Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Remember when racism was bad? I do, and I still think that way. When someone like Steve King says something racist and stupid, there is near universal condemnation. When someone like Joe Biden says something racist and stupid, there is…much less condemnation.

See, even though the former Vice President has been making comments that would make David Duke tell you to cut it out, Joe Biden has a Get Out of Cancel Culture Free card: he’s evolved from his previous racism and reformed his views. How much he has evolved is in question, but the Left says the fact he’s changed is enough to excuse past behavior.

And as you’re about to see, this concept is as bogus as Joe Biden writing his own Tweets.

evolved

What the Left thinks it means – when someone renounced his or her past beliefs in favor of more progressive ideas

What it really means – when a Leftist says something bad and the Left wants to make people believe it’s no longer what the Leftist thinks, even when it is

First, a little peak behind the curtain. The inspiration for this week’s Lexicon entry came from a discussion I had with some Leftist friends of mine on Facebook. Another poster listed several times from Biden’s past where he was a racist, but the Leftists discarded the criticism by invoking the “he’s evolved” card. That might have explained some of his comments from the 1970s, where bad choices were as commonplace as they are today, but not his more recent statements about blacks. Remember his “you ain’t black” comment? Or how about his clumsy attempt to praise the Hispanic community’s diversity by suggesting the black community isn’t?

Yeah, he’s about as evolved as a can of Campbell’s Cream of Primordial Soup, but I’m sure he’s going to “evolve” again by the time he says something else racist. In other words, any second now.

The concept of Joe Biden “evolving” on race isn’t borne out by what he continues to do. The Left, however, can’t drop him from the 2020 Presidential ticket just yet because they think he’s the one who can beat President Donald Trump in November. Right now, they’re trying to use him as a jeweler’s cloth to expose the President’s faults, especially on race because they think Trump is weak on race relations and can be brought down by accusations of racism.

Of course, the Left never gives anyone outside of their ideological village the opportunity to “evolve.” Once you say something or do something or have a situation spun to make it look racist, you’re a racist for life. Doesn’t matter what you’ve done to atone for your past, no matter what you’ve said to denounce racism, if you’re on the Right, you’re a racist by default and can never evolve. Unless, of course, you become a complete sell-out like David “I’m a Paranoid Coke Fiend and All I Got Was This Lousy Website” Brock and start attacking the Right. Then, you are allowed to evolve and your past sins are washed away. I would say this is an example of the Leftist White Jesus Complex, but there’s nothing complex about it. It’s a simplistic way to try to memory-hole a Leftist’s racist, sexist, whatever-ist past the Left thinks people have to atone for, even when they act the same way later on down the line.

Make no mistake, I believe people can and do change, but the fact the Left allows only their allies to evolve on issues makes no sense. If they believe as I do, why tack on an ideological requirement to get the benefit of the doubt? It’s simple, really. The Left believes they are the most moral people on the planet, so in order for anyone to be forgiven for the past, he or she has to get the Left’s blessing.

Can you say “cult,” boys and girls? I knew you could.

The odd thing about the Left’s concept of “evolution” in this case is it doesn’t focus much on actions, which can be tracked and verified, so much as it focuses on ideas and assumptions, which can be faulty or dishonest. You can look back at what Joe Biden has said and supported during his time on Capitol Hill (although he would rather you not because it would be a “distraction”) to get a fix on what he truly believes. Ideas are harder to nail down because there isn’t always concrete evidence that supports them. People change their minds for all sorts of reasons, some of which defy reason. In order to show a change of heart, though, there has to be more to it than just ether.

And I have a great example of this: the late Senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond. He was a racist in his early years (which, I believe, were somewhere in the Stone Age) and even ran for President on a segregationist platform in 1948. The Left still invoke his name as proof of the Republicans’ racism, in spite of the fact he was a Democrat for a good chunk of his time. Also, he switched parties in the 1960s, which the Left use as proof of a party switch in the 1960s, but that’s a Leftist Lexicon post for another time.

Now, here’s the M. Night Shyamalan twist ending few people know about. It turns out Thurmond wasn’t as much of a racist as the Left wants you to believe. Whether it was seeking justice for criminals who lynched a man, advocating for black membership at Augusta National, or sleeping with black women (okay, so that last one may not be as admirable, but work with me here), Thurmond’s actions prove he has more of a claim to be considered evolved than Joe Biden has. Thurmond may not have fully renounced his past, but he didn’t shy away from it, nor did he seek forgiveness. He was who he was, warts and all.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden is getting forgiveness for his past, and present I might add, in spite of not doing anything but be a Democrat. This shows the ultimate absurdity of the Left’s concept of evolution: ideas and words mean more than deeds, even when the ideas and words don’t show any substantive change.

If that’s what they’re going with, the Left may be writing their own unhappy ending in November.

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. 

Age Required Voting

There is a Democratic Party movement to lower the voting age from 18 to 16. I am not in favor of this movement at all.

16 year olds are known to make very poor decisions. They lack wisdom and life experience to make sound decisions. I was 16 once and made poor choices then. My children were 16 once and they made poor decisions. It’s a part of growing up and becoming a responsible adult. But not worth risking the future of the nation on the chaotic mind of a young teenager.

I do think we need some voter reform. So here is my proposal on the subject of age and voting eligibility. We raise the voting age. Not universally, but on a sliding scale.

The sliding scale is based on already established laws throughout the United States. These are the laws that have restrictions on who can run for a particular public office.

For most state and local offices this is 18 years of age. However some jurisdictions and offices have other age and related requirements on who can be elected to office. In Montana for instance, one has to be 21 years of age to be a mayor of any town.

Thus we adapt this system for all elections in this proposal. In order to vote in an election or candidate for office. You must meet the same requirements as running for that office. In the example above. If there was a mayoral election in Montana, only those voters who were 21 years of age or older could participate. The same would be true for any other local or even state-wide election. The same requirements in age, residency, citizenship to be elected would also apply to those voting.

In Federal elections. Those requirements are defined in the Constitution.

To run for or participate in the election of a US House congressman. Both the voter and candidate would have to be at least 25 years of age. And a resident of the particular state for the last 7 years.

To run for or participate in the election of a US Senator. Both the voter and candidate would have to be at least 30 years of age. And be a US Citizen for the last 9 years and a resident of the particular state.

To run for or participate in the election of the US President. Both the voter, including the electoral college, and candidate must be at least 35 years of age. And a Natural born US Citizen and a resident of the United States for the past 14 years.

All active duty military and honorably discharged veterans would be exempt from any age requirements in voting as a reward to their service to the nation.

With the implementation of this sliding scale voter requirement. Every voter would need to have and show a photo ID in order to vote. Thus proving the age of the voter. There would be multiple ballots. Not only based on precincts but also based on age. And presenting a photo ID does reduce the changes of having voter fraud.

This proposal will produce an electorate with more wisdom and life experiences necessary to properly elected our representatives who govern in our stead in a just republic.

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.

A 2nd Look

This Leftist meme needed more attention. In my previous article I stated that the meme was attacking the Lefts big three enemies.

President Donald Trump
American Conservative (Republicans) and America itself
and Christianity/Christians.

This is psychological propaganda. Doctor Joseph Goebbels would be proud of this meme and what others have done with his body of work.

Dividing the meme in half there is a right side and a left side.

All of the negative aspects are on the right side. This creates a subconscious thought that right is bad. Thus the Left begins it’s clandestine attack on the American Conservative (Republican) which is generally viewed as being on the right side of the political spectrum.

The particular images of Jesus here are also well chosen for propaganda purposes. On the left side is a very African featured Jesus. Fully in line with the current affairs of the Leftist-Marxist Black Lives Matter movement.

While on the right side is a very Caucasian Jesus. And it has been altered from the original image with the addition of an American Flag and MAGA hat.

Since the Left hates America all this imagery appears on the negative right side of the meme.

The positive left side has some additional false hoods besides the image of Jesus. He was not African, so we would not look like that image. He was Jewish so his skin complexion would be olive and not brown.

Jesus was never a child refugee either. This lie is being put out by the Left for political gain and goes against the truth in Holy Scripture.

Jesus was neither poor or homeless. Jesus was a skilled carpenter. A trade learned from his given human adoptive father Joseph before he began His ministry. And he had a home in Nazareth.

No true believer, or American Conservative (Republican), or even any right leaning political organization believes any of the aspects listed on the negative right side of this meme.

Again, Jesus was of an olive complexion since He was a Jew born in Bethlehem in the Roman Province of Judea in the 1st Century.

Jesus could not be an American since the nation would not exist for another 1700 years at the time of His life on Earth. It is absurd to even have this as an aspect listed. But the purpose is to attack the American nation.

Jesus however did play a major role in the formation of the American nation. His teachings would lay the foundation for the Constitution and the American Dream. Freedom and Liberty for all people as our Founding Fathers designed this Great nation under Christian principles.

Within Holy Scripture from the time of creation to the great flood. All people descended from Adam and Eve. Thus there is only one race up through the time of the great flood.

And from the time of the great flood to the present day. We have all descended from Noah and his family that were spared. Again we are but one race. Man. Humankind. Created in God’s image.

When the Holy Bible divides people into ethnic differences it is only to divide them in half. One is either Jew or Gentile. Or sometimes written as Jew or Greek. The only other major division of the people is by Faith. One is either God-fearing or a pagan.

Ethnicity, race, and Nationality are all tied closely together. Sometimes they are even confused and mistaken for one another. Nationalities are mentioned in Scripture.

Was Jesus a Nationalist? Certainly not for the Roman Empire which He was a subject of like everyone else in Judea.

But read Matthew 15:21-28. In this passage of Holy Scripture Jesus tells a Canaanite woman that He has come only for the lost sheep of Israel. Jesus, in this passage, also compares the Canaanites to being dogs while the Israelites are children. In our modern world of today such statements would be very racist and nationalistic.

Many have pointed out that since Jesus never condemned homosexuality in the New Testament it means that Jesus approved of the practice. And Christians today are in error for condemning it.

Those doubters know that there are many verses in the Old Testament that condemn homosexuality as a grievous sin but they are wrong about the New Testament and what it says on the subject.

For Romans 1:24-27 speaks of the sin of homosexuality as does 1st Corinthians 6:9-10. And if these verses are not enough to convince the reader on what Jesus believed about the nature of homosexuality. Then remember this, Jesus was a Jew and was taught the Laws of Moses (the Old Testament) which declares that homosexuality is a sin.

But more importantly, Jesus is God. He and the Father are one. Moses received the Law from God. Thus he received it from Jesus. Jesus wrote the Laws of Moses which condemn homosexuality. There is no escaping this fact.

Yet the meme does call the aspect homophobia. And here it is correct. Jesus was not homophobic and neither are His followers today.

It is love of our neighbors that drive Christians to preach the truth of homosexuality and other sins. To free our neighbors from sin in the forgiveness and redemption of Jesus Christ. Loving your neighbor does not mean you condone their sins.

We touched before on the wealth of Jesus. He was not poor and nor was he rich. There are numerous verses in Holy Scripture where we see the Disciples go into town to purchase food or other goods. And it is written that those Disciples gave up everything to follow Jesus.

So where did they get the money to by the things that are mentioned in the Scriptures? Where do they get the money to pay for their travel across all of the Province of Judea?

Scripture doesn’t say. Jesus wasn’t rich. But as a skilled carpenter for many years before beginning His ministry he wasn’t poor by any means either. Of course some monies could have been given to the Disciples by the people as they traveled and preached as well.

Jesus hates sin. As a righteous God and creator of all the universe He has that right. We see His hatred and anger of sin when He verbally confronts the Pharisee hypocrites. We see His hatred and anger of sin when He enters the Temple at Jerusalem and turns over the tables causing destruction and physically assaults the money changers and merchants that have turned the Temple into a den of thieves.

And we see it again when Jesus curses the fig tree so that it withers and dies never to bear any fruit.

Lastly, of course Jesus was never a Christian. He was a 1st Century Jew but also the Son of God. He came to save the world from its sin. He was killed, buried, and rose again to complete this task.

His initial followers, mostly Jews, called their movement “The Way”. It would take several centuries after his ascension into Heaven before the term Christian started to be used. And at first it was an insulting term. Only adopted later to be a term that we are happy to use today.

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?

The Placebo

A placebo is anything that seems to be a “real” medical treatment — but isn’t. Psychologically you feel good because you think the placebo is working.

In 2020 during the Covid-19 outbreak we have the placebo of face masks.

I don’t wear them. I don’t go anywhere they are required. Those businesses who wish to enforce the the placebo don’t get my business. I’m not going to give up my liberty.

There is a meme on Social Media that displays the psychological feel goods for wearing a face mask in public. It’s just the control group on the placebo.

But lets talk facts. Not mine, but the facts from OSHA and what they say about face masks. OSHA is a trusted source when it comes to protecting the health and welfare of the American worker. And they have a lot to say about face masks.

The N95 masks are designed for working in a contaminated environment. These masks do not filter anything going out of it. That means if you encounter someone who has Covid-19, the virus can easily escape their mask.

Surgical masks are designed for working in a sterile environment. Like an operating room in a hospital or other “clean room”. They do filter outgoing but not incoming air. They become contaminated and clogged quickly. If they are worn in public they become spreaders of viruses. This is because they need to be changed or tossed out about every 20 minutes in non-sterile environments.

Good old cloth masks. Yes even the homemade ones. These don’t filter anything in any direction. They are very good however at trapping exhaled carbon dioxide and moisture. This moisture quickly mildews and becomes micro-mold particles over night if they are unwashed. Then you breath that back in the next day which causes dry coughing, enhanced allergies, and a sore throat. You are much better off not wearing a mask at all rather than this one.

But there are still skeptics. They believe the placebo is working. But these masks are nothing more than an accessory to your wardrobe. The latest style and fad of what to wear. And here is the proof of that from my local Target selling these accessories.

Target Face masks

There is no Target associate at this face mask display. Anyone can walk up. Try on a face mask and put it back. Contaminating every single one of them on the display. Sending the buyer home with a mask full of disease and death to infect themselves and their family.

If face masks were about a deadly virus and protecting the people against it. There would be an associate here ready to sanitize any mask not being purchased. And they would have to have it manned and monitored all day long.

But it’s not. It’s like every other accessory display. So what is the real agenda?

Full out attack

The Left isn’t hiding any more. In one meme they attack the three things they hate the most.

President Donald Trump
The United States of America
And the Body of Christ and His church.

Like most of Leftist propaganda there is truth in this wicked deception. So instead of my usual method of taking the meme apart bit by bit. I have decided to simply just fix it. So here is a better meme.

Of course some of the items that are listed as what Jesus was not. No one believer would ever say that Jesus was these things. This is just more of the Leftist propaganda to desecrate Christians, Christianity, and to deceive their useful idiots to enrich and empower themselves.

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.