you maintain it was their money, the fact of the matter is there are leaders who will take our money and not do what they said they would. Just ask Bob Geldof. When there are no consequences for non-compliance, the dishonest will act with impunity. Imagine how different things might have been if we had parked a fleet or two in the Strait of Hormus to ensure Iran was abiding like The Dude. Iran might not even have developed glow sticks, let alone glow-in-the-dark nuclear bombs.

And the saddest part? The Left thinks this kind of diplomacy actually works. Then again, their solution to a lot of problems is throwing money at them, so it’s not that unusual. Still, it’s hard to say if foreign aid actually moves the needle for us, positive or negative. The best outcome I can see from this approach is the countries that already think we’re jerks will tolerate us as long as the money keeps coming.

With the incoming Administration, I have no doubt we will continue to see a steady outflow of cash in an attempt to, well, buy friends. The difference from the Trump Administration to the Biden Administration will be who we consider friends. Let’s not forget the Arab Spring came about due to the Obama Administration’s diplomatic efforts under former Secretary of State and current sore loser Hillary Clinton. Say what you will about former Secretary of State John Kerry (and believe me I will), but at least his foreign policy helped people remember James Taylor was still alive and performing. Not that it did anything, mind you…

I know we’re in a global economy right now, but that doesn’t mean we have to deal with everyone who hits us up for aid. In fact, I think we need to be a bit more choosy, especially in the face of the global pandemic, because if there’s nobody to write the checks to these foreign countries because everyone died, the checks stop. We have an enlightened self-interest to turn our fiscal focus inward to see what needs to be done to keep us afloat. Our real allies will understand, and any other country that doesn’t might not really be our allies. Although it might make things a little difficult in the short term, on the plus side it keeps down the number of people on the President’s Christmas card list.

The fact Congress decided gender studies in Pakistan was more important than the American people is a slap in the face to all of us and should be grounds to start grabbing torches and pitchforks. (By the way, I have a new business venture that sells torches and pitchforks just in case you want to go ahead with that.) If America was as on-top of everything as we like to think we are, maybe we could justify it, but we’re messed up more than Charlie Sheen partying with Lindsey Lohan in Las Vegas on All the Blow You Can Snort Night. I’m thinking we should hold off on sending other countries our money so we can work on the infrastructure the Left reminds us is crumbling around us, but never does anything about it when they control the purse strings.

But, hey, $600 is $600, amirite?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To start off this week’s edition of the Lexicon, I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is we may finally get to see another round of COVID-19 relief in the near future. The bad news? It looks like it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $600 per person, or in other words, the cost of a large popcorn and drink at your local movie theater, give or take a few thousand dollars.

Granted, if President Donald Trump gets his way, that amount may get boosted to up to $2000, so you might be able to afford to get some nachos with that popcorn. Still, there are questions, primarily from the Left, about whether the proposed stimulus package will be enough to help people. It’s a valid point, but it’s just one of the questions we need to explore before we cash the stimulus checks.

stimulus

What the Left thinks it means – monetary support necessary due to the economic hardships brought on by COVID-19

What it really means – the government returning a portion of the money it takes from us and expecting us to be grateful for it

If you really think about it (and I have because I don’t have anything better to do during quarantine), we’ve been played for suckers this past year because of the political weaponization of COVID-19. This isn’t to say COVID-19 is a hoax or a political scheme, mind you. What I’m saying is people more powerful than us have taken a medical issue and turned it into a way to manipulate the public into acting and acting in a certain way as a means to condition our responses under the guise of “believing the science” and “we’re all in this together.”

The endgame is pretty simple, really. If those who have the most to benefit from turning COVID-19 into a political football can get us to react predictably, they can use that to push a wider agenda using the same thinking that got us to this point. To do that, the powerful (namely Leftists) need a carrot to dangle in front of our faces to keep us Torgo-walking towards being happy little drones for the State.

Enter the stimulus package.

For all of their faults, the Left have an impressive understanding of the human psyche and an even better understanding of how to use us against us. Most people today have the economic understanding of a tuna fish sandwich, so it’s easy for the Left to play to that and our innate sense of greed and jealousy to make us chase the quick buck instead of taking a moment to ponder why there are so many good intentions paving this road to Hell. As we’ve seen since declaring war against poverty, it works.

Of course, that quick buck moves at the glacial progression (this is the government we’re dealing with here, after all), so we never quite reach the finish line. Every time we get close, there always seems to be a reason we have to keep going. Thus, we become George Jetson on that mechanized treadmill used to walk Astro. No matter how much we progress, there will always be a way to not only downplay what we’ve done, but also to set another goal even further away than where we’ve come. And as long as we keep following, the Left will keep that carrot in front of our faces.

There’s another side of this, however, that isn’t talked about much (due to either the Left trying to keep it hidden or, you know, the tuna fish sandwich thing), but is just as important to understand. The bulk of Leftist economic theory comes from John Maynard Keynes, who postulated the way to stimulate the economy is to have government pump money and resources into it and to lower taxes. Seems the Left forgets that last part and only focuses on the government spending side of the equation, but that’s neither here nor there in relation to this blog post. What’s important to keep in mind is who the Left thinks can solve economic problems. Spoiler Alert: it ain’t us, kids. In a crossover event no one but the Left asked for, social and economic policies are joined together in a Man With Two Heads monstrosity that has the potential to turn us all into unwitting wards of the State.

However, a government that has the power to give you the world has the power to take it away from you. And if we follow this line of thinking, we eventually come to the question of where our government is coming up with the money to give to people. It’s not coming from the Left nor the rich who are “paying their fair share.” It’s coming from us. Whether it’s $600, $2000, or one meeeelion dollars, we’re funding it with money the government says we have based on…well, I’m still trying to figure that part out given our national debt is higher than Charlie Sheen partying with Keith Richards in Amsterdam. And I’m not willing to take the government at its word that it has the cash. Call me a cynic, but any government who spends $600 for a hammer without getting a second opinion from Ace Hardware isn’t on my short list for entities to contact for financial advice.

The question then becomes what happens if the money we’re getting from ourselves with the government acting as a middle man isn’t enough. The short term answer from the Left is “people need more money.” And if that money gets allocated, we will be continue to spend money the government doesn’t have, which means we go further into debt, which means the government will tax more to make up that shortfall, which means things will get more expensive, which means the economy doesn’t get any better, which means people will need more help, which means the Left will say “people need more money,” and the cycle begins again.

I got winded just writing that last sentence! I’m gonna need a minute.

Hopefully in that minute you see the insanity of the Left’s stimulus process. As much as I would like to say the people can figure out the correct next steps to get our economy back on track, I really can’t. Economic literacy isn’t something that can be taught with emojis or hashtags or even TikTok videos. However, it is essential to understanding the next steps. One thing I can say is don’t depend on the government to provide for you and yours. To paraphrase the Margaret Thatcher, the problem with a Leftist stimulus package is eventually you run out of your own money. Only you know what you need for yourself and your loved ones. Expecting a politician to know that on your behalf is like trusting your retirement to an embezzler.

Come to think of it, is there a difference between the two?

In either case, all I can ask for you to be smart with the stimulus money. It is your money, after all.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With the Electoral College officially voting for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the 2020 election is all over but the screeching. The Left has taken a break from its regularly scheduled outrage to focus on unity. And the Leftists in the media have jumped on board, claiming Biden and Harris are responsible for lower blood pressure (per an actual opinion piece from the Washington Post) to intelligence and maturity coming back to the White House. As a result, we are urged to get behind the President-Elect and Vice President-Elect so we can accomplish great things.

Like…well…ummm…I’m sure they’ll get around to it, as soon as Biden finds someone to copy.

While we wait for that moment, let’s take a look at unity.

unity

What the Left thinks it means – coming together as a country to undo the damage Donald Trump left

What it really means – do what the Left says or else

Four years ago, the Left was all about resisting. It was #IAmTheResistance this and #NotMyPresident that for four years. Now, resistance isn’t seen as favorably and the “Not My President” statements are mean and hurtful. Funny how that works, isn’t it?

And that is by design.

When the Left is in power, unity is important because they can’t handle actual diversity. Instead, they will batter the non-Leftists until they comply or until they rebel. Once they rebel, it becomes easy for them to marginalize (i.e. insult) them. It worked to a point with Trump supporters, and it may work as well, if not better, under a Biden Administration. The Left and the media (one in the same) are already praising Biden’s ability to unify people…without presenting any evidence. And, no, “he’s better than Trump” isn’t proof.

This isn’t to say Joe Biden won’t be able to do it. He is a likeable guy…if you ignore the frequent mental lapses and the weird fascination with body hair. For all intents and purposes, Joe Biden appears to be a good guy, which begs the question of why he’s in politics, but that’s neither here nor there. The problem he faces is the country isn’t full of nice guys on both sides of the aisle. Whether it’s the extreme right or extreme left, America is so contentious it makes the Hatfields and McCoys look like an Amish barn-raising. And unlike on the campaign trail, you can’t keep ducking questions about the extremists within your own party and ideology.

Including…oh, I don’t know…your Vice President.

While unity is a wonderful goal to strive for, we have to understand the Left’s version of unity isn’t One Nation Under God but One Nation Under the Thumb of the Federal Government. Imagine the person in your lives who are control freaks. Give them access to the military, and you have the Left’s governance strategy. In this case, unity involves shared struggle for the most people, themselves excluded. Even if you agree with this definition of unity, the fact it involves suffering doesn’t exactly make it an attractive option.

Now, what I’m about to say is going to shock you Leftists, so be prepared. Maybe unity isn’t something the government can provide for us. Oh, it can provide for the common defense to the tune of billions of dollars each year, but when has any government actively brought people together? Instead, let’s turn our sights a little be closer to home. Namely…us.

After 9/11, we came together as a nation because the tragedy didn’t just affect one political party or another, one race or another, one creed or another. It affected us all. We looked to government to help us, but when it came to coming together, that was all us, kids. We found commonality amidst the chaos and uncertainty and for a relatively short time, we were a United States again. It felt good to reconnect with our neighbors again, didn’t it? We mourned the losses and praised the front line police, fire, and medical services who were trying to keep the number of fatalities as low as possible, to keep working and never giving up hope in finding one more survivor.

When we are united, not out of shared pain but out of shared pride, we can accomplish just about anything. I believed it on 9/12, and I believe it today. The Left wants us to unify under an ideology or a politician that is a means to an end. The unity I speak of doesn’t even involve the ultimately meaningless descriptors we give to ourselves or are given to us by others as a means to pigeonhole us. All it involves is stripping off those labels and seeing each other as people. The Left can’t do that because their ideology relies on finding and exploiting our differences.

If you want to unite the country with me, the line starts to my left and my right.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Yep, this is another Election 2020-related blog post.

The latest news out of the Election That Won’t Die revolves around 126 Republican Congresscritters who supported a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump’s election team against four states due to election irregularities (you know, like…throwing away military votes for the President). This has the Left up in arms. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said these Republicans have “brought dishonor to the House.”

But that’s not good enough for Leftists. Leftist Twitter (but I repeat myself) exploded with claims these House Republicans are guilty of sedition. Probably not the best week to invoke this, given Rep. Eric Swalwell sleeping with a Chinese spy while he was running for the House, but let’s go with it. Do they have a point this time? Let’s delve deeper into sedition, hopefully without contributing to it.

sedition

What the Left thinks it means – advocating for revolting against and toppling the established order

What it really means – another example of how the Left doesn’t understand irony

For the past 4 years, Democrats and Leftists have been calling President Trump illegitimate and demanding he be removed from office because he didn’t win the popular vote and/or various crimes he and his family are alleged to have committed. They “know” Trump had help from Russia to steal the 2016 elections. In fact, they went so far as to hold protests across the country delegitimizing the Trump Presidency, up to and including violent overthrow of the government or blowing up the White House.

Yeah. These are the folks I trust when it comes to sedition.

On the plus side, Leftists are concerned with people who want to overthrow our government. On the down side, they’re going after the wrong folks. I’ll be the first one to tell you I thought the lawsuit was dumber than letting Jeffrey Epstein babysit, but does it rise to the level the Left wants you think it does? The short answer is no. The longer answer is still no, but has a lot more words connected to it.

The President’s lawsuit, although ill-advised, isn’t an attempt to overthrow the government or its rightful leadership. Neither is the support from House Republicans because…and this is the part the Left keeps forgetting…Trump is still President until January 20, 2021. This little detail makes the sedition charges harder to stick. After all, why would the support for the President’s lawsuit be seditious when the person bringing the lawsuit itself is the President? No violence called for. No threats against the President’s life or the lives of government leaders. Just support for a lawsuit.

Can you say “overkill”? I knew you could.

Even if you expand the focus to the lawsuit and its supporters hurting the government, it falls flat because of the forum used to address the President’s concerns: the courts. You know, the courts…that are established in the Constitution? If President Trump is trying to get people to rebel against the government, he’s doing a crappy job of it. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say the Left is reaching more than Reed Richards.

The funny thing (at least to me) is how quickly the Left is adopting conservative ideas. Since it’s their ideology that stands to gain or lose the most over the outcome of the lawsuit, they want to preserve the status quo of a Biden victory over Trump. If the courts agree with the Trump campaign (which, to date, they haven’t, making them the second most losing team in history behind the Cleveland Browns, but work with me here), that overturns everything the Left wants to accomplish. No Green New Deal, no tax hikes on the wealthy, no free health care and tuition, just four more years of Trump’s Tweets and Leftist meltdowns. Don’t worry, though. Leftists will still have their meltdowns because that’s what they do in lieu of gainful employment.

Once you get past the hyperbole, the Left’s concept of sedition in this case is frightfully strong in words, but frightfully weak in application. In a few short years, they’ve gone from “Dissent is patriotic” to “Dissent is treason.” Yet, the First Amendment gives people the right to not only criticize the government, but to redress grievances with the government. Under Republican Presidents, the Left uses, if not abuses, both concepts demanding they be heard. Under Democrat Presidents, however, they seem to “forget” these parts of the First Amendment exist. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?

This is by design, of course. Leftists believe anyone who doesn’t stay in line like a Rockette is intellectually and morally inferior, which justifies their actions (at least in their minds). To extend this thinking a bit further, anything a non-Leftist does is anti-American and dangerous to the country. And when that non-Leftist is connected to Trump in any way, it becomes an imperative to discredit them, if not outright punish them for not thinking the right way.

George Orwell called. He wanted to let you Leftists know “1984” wasn’t an instruction manual.

Regardless of my feelings on the Trump campaign’s lawsuit regarding the 2020 election, there is no way it rises to the level of sedition, even if you water the definition down like a drink at a strip club. It’s more of the Left conflating objections to their ideology with objections to the country. After seeing some of the Left over the past four years, it’s safe to say the two are mutually exclusive.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As George R. R. Martin is fond of writing, Winter is coming, and along with it comes the possibility of another round of COVID-19 breakout. To combat this, the same people who said we needed to stay quarantined to slow the spread (except, of course, if you’re ANTIFA, Black Lives Matter, or Biden/Harris supporters) are now saying we need to go back into lockdown to slow the spread again.

You know, because lockdowns worked so well last time.

Although we covered this topic earlier this year, the topic has been refreshed, namely because the Left keep acting as though the pandemic isn’t a thing. Which makes it perfect fodder for this week’s Lexicon!

lockdowns

What the Left thinks it means – a way to protect society from the spread of COVID-19 by limiting or canceling in-person activities, such as visiting a restaurant or going to concerts

What it really means – a means to control and manipulate people under the guise of science

When they weren’t telling us to ignore lockdown orders to combat racism, Leftists were enamored with idea of everybody staying inside to, as they called it, “flatten the curve.” Well, the curve didn’t get flattened so much as it got the Mamie Van Doren Special breast augmentation surgery. To cover this up, the Left kept moving the goalposts as to when the lockdowns would be over. First it was 2 weeks. Then 3. Then 4. Then 6. When it got to 12, I sold.

After blowing through the first couple of Leftist-designated goalposts, many people (including your humble correspondent) started to wonder if the lockdowns were actually supposed to control the spread of COVID-19. (Spoiler Alert: The scientists still aren’t on the same page as to the effectiveness of lockdowns. But we’re supposed to trust the science so…I guess we trust the ambiguity?) Then, Democrat governors across the country used the outbreak to enact restrictions stricter than my third grade teacher (to whom I still owe three weeks after school in detention), and people rebelled. Even though most people still considered COVID-19 a threat, they also saw the draconian moves by said governors to be as big of a threat. There is a debate to be had concerning freedom during quarantine, but the Left doesn’t want one. They just want to tell you what you can and can’t do.

Of course, those rules don’t apply to them because…reasons?

The reason lockdowns became a subject of discussion again is because Democrats leaders are getting caught violating the rules they want everyone else to follow. Who could have seen that coming? Even before now, Democrat governors and their spouses in some cases were caught defying their own mandates for personal gain. Imagine being told you have to stay in your house and not have Thanksgiving while the person telling you this is spending Thanksgiving with his family in a foreign country. If you’re living in Austin, TX, you know what that’s like because it actually happenedthis year.

You know, even Beethoven wasn’t this tone deaf.

At this point, the concept of lockdowns may be medically wise, but foolish in practice because we’re not all in this together, contrary to what the Left says. They’re in it for themselves and they don’t care who gets hurt in the process. That much is evident by how many businesses of all sizes have closed down due to lack of business or been forced out of business by governors who don’t have to worry about serving customers or making payroll. All they have to do is pretend to care when it’s election season.

On top of that, the Left hasn’t made any friends by, well…acting like Leftists. It’s hard enough to get everyone to go along with a reasonable request as it is, but it’s made even more difficult when you’ve given people a reason to distrust you. Congratulations, Leftists. You’ve made it impossible to achieve the right goal. And as someone who would benefit by the curve being flatter than pancakes in Nebraska, I’m not happy the Left used lockdowns to grab up power, hurt people and the economy, and create rules they don’t have to follow, but really should.

Thus, we see the facade of the lockdowns. Leftists used science to convince most of us to stay indoors and away from others, and we did. After weeks went by, the message stayed the same, even when the science didn’t back up their ideas. In the end, it was never about following the science or staying in lockdown until we got COVID-19 under control; it was all about control of as many people as possible.

And unfortunately it worked pretty well.

Where we go from here is hard to say. As I mentioned earlier, there is a valuable debate about freedom during the time of quarantine, and this is the time to have it. If President-Elect Joe Biden has his say, we will be looking at actions more draconian than the ones we’ve already experienced and he will try to justify it using the same method (i.e. the public good) the Left used during the first round of lockdowns. The thing is the same argument can be used to refute more stringent restrictions because of the number of people out of work due to the lockdowns themselves. The Left calls it putting profits ahead of people, but they also admit there are economic costs to a lockdown. When you don’t know where your next meal is coming from, profits are how you get paid. Put another way, the Left is putting politics and pain before people.

And you might need to dodge as the Leftists’ heads explode.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett may not have had a chance to figure out what other Justices wear under their robes, she has shown she can sway a decision in short order. By a 5-4 verdict, the Supreme Court struck down New York State’s restriction on religious services due to COVID-19. And as you might expect, the Left took it as well as they usually do: by using Twitter to call her “Amy Covid Barrett.”

The reason for the Left’s latest bout of Loser-itis, aside from resting on the laurels of two previous decisions in their favor, is a gross misunderstanding of the First Amendment’s “Establishment Clause.” Many Leftists on Twitter felt the ruling violated the Establishment Clause because…well, I’m still trying to figure that out, but it might have something to do with Justice Barrett’s faith.

The heart of the case involves faith, and not just Justice Barrett’s. Thanks to New York Governor Andrew “Fredo’s Smarter Brother” Cuomo’s edicts, the question of religious freedom during a pandemic came front and center. And for this week’s Lexicon, let’s take a look at the larger concept of religious freedom.

religious freedom

What the Left thinks it means -the right to worship as you see fit, unless you’re a Christian

What it really means – a vital freedom the Left feels it has to destroy or undercut

The Left’s approach to organized religion is much like their ethical standards; a lot depends on the situation. Much like their world view, Leftists approach religion in terms of a power dynamic, with Christians (used interchangeably with the term “evangelicals”) seen as the most powerful. As a result, Leftists want to hinder Christianity while elevating other religions, namely Islam. That means Muslims get the benefit of the doubt whenever one of theirs does something minor like, say, killing coworkers at a Christmas party, but Christians don’t when they do something major, like…putting a Nativity scene in a public park.

Thanks, ACLU.

And really that’s how the Left has made their religious animosity into law: through the judicial system. Whenever a Christian makes a move in accordance with his/her faith, the Left runs to Big Daddy Government to get their way. Through legal wrangling, identifying loopholes that are either in the original text or an Oktoberfest-pretzel-making frenzy of legal arguing, and a Supreme Court case that made any public school action subject to the “Congress shall make no law” section of the First Amendment, you’re more likely to find a non-violent ANTIFA member than you are to find a Leftist willing to let Christians celebrate without issue.

Although Fox News and others have called such a notion this time of year “The War on Christmas,” the real issue isn’t so specific. Any time a Leftist strikes a blow against Christianity, it affects all religions because the same rules can, may, and eventually will be used against them all. Need proof? Governor Cuomo’s edict that brought about this Supreme Court decision affected any religious gathering. In response, members of the Catholic Church and Jewish faith brought the suit that ultimately ended up in the Supreme Court’s lap.

And because Justice Barrett wasn’t shy about her faith during her confirmation hearing, the Left pinned the decision on her. But the reality is…the Left sucks at reading the Constitution. Although they’re familiar with the Establishment Clause, they overlook the second half which prevents Congress from making any laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. Using Leftist logic, that means Governor Cuomo did his brother Fredo proud…in the bad decisions department.

And if there’s one thing Leftists hate, it’s using their own tactics against them. Well, except if you take into consideration the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg upheld similar restrictions in two previous cases, and her replacement turned the tide. Regardless, there was a clear violation of religious freedom in each case, but only the most recent decision recognized it and brought it to the forefront where it should have been in the first place.

That’s the problem, though. The Left has made it easy to ignore or overlook religious freedom because they have successfully lobbied society to adopt an “all or nothing” approach to religion. Essentially, the Left says religious freedom is only applicable if all religions are represented. Otherwise, the only fair thing to is to have no religions represented. Using people’s feelings to get what they want. That’s the Leftist way!

This is going to be a controversial statement for some and it’s not meant to offend. If you want religious freedom for all, you are going to have to get along with people of different creeds. That means not trying to convert non-believers and leaving them alone to worship as they see fit. The expectation, though, is they will do the same. To put it in the Lutheran vernacular, it’s one big potluck where everyone will bring a little something to pass, and no matter how bad the Jello is, you put it aside and focus on the Little Smokies. There is strength in numbers, and when it comes to religious freedom, there is no time to let theological disagreements get between us.

So, break bread with a Baptist! Go to brunch with a Buddhist! Get lunch with a Lutheran! Grab a coffee with a Catholic! Share a snack with a member of the Church of Shatner (and, yes, this is a real thing)! Dine with a deist! And round out your night with s’mores with Satanists! As that great philosopher Red Green says, we’re all in this together.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The Left loves recycling. Just look at the ideas they keep bringing up even after they’ve failed worse than Michael Dukakis trying to look tough driving a tank. One of the ideas that has come back into vogue for the Left is cancelling student debt. And with the possibility of Democrats taking back the Senate as of this writing, the idea may become a reality before we know it.

And in typical current year fashion, there’s a hashtag to promote the idea, #CancelStudentDebt, designed to get the President and Department of Education to use their powers to forgive federal student loan debt. But as anyone who’s seen “Jurassic Park” a couple of times will tell you, just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. Should we? Let’s discuss it further, shall we?

#CancelStudentDebt

What the Left thinks it means – a great way to stimulate the economy and allow college students to put their money towards more practical means

What it really means – a way to remove consequences for people who ran up debt studying stupid majors

Back in the day, going to college was a big deal because it meant you had the intellectual drive and economic ability to go. To help people less fortunate, but no less driven, than wealthier families, student loans were created, and it proved to be the gateway to higher education. As time passed and Leftist ideas about education took hold, the value of a high school education got devalued faster than Arthur Andersen’s reputation, so college went from a luxury to a necessity.

Then, Leftists started coming up with all sorts of crazy majors that result in an utter lack of marketable skills outside the halls of academia. Of course, the students who take on these crazy majors don’t find this out until after they graduate with a ton of debt and a lack of ability to do anything more challenging than asking whether you want to Mega-Size your drive-thru meal. Instead of going back to the colleges and universities that gave out the academic equivalent of a Burger King crown, these students (who are all Leftists because that’s what they’ve been indoctrinated to be) look to the government to help them again after asking them for help to get the useless degrees they got in the first place.

Funny how that works, isn’t it?

When it comes to cancelling student debt, I can see what the proposed economic benefits could be. Not having to pay through the nose monthly to pay for the education received would be allow young people to put more of that money towards living expenses, like rent, food, and, oh yeah, the latest iPhones. Just because you have more money to spend doesn’t mean you will spend it wisely. As someone who ran up credit card debt like a scammer at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch, I am proof of that.

Although this will put money back into the economy (at least on paper), it also allows people to run up a different kind of debt. If you think student loans are bad, wait until you see the interest payments on credit cards. (Of course, the Left also wants to cancel credit card debt, but that’s a blog post for a different time.) And unlike student loan holders, credit card companies expect to get paid monthly and have the tools to really make your life a perpetual 2020. Given how much people spend these days to get the latest stuff and their lack of even a cursory knowledge of basic economics, I don’t think I’m going out on a limb saying cancelling student debt will be a bane to the folks who ran up the student debt and a boon for credit card companies.

Here’s a fun little fact to mull over if you support cancelling student debt. The people who tend to default the most on student loans are…doctors and lawyers. In other words, the Left are inadvertently helping former students who could afford to pay their debts, but choose not to. Tell me again how you Leftists are against tax cuts for the rich again…

But there are a few groups of people who will be left behind with this idea. Some people worked their way through college without student loans, while others have been paying off or have paid off their debt. To put it simply, these folks are hosed. Yet, these are the ones who will be expected to make up the shortfalls of cancelling student debt, all while not getting any of the benefits. As it turn out, that may be by design.

When the Left thinks of economics, they think in terms of winners and losers. If someone gets ahead, it’s solely because they took advantage of someone else, even if the former did everything by himself/herself. When you view the world like this, there will always be a power dynamic that has to be “corrected” to make things “fair.” So, the Left will always see those who have paid their debts as the ones with power and the ones who ran up the debts but haven’t paid them as victims.

The one thing the Left overlooks in this dynamic is choice. We choose to go to college, we choose what classes to take, we choose what majors we want, we choose to accumulate debt, and we choose whether to pay off said debt. That’s a lot of choices, and all of them personal choices. That means the people complaining about crushing student loan debt are the ones who put themselves there in the first place. But since Leftists are incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions, they will blame others for the stupid decisions they make and expect the government to bail them out.

But that’s not how it works. The government isn’t there to be your babysitter, nor is it there to fund your dreams of finding a job in the Albino Native American Pottery Poetry field. At some point, you have to realize a lot of the crap you’re experiencing is on you and you might need to figure out how to get yourselves out of it. The first step towards that end is realizing you’ve made some horrible decisions, and I’m not just talking about getting multiple piercings to the point you trigger the metal detectors in airports 3 states over. Take a look at who and what you support and what role they’ve had in shaping your decisions. If they’re the cause or at least the cheerleaders of your bad decisions, they’re not role models; they’re enablers, and they might just be making a buck or two off your misfortunes.

In the meantime, let’s take the hashtag activism for a walk on the responsible side. Even if you agree with the #CancelStudentDebt notion, there are parts of it that, if unresolved, will lead to the biggest producer drop-out rate since Atlas Shrugged. And without someone else’s money to fall back on, what will Leftists do?

Probably create another hashtag.

Thanks, But No Thanksgiving

Maybe I missed the memo on this, but has November become the black sheep of the calendar family? It seems we’ve gone from wearing scary costumes to Santa costumes in the span of, oh, minutes after Halloween ended. It’s almost as though we’ve forgotten the major holiday that occurs in November: Black Friday.

Seriously, though, we’re more interested in running up credit card debts we’ll be paying off right around next Christmas than we are about being thankful for what we have right now. Granted, COVID-19 and 2020 in general make it harder to be thankful than usual, but I’ve noticed this trend well before this year. It seems like the one time of the year set aside to appreciate what God (or whatever entity you worship or don’t worship) has given us has been replaced by a new god. No matter how cool the PlayStation 5 is, that should give us pause for concern.

It’s natural to want to have what others want and to get it first so you can be the envy of your friends. This feeling has grown to Godzilla-sized proportions with society getting more narcissistic and tech-addicted because they have allowed us to shrink our universe where we are the center of it and can document it all from the exhilarating to the mundane. Technology has also allowed us to reshape our reality for the online world. Don’t like your face? There are any number of filters and cartoonish features that you can add! Think you look fat in your pictures? A little Photoshop work and you’re thinner than the plot of a romance novel. You can be the perfect you in your own little world.

But the problems really start when you prefer your little world to the real world. Ego is a double-edged Sword of Damocles. A healthy ego allows you to be proud of who you are while admitting you’re imperfect. An unhealthy ego doesn’t split the difference; you either love yourself excessively or hate yourself excessively. And right now, there are a lot of people comfortable with loving themselves.

I know this seems like an odd tangent when we were just talking about Thanksgiving, but here’s the payoff. When your ego is inflated like the Goodyear blimp, you start thinking everything good comes from you, thus you have nothing to be thankful for than you. I’m sure that saves time when it comes to thinking what to be thankful for this year, but it alienates a lot of people in the process.

I have a saying: “Success is never singular.” What I mean by that is you never achieve a personal goal without some help along the way. Think back to some of your greatest achievements in life and look at who was there for you as you achieved them. A teacher, a loved one, an author, the list is potentially endless, but they’re all united by the fact they gave you the tools to be the best you can be. When you look at life in that way, you learn to appreciate more and be grandiose less.

In other words, you learn to be more…what’s the word…oh, yeah, thankful.

Even with COVID-19 taking a big chunk of the heart of Thanksgiving, we can still take a moment to be thankful. After all, the Pilgrims had a rough go of it, and they didn’t even care about what Black Friday deals the local trappers had. Even when they had little, they were thankful for what they had. In today’s world of instant gratification, ego stroking, and trying to keep up with the Joneses, it shouldn’t take less time to appreciate who and what you have in your lives than it does to place an Amazon order or post a heavily-filtered selfie on Instagram.

Yet, somehow, I think the majority of people will do just that. That doesn’t give you an out, though. Take a moment or several to open your heart and mind to the possibility/probability there are people you should be thankful for and then thank them, publicly or privately. You’d be surprised at just how awesome you feel afterwards. The turkey tastes juicier, the mashed potatoes and gravy taste better, the cranberry sauce tastes…well, I don’t know because I don’t touch the stuff, but the point is your perspective changes when you are thankful for what you have. Money can buy you a new iPhone, but it can’t buy you a moment of personal reflection and gratitude.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

After the Associated Press called the 2020 election for Joe Biden, the Left wet themselves with joy (and I hope it was just tears). As soon as the fireworks were set off, the spreader events…I mean street parties, and other celebrations wound down, the Left then started demanding President Donald Trump concede the election and start a smooth transition period. You know, like the Left did when President Trump was elected.

Okay, bad example.

While we’re trying to sort through questions like whether Twitter will consider “Not My President” hate speech, few people are considering what a transition looks and feels like. And, as you might expect, the Left has a completely different mindset when it comes to transitions.

transition of power

What the Left thinks it means – a tradition where an outgoing President paves the way for an incoming President to hit the ground running

What it really means – holding Republican Presidential staffs to standards Democrat Presidential staffs can’t meet

Politics is an ugly game, especially in these hyper-partisan times. I’ve seen family Monopoly games end more amicably than recent elections and with fewer lawsuits. And after 4+ years of the Left demonizing the President, his family, his staff, his supporters, and anyone even tangentially related to the Trump family or campaign, any transition of power is going to be more like a hostage negotiation than a handing off of a baton.

In recent history, one party has been responsible and without malice when handing over the keys to the White House to its new inhabitants. And the other party is the Democrats. Whether it was taking White House furniture, removing the W keys off keyboards or spying on the incoming President, the Left has been petty when it comes to transitions, so when they demand a smooth transition for Joe Biden, it rings hollow for me.

The reasons for the Left’s call for civility after their lack of said civility over the past few years come down to holding President Trump to their standard, using it as a pseudo-concession, and scoring a political win without spending political capital to obtain it. Let’s break these down one at a time.

One of the Left’s favorite strategy guides is Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky. One of the tenets is “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” In this case, the Left has set the demand Trump follow the precedent of previous Republican Presidents and submit. And the President has done what any Republican President in his place has done: ignore them. (Okay, only some of them would have told the Left to take a hike, but we can dream.) The more President Trump defies the Left’s demands, the more vocal the demands become. It’s like having a Judas Priest concert in the Grand Canyon.

Because President Trump has yet to concede, the Left are trying to manipulate him into a half-measure they can spin into a concession. If Trump starts the transition phase right now, the Left can then say he conceded, even though he hasn’t really. That will go a long way toward getting popular opinion on their side because many people think Biden is or should be acting President right now, but that’s to be expected by a culture that made Cardi B popular.

And the best part of this for the Left is they don’t lose any political capital making these demands. As of this writing, the House is barely in Democrat control and Senate control hasn’t been completely decided yet. After wasting money and political capital to unseat Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham and fail, the Left needs to keep their eyes on what they can and cannot afford to use to fulfill their objectives. Right now, all the Left has to do is keep telling President Trump to concede or at least start the transfer of power to Joe Biden and it doesn’t cost them anything but time and energy.

In spite of all this, the Left hasn’t gotten Trump to budge because he’s not like past Republicans. He has his own set of rules and norms, which has infuriated people on the Left and the Right because they don’t agree with his approach. It also means he isn’t bound to their expectations. When they say “jump” Trump tells them to jump in a lake, although probably not in those words nor as nicely as I put it. Although this approach has made him less popular than Gretchen Witmer at a Michigan NRA meeting, it has shown an independent streak the Left doesn’t know how to handle. They love diversity, except when it comes to diversity of thought. Free will is a Leftist’s worst nightmare, so they will try to coerce compliance whenever possible.

Needless to say that hasn’t worked with President Trump.

Regardless of who takes up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue come January 20th, the transition tradition is going to look and feel different going forward. Republican Presidents may be more emboldened (hey, I can dream, can’t I) to treat the Left like the Left has treated Republicans during previous transitions of power, but something tells me they’ll be adults about it. Meanwhile, Leftists are going to continue to use the process to say one thing and do another for political ends.

In other words, acting like they do on any day ending in a Y.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Before I begin, I have a question I’d like an answer to. Who requested a 2000 rerun?

Although there were many winners and losers from this year’s elections, there is one group who definitely fall into the latter category: pollsters. You could swing a dead cat (and, really, why would you) and hit a pollster whose can’t-miss election predictions based on research was so appallingly bad TV meteorologists were saying, “Hey! That’s our schtick!”

Now, if this were the first time the polls were wrong, I could perhaps forgive the people who put them together and say they were having a 2020. Unfortunately for them, this isn’t the first time. If anything, the only consistency they showed was how wrong they’ve been. Yet, people outside of the polling industry based decisions on where to go and how hard to campaign based on these numbers which swung wilder than Charlie Sheen. Let’s take a look at the wonderful world of pollsters.

pollsters

What the Left thinks it means – people who review numbers to create charts and graphics showing trends so people get an understanding of what is going on in a political race

What it really means – people willing to take your money and provide you with crap while knowing they will keep their jobs

When done right, polling can be an important and useful tool, and pollsters know this. What they don’t seem to know anymore is how to do polling right. Everything from sampling errors to confusing questions have rendered pollsters more useless than a second appendix. Even between pollsters, there are different methodologies and strategies at work, which create wide swings in the numbers. At any given time, a candidate could be up by 200 points or down by a gajillion. (Sorry to have to bust out the math jargon there, but it was necessary to prove the point.) Granted, the pollsters don’t share call lists, but the point remains there is no consistency in what numbers are produced.

Now, our friends in the media don’t care about the accuracy of the polling numbers for two reasons: 1) the accuracy isn’t as important as the horserace element of an election, and 2) they suck at math. The latter isn’t in question because any media type who still considers Paul Krugman to be credible has to suck at math or at least suck at making value judgments. That leaves the horserace.

The news game is funny in that it mostly relies on misery for ratings, which translate into money. Lately, even hard news has given way to celebrity worship and mixed celebrity with misery. Instead of worrying about whether the news they’re putting out is at least somewhat accurate, the media are now straight out of Don Henley’s “Dirty Laundry.” Under these circumstances, the need for accuracy takes a back seat to the need for ratings. Polling creates a buzz during election season across the board, whether it be Fox News or MSNBC. By focusing on the horserace, the media don’t have to do any actual work because that’s done by, guess who, the pollsters. All the media have to do then is take the pollsters’ work and report on it. Then, it’s a matter of Blather, Rinse, Repeat to continue the buzz until Election Day.

Then, there’s the donkey in the room: ideology. Most people in the media are Leftists, which means polling takes on an air of authority since there are hard numbers involved. After all, we’ve been taught to accept majority rules, even if we don’t understand how the majority became the majority. What better way to convince people the Left is, well, right?

Without getting too far into the weeds, the effectiveness of polls relies on a number of factors, including the number of people polled, what method is being used to get the results, and how confident the pollsters are that the results accurately reflect what the rest of the population believes. If any of these factors go pear-shaped, the results aren’t going to be reliable. Let’s just say media polling loves pear shapes. A lot.

Outside of becoming pollsters ourselves, we don’t have a lot of options on how to combat pollsters and the misinformation they peddle. One thing I can suggest, however, is to not put much stock in the polls. And that means not to put much stock in pollsters.

Given how inaccurate polls have been in the past 20+ years, I don’t think that will be too hard to do.