The first debate is over between the President and the Democratic proxy nominee. And at best it was a draw.
President Trump is a “doer”. He doesn’t like to see wasted time. This comes from his decades in business. And unfortunately that doesn’t play well in the world of politics where time wasting is a grand tradition.
So instead of doing the prudent thing and letting Mr. Biden speak without interrupting and thus hanging himself. The President interrupted him (and vise versa) multiple times. Thus allowing the Mr. Biden to recollect his disconnected thoughts and carry on instead of mentally floundering in front of the American public.
This will be one of the President’s biggest hurtles in the next 2 debates. Fortunately the President is coachable and listens to constructive criticism. I hope he gets the coaching he needs on this issue and takes it to heart. It will be tough for him since this aspect of politics goes against his “doer” personality.
Mr. Biden out right lied on multiple occasions. Refused to support law and order. And then tossed his Leftist support base under the bus.
The President on the other hand didn’t condemn the false ideology of racism. He has done so in the past and should have done so again last night. Of course the way Chris Wallace stated it made the entirety of the Right as racist which isn’t true at all. There isn’t a single Right ideology that is racist. They are all on the Left.
The President didn’t go on his record of promises made and promises kept. Yes he hasn’t kept all of them, hell he was fighting against the Left from the moment he announced his candidacy and that fight is still on going it’s hard to win battles when you are constantly under siege.
President Trump did make some blunders during this debate. It was hard and painful to watch them unfold. I hope that with some good coaching from his re-election team he will do better in the next one.
These debates rarely impact any candidate’s base. For the most part those that support President Trump will still vote for him. Despite this fiasco of a debate. However Mr. Biden might have a shift in support since he told his Leftist base he didn’t support what they wanted.
But for those that are still sitting on the fence, that is were the debates can sway a vote in one direction or another. This debate didn’t help them at all. No one won.
Every so often, a phrase comes along that encompasses a political issue while simultaneously meaning little or nothing at all. This week, the phrase is “peaceful transfer of power.” It seems the Left has been floating an idea that if President Donald Trump doesn’t win the Presidential election this year he won’t leave office like he’s supposed to. Where they got that idea, I don’t know, but the President didn’t do himself any favors by giving a non-committal answer to the question when it was presented to him by a hack…I mean Playboy‘s correspondent in the White House Press Corps.
On second thought, I’m going to stick with hack.
The concept of a peaceful transfer of power isn’t a new one, but since it’s 2020, it might as well be the latest source of outrage within the Left. And a Leftist Lexicon entry to boot!
peaceful transfer of power
What the Left thinks it means – a President leaving the White House with dignity and respect for the outcome of an election
What it really means – the outgoing President acting like an adult instead of a whiny bitch
The concept of a peaceful transition of power has been tradition from George Washington on up to modern times. Then, Leftists had to go and upturn the Presidential apple cart in 2000 after George W. Bush beat Al Gore by actually winning the Electoral College vote. Instead of going the route of a graceful loser, they decided it would be a good idea to wreck a few things in the White House before W had a chance to fill out a change of address card. Granted, it was only $15,000 of damage, but it’s not the only thing that was damaged.
After George W. Bush left office, there were no allegations of damage to the White House or sabotage or even a cross word between the outgoing and incoming Administration. And this after W was accused of being Hitler. Hmmm…maybe it’s not just trash the Left believes in recycling. Nah, it’s still trash.
Before Barack Obama left office, members of the FBI (which falls under the Executive Branch in the hierarchy) started to take action against then-candidate Trump in an attempt to undercut his campaign. One debunked dossier, a few million taxpayer dollars spent on a Special Prosecutor, a farce of an impeachment trial, and a billion talking points later, the Left still hasn’t accepted the results of the 2016 election and are hell-bent on making it impossible for there to be a peaceful transfer of power.
Now, some Leftists are going to imply since there was no violence, there was a peaceful transfer of power. Coming from the side that says both silence and a lack of using the correct pronouns is violence, they should take a few seats. Like, say, all of them at Soldier Field. The point is there wasn’t a peaceful transfer of power because there was and still is active resistance to the transfer. From Lisa Page and Peter Strzok playing hide the salami while looking for an “insurance policy” that you can’t get from an agent to James Comey having a weird sense that destroying evidence necessary in an FBI investigation wasn’t that big of a deal to Sally Yates actively defying an Executive Order because she didn’t agree with it, there is no doubt in my mind the transferal of power from Obama to Trump was as peaceful as ANTIFA, and twice as mature.
Right now, there are threats of riots and violence if Trump wins. Somehow, I get the feeling there will be riots and violence even if he doesn’t win. Call it a hunch based on what ANTIFA/BLM/white Leftists LARPing as revolutionaries have said, but it’s clear there isn’t going to be peace in the midst of a transfer of power should Joe Biden stays awake enough to win the November election. This begs the question of whether the Left actually wants a peaceful transfer of power or if it’s just a convenient partisan excuse to create a self-fulfilling prophecy they have been in control of since 2016.
Guess which one I’m going with.
And, for once, with good reason. The Left believes the ends justify the means and they have a number of people at their disposal to get their hands dirty with the means so the leadership can keep theirs clean. That’s why the Left has been floating the idea of escalating violence leading up to Election Day; to drive up fear of voting for President Trump, which turns into support for Joe Biden or at least a suppression of the vote for Trump. (See, when the Left does it, voter suppression is okay.) Now, consider the Left’s tendency to expect the opposition knuckle-under their demands, even when the Left’s demands are as nonsensical as a spy thriller written by your average TikTok user. They don’t want their ideological enemies to agree to their terms. They want to rub the opposition’s noses in it. (See President Obama’s “I won” comment to Congressional Republicans for evidence.)
Good thing nothing bad ever happens when one side seeks to utterly embarrass the other side after a victory. Nothing like a world war or anything…
The Left clearly doesn’t want there to be a peaceful transfer of power because it plays into the seeds they’ve been sowing since 2016. But they will demand the Trump Administration play by the rules the Left has been pissing on for 20 years when they lose the Presidency. Just like when they oppose seating a Supreme Court Justice now after expecting it in 2016, it’s all about the end result.
Which is why we should take their outrage over President Trump not committing to a peaceful transfer of power with a Great Salt Lake. But it’s also important not to give the Left any ammunition (figuratively, not literally) by reacting to their violence, vitriol, and general jackassery. Consider the notion the Left needs people like us to look, sound, or be violent to “prove” them right about us, and unfortunately there are more than enough people out there who are more than happy to oblige.
However, that doesn’t mean we should be silent when we see the Left saying one thing and doing another. Call them out when you can and if you feel safe doing so, but don’t let the threat of what may come affect your judgment. The Left will not accept a peaceful transfer of power because it’s no longer in their nature. If they win, they will be sore winners, and if they lose, they will be violent losers. Vote for who you want and be mature about it, and the Left will have no hold over you.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled this week to exclude the Green Party and Kanye West on absentee ballots. Kanye, I can understand, but I have to admit I’m a little perplexed by the exclusion of the Green Party. You know who isn’t confused and is pretty happy at this turn of events?
Leftists.
And I’m sure there will be some on the Right happy at this decision because it gives them the ability to exclude other third parties that have the potential to drain Republican votes in upcoming elections. As someone who doesn’t subscribe to the two-parties-and-two-parties-only mindset, I’ve heard a lot of chatter leading up to this year’s Presidential election about how I’m “throwing away my vote” and “need to vote for a winner.” And I’m going to tell you the funny part after the introduction of this week’s Leftist Lexicon entry.
third parties
What the Left thinks it means – fringe kook parties that deprive Democrats of votes
What the Right things it means – fringe kook parties that deprive Republicans of votes
What it really means -parties that deprive Democrats and Republicans of votes because the choices suck
Did you notice the funny part? If not, it’s the fact both the Left and the Right use the same argument to try to persuade people like me to vote for their candidates. Once you decide not to root for the Red Team or the Blue Team, you hear these arguments almost constantly, and they all revolve around the same concerns. “If you don’t vote for X, then Y will win and horrible things will happen! Radicals will get selected for the US Supreme Court! Things you value will be under attack! Nickelback will put out a new CD! It will be Hell on Earth!”
As bad as a new Nickelback CD will be, it’s not a good enough reason for me to overrule my principles to pull the lever for Democrats or Republicans. I’m one of those weirdos who actually wants to vote for someone or something instead of voting against someone or something. This may come off as selfish to some, like a Leftist I interacted with on Facebook. To him, if I didn’t vote for Joe Biden, I was a) selfish, b) a Russian bot, c) not taking the 2020 election seriously, d) voting for Donald “Hitler-Satan” Trump, e) wasn’t being honest, and f) not intelligent. I will cop to that last one, but not the others.
The thing that scares the Left and the Right about third parties is it has the tendency to show how flawed the current two-party system has been for, oh, the past few decades. When your choices are a dog turd sandwich and a cow turd sandwich, at some point you get tired of eating turds and want to order something else off the menu. Granted, some of the third parties aren’t much better, but the result is the same: voters taking their votes to candidates and platforms they endorse more than the Democrats or the Republicans.
That’s why the Left and the Right use fear and shame to get potential voters to stick with the current status quo. Like with the example with the Leftist I mentioned above, he tried throwing out insults, threats (not against me, I have to say), and generally talking down to me like I was Cardi B trying to understand the Electoral College. Maybe she should have gone to the Electoral Junior College first, but that’s just my suggestion. Either way, when people can’t break through with their completely partisan arguments, they hunker down and double down on the very tactics that didn’t work the first time. And as failure after failure mount, the rhetoric gets more and more heated, and the insults break out.
Not a great way to win voters and influence policy.
For me the best argument in favor of third parties is we’ve let Democrats and Republicans run the government for decades and things aren’t getting any better. The national debt is more out of control than a daycare center run by Charlie Sheen. The partisan divide is getting wider by the day. The only way things get done in Congress anymore is with more riders than 2-for-1 days at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch, and even then it’s usually for advancing an agenda that has nothing to do with the original bill, only to have it turned against political opponents if they don’t vote in favor of some of the good things in the bill.
It’s been said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. Guess what, kids? The current two-party system is the best example of insanity we have going. Voters are tired of the same-old-same-old that occurs every 4 years like a quadrennial STD and want something different. Why not give third parties a try? If they suck as much as Democrats and Republicans, they can be voted out in 4 years (except for some third parties who either want anarchy or Democratic Socialism). No harm, no foul.
But that would require Democrats and Republicans to give up power, and we know that’s about as likely as Ben Shapiro putting out a gangsta rap CD. Until the day they decide to grow up and share their toys we can only keep eating dung sandwiches and pretend they’re roast beef.
In case you’ve been living under a rock (and, given the way 2020 has gone, I don’t blame you if you have), President Donald Trump has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Twice.
That sound you hear is the sound of Leftists screaming in horror and their heads exploding.
I have written about this subject previously, but in the light of the Left’s screeching hissyfit over the President being nominated for it, I figured it wouldn’t hurt to take another look.
Nobel Peace Prize
What the Left thinks it means – a prestigious award given to those who advance global peace
What it really means – a once-prestigious award rarely given to truly deserving candidates anymore
Being nominated for a Nobel Prize, especially the Peace Prize, used to be a monumental honor because it showed you were a champion of world peace. In recent years, however, you could get a Cracker Jack box and receive a better prize with more of an impact to world peace. Especially those temporary tattoos! Those things are sweet!
But the question on the table is why the Nobel Peace Prize means as much as getting valedictorian of summer school. This can be explained by looking at two areas: the recent recipients, and the Nobel Committee itself.
Let’s start with the recent recipients. To put it mildly, the list reads like a Who’s Who of Who Not to Emulate. Sure, you have the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa, but you also have Amnesty International, The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and Al Gore. To put it mildly, if the Peace Prize winners leaned any further left, they would be parallel with the ground.
And let’s not forget the aforementioned organizations have a track record of failure. Oh, they make great promises and have a vision few people would disagree with, but where are the results? I know, I know, societal change takes time, but at some point you have to ask whether the lofty vision and promises are resulting in actual change or are merely a front to score the change in people’s pockets.
Oh, and Amnesty International backs noted Philadelphia cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal, claiming he didn’t have a fair trial under “international standards.” Granted, they were given the Nobel Peace Prize before they stumped for a cop-killer, but hey. Leftists are going to Leftist.
So, who nominates these heads of knuckle for the Peace Prize? Why, that would be the Nobel Committee, of course! Although there are some areas where ideology can’t trump accomplishment, the Peace Prize has become an ideological award more than an award for accomplishments.
Like when former President Barack Obama won the Peace Prize in 2009.
At the time of the nomination, President Obama was lauded by the Nobel Committee for having the potential to bring world peace. Not that he brought it; he had the potential to do it. And this is after his main accomplishment was getting elected President of the United States by beating a weak Republican candidate. That’s like me being awarded the MVP of the Super Bowl because I have the potential to complete a pass against the Cleveland Browns. (To be fair, though, my elderly grandmother could complete a pass against the Cleveland Browns and she’s been dead for 2 years.)
This fact alone is an indictment of the Nobel Committee, or should be if we lived in a just and intelligent world. Given the fact it’s taken until this year for “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” to end, it’s pretty clear our world is neither just nor intelligent.
Even so, the Nobel Committee has the same problem the Left does: ideological blindness. By putting an ideology above picking the best candidate, the Nobel Committee might as well call themselves the Committee to Hand Out Undeserved Praise to Leftists Because Shut Up. And the kicker is by catering to the Left, the significance of the Nobel Peace Prize has gotten, well, less significant. Instead of picking candidates who might have actually done something to advance world peace, they’re picking people who haven’t done anything, but have the right position on issues.
Although President Trump has been nominated twice for the Nobel Peace Prize, I’m not sure I would be keen on accepting it if he wins. Just the company of those who also won the award would be damning enough.
The big news of the week was a story by The Atlantic alleging President Donald Trump disparaged veterans and Vietnam veterans specifically as “total losers.” And everyone from Fox News to former Vice President and current Democrat Presidential candidate Joe Biden has run with it like they stole it. Whether you believe it or not depends on something we haven’t really had a chance to discuss in detail for a while.
Unnamed sources.
As it turns out, The Atlantic‘s story relied heavily on unnamed sources, which can be a positive and a negative in journalistic circles. And, thanks to your humble correspondent, you will see why.
unnamed sources
What the Left thinks it means – valuable sources of information that get to the heart of most stories
What it really means – questionable sources of information at best
As a former journalism student, I can tell you unnamed sources can be a mixed bag because their credibility is completely reliant upon how much the reporter believes them. In the past, journalists could sense when there was the ring of truth to what a source said and when it was bullshit. Today, most journalists have a bullshit meter more broken than Matt Hardy. (If you get that reference, that would be DELIGHTFUL, yaaaaaaaaaas.)
Now, imagine a journalist who is predisposed to believe anything negative about President Trump, no matter how absurd it is. Guess what, kids? He/she is going to believe the negative stuff without so much as a first thought (because expecting them to have a second thought would be way above his/her pay grade).
This is where things get sticky. Under normal circumstances, anyone in the media who gets tricked by false information would get called out and discredited to the point not even the local Super Shopper would hire them. In the current media environment, though, that only happens if you’re not in league with the bulk of the media, which might as well be stenographers for the DNC. Even when getting caught time and time again falling for bad information, Leftists don’t lose any credibility. Compare the Left’s treatment of James O’Keefe and Rachel Maddow if you question this.
What does this have to do with unnamed sources? Regardless of the veracity of said sources, the Left has nothing to lose by believing them and reporting what they say. Meanwhile, the Right could get God to certify their statements and the Left wouldn’t believe it.
You know what beats unnamed sources, though? Named sources. With The Atlantic story, they have four unnamed sources. The number of named source? Zero, the same number of delegates Kamala Harris got. On the other side, the Trump Administration noted zero unnamed source, but ten named sources (including people who were there when the President allegedly made the statements attributed to him). Now, I’m no math major, but I’m pretty sure 10 is larger than 0, and that’s not even counting the fact the 10 are named sources.
That’s the double-edged Sword of Damocles when dealing with unnamed sources. Their truthfulness can’t be measured because we don’t know who they are, but the journalists do. That’s one level away from the source, which opens the journalist to scrutiny and questions of bias. And by questions, I mean certitudes. By protecting their sources by keeping them anonymous, they take on the criticism, often willingly, but even though the Left overlooks it, they lose the Credibility Olympics against named sources who come forward because there is no degree of separation from the original source with the latter.
Plus, there’s another thing to consider. There is a known and generally accepted practice of making up sources and/or quotes as needed. When you work a beat, you won’t always get the information you want or need for a story. If you’re being honest, you either find a way to get the information or try to write around it. If you’re a journalist today, you make it up. You know who uses similar practices? The National Enquirer.
Actually, I take that back. The Enquirer has standards.
To be honest, I don’t know who to believe when it comes to The Atlantic‘s piece, but I do know you can’t discount the fact a piece reliant solely on unnamed sources has fewer legs to stand on than Captain Ahab after his prosthetic leg was stolen.
With the Republican National Convention finally over, Democrats and Republicans can start discussing issues that the American people really care about.
Who am I kidding? They’re discussing the Hatch Act.
President Donald Trump delivered some of his convention speeches from the White House, which the Left says is against the law. And now they’re complaining the President is getting away with it because no one believes in their latest screed to make him look like an authoritarian dictator unaccountable because of those evil Republicans.
If for no other reason than to get some mileage out of this controversy, let’s all drink some coffee and take some truck stop speed because things are about to get boring.
The Hatch Act
What the Left thinks it means – a law that prohibits federal officials from campaigning while serving the President
What it really means – an anachronistic law that no one enforces because of its potential for abuse
The Hatch Act of 1939 is a law designed to limit the political activities of federal employees working in the Executive Branch with some exceptions. Remember the last four words of the previous sentence because they will be important to understand later. Although this was done primarily to undercut political and monetary interests in policy decisions, it was also designed to ensure only qualified candidates obtained federal positions.
Yeah, that worked out as well as any of Joe Biden’s foreign policy ideas.
As politics, money, and special interest groups have become as inseparable as Bill Clinton and promiscuity, the Hatch Act seems to have lost its bite, if it ever had one to begin with. The key to the act’s power lies in two areas: personal responsibility in selecting Executive Branch officers, and enforcement of the act when violated. Without both parts in place, they’re just words on a page.
Which brings us back to the present day. The Left have their collectivist boxers in a bunch because they feel President Trump violated the Hatch Act by having RNC events at the White House. And, they would be right if only they looked a little harder at the Hatch Act.
Remember when I mentioned the exceptions earlier? Two of the people exempt from it are…the President and Vice President. Oops. Reading is fundamental, Leftists.
And it doesn’t take a lot of effort to understand why, but I’ll explain it anyway for any Leftists out there reading this. With every election cycle, the President and Vice President have the ability to lend their political might behind any number of candidates they choose, as well as campaigning for their own reelection. Applying the Hatch Act as the Left wants us to believe it must be applied means any sitting President and Vice President can’t campaign at all. Granted, this may not seem to be a bad thing on the surface, but it would give the other party (or other parties) free shots at the President and Vice President without giving them the power to defend themselves. Not only is that decidedly unfair, but it would be a gross violation of the First Amendment because the law as passed by Congress would be limiting a person’s freedom of speech.
Well, at least the Left is consistent with its contempt for free speech when the speech doesn’t agree with them, right?
Like it or not, Leftists, but President Trump didn’t violate the Hatch Act in any way by holding RNC events at the White House. Besides, aren’t we supposed to be staying in our homes due to COVID-19? After all, you did tell us lockdowns were effective in slowing it down…well, except if you’re a senior citizen living in New York State, California, or Michigan, that is. Regardless, the point remains the same: you don’t have a leg to stand on here. Either you deny the President freedom of speech or you open the door for future proceedings against the next Democrat President, or even previous ones. Much like the Biden/Harris ticket, either way it’s a lose-lose situation.
It’s also time we take a look at removing the Hatch Act altogether because it’s not working anymore. Both major parties have abandoned the accountability and enforcement elements of the law, and neither one really wants to be held to task on them. A law that goes unenforced is useless and shouldn’t be on the books anymore.
But let’s say you want to keep the Hatch Act in place. The only way I can see to salvage it is to amend it to the point it spells out every last detail of what the Executive Branch can and cannot do and forces Congress to act when it’s been violated. The drawback to that is it would create more bureaucracy and more ways for legally-minded scumbags…I mean Representatives to find and create loopholes so the other side can’t get away with doing what their side can. Essentially, it’s a wash, except for those who make money building immovable monuments to government sloth.
Of course, I have another solution. My idea would require politicians and candidates to undergo mental health evaluations for every stupid or impractical idea they come up with. After enough trips to take the test, they would be forced to retire and would no longer gain access to their government pensions, any positions that require a security clearance, and be deemed mentally unfit for any role with a PAC or special interest group and, thus, unemployable by said groups.
I call it the Booby Hatch Act, and I get the feeling it’s going to be very popular…
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.
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.
They say politics make strange bedfellows, but in 2020, strange is the new normal. Although President Donald Trump has a ton of support within the Republican Party, there are a number of Never Trumpers who think he’s not a “real Republican” and should be defeated in November. Out of that pushback came The Lincoln Project, an organization whose sole purpose seems to be just that.
And, not surprisingly, the Left loves The Lincoln Project.
Let’s delve into the Left’s new favorite Republicans, shall we?
The Lincoln Project
What the Left thinks it means – a group of Republicans who want to restore decency and honor to the White House
What it really means – a group of Republicans the Left can con into doing their work for them
To put it mildly, Donald Trump is not everyone’s cup of Earl Grey. He’s brash, confrontational, and not at all the kind of man who has occupied the Oval Office in our history. Yet, he’s still President and, at least according to his voter registration, he is a Republican, which gives him as much stake in being called one as, say, Mitt Romney whose Republican credentials are as strong as watery Tang. Not that it matters to The Lincoln Project, mind you. They feel they are the only ones who can keep Republican values alive.
Oh, and did I mention they’ve endorsed Joe Biden for President this year?
The Lincoln Project’s entire mindset is based on a logical fallacy known as “No True Scotsman.” The fallacy involves stating what a true believer of a particular idea would or would not think, say, or do under a particular set of circumstances. That assumes the person invoking this notion has a clue what a true believer would think, say, or do. And although I’m sure they think they’re the last bastion of Republican thinking, they’re out of phase with the bulk of the party right now. Contrary to what the Left and The Lincoln Project think, the Republican Party is diverse, at least ideologically. That’s how people from Susan Collins to Ted Cruz can all be under the same political tent even though their personal politics are light years apart.
Although it’s easy to pass them off as dissatisfied Republicans, The Lincoln Project touts some insider clout, including the husband of Kellyanne Conway, George. Although she’s risen to prominence in recent years, Ms. Conway has been known in conservative circles for years, which means she has more than likely made some Washington insider friends. And that means powerful people looking to curry favor for political gain, people used to getting what they want from the politicians they pay.
What happens when they can’t buy off a politician? They turn on him or her. I can’t say for certain because the most inside I get is my belly button, but I get the feeling more than a few of The Lincoln Project’s members are playing the spurned lovers in this political telenovela. That makes them the perfect foils for the Left. They both hate Donald Trump, support Joe Biden for President, and want to remake the country in their own image where only elites matter. Patty Duke couldn’t have asked for a better identical cousin.
With every new attack ad against the President, the Left doesn’t have to spend money producing the same content, which works out great for them. As of April 2020, the DNC was getting trounced like Justin Bieber at Sturgis in campaign donations and even though they love to spend other people’s money, they had to find ways to cut costs. Not to mention, it helps them politically because, let’s face it, they’re trying to turn Joe Biden into a viable Presidential candidate after his first two failed attempts. Then again, they thought Hillary “What Difference Does It Make?” Clinton was viable after losing to Barack Obama, so their judgment is as questionable as the quality of truck stop sushi. When The Lincoln Project came about, the Left knew they had the pigeons they needed to do their bidding, save money in the process, and continue to do a major rehab job on Joe Biden. Brilliant!
“But aren’t the Left and the Right on opposite sides?” you might ask. Well, yes and no. There are members of both ideological camps who will cross the aisle and collaborate to achieve power. Whether The Lincoln Project knows they are helping the Left isn’t known at this time, but knowing politics like I do, it’s not outside the realm of possibility. Of course, if they don’t know they’re being used by the Left, they shouldn’t be anywhere near the reins of power of a convenience store, let alone America.
Although I empathize with The Lincoln Project’s stated purpose (returning class and maturity to the White House, not the getting rid of Trump part), I cannot abide by how they’re trying to get it done. Not only does its foundation rest on a flawed premise, the people involved with it are seemingly acting out of personal gain rather than national gain. I’m not President Trump’s #1 fan by any stretch, but I’m not going out there proclaiming myself to be the Alpha Republican by which all other Republicans are to be measured because a) I’m not that egotistical/delusional, and b) I’m not a Republican. I would have more respect for The Lincoln Project if they were straight with us about why they exist: they hate Trump. As it stands, I see them as either unwitting tools of the Left or knowing conspirators with delusions of adequacy. The fact these folks call themselves real Republicans while openly supporting Joe Biden for President should tell you how committed they are to Republican values.
In the meantime, keep an eye on The Lincoln Project for no other reason than to see what tactics the Left will be using against President Trump in the upcoming Presidential election. And to see how the left-leaning fringes of the GOP react to the latest Trump “scandals.” Take their advise with a salt lick because a grain of salt just won’t cut it.
Another week has passed, and another Leftist idea has taken hold in the aftermath of the George Floyd death. Admittedly the original sentencing for the main officer involved would have made Brock Turner’s look like he was the victim of the Spanish Inquisition (which, by the way, no one expects), but the reaction to this has been both positive and negative. On the positive side, America and Minneapolis have taken a long look at police tactics and how to address situations when officers step over the line. On the negative side, a new idea has taken hold in Leftist circles: defund the police.
Most of us are behind the former, but unfortunately too many are getting behind the latter. That’s why it’s important we understand what the Left wants so we can develop ways to combat it.
Oh, and so we can mock it.
defund the police
What the Left thinks it means – introducing necessary reforms so police departments can better serve citizens of color
What it really means – defunding the police
I’ve said the Left loves to control the language in situations like this, but they are really putting in some overtime to get people to believe the words they’re hearing don’t mean what they say. This isn’t easy, mainly because of the number of Leftists actually saying we should defund the police and have it handled either by a higher level of government or just have no police at all.
We’ve seen examples of both. Camden, New Jersey, eliminated its police force and created a county-level police force. To be fair, the numbers look a lot better. Whether it’s because or in spite of Camden’s efforts is a matter of opinion. Crimes nationally have dropped faster than Stacey Abrams’ hints she wants to be Vice President and some residents aren’t happy the police force doesn’t live close enough to the neighborhoods they police to understand the problems. Oh, and some think it doesn’t reflect the diversity of the community well enough.
As far as the no police option, we saw that working at UC Berkeley in 2017. Sure, they still have a police department, but they pretty much let student rioters make a mess of things due to a “hands off” policy where officers weren’t allowed to arrest criminals. We’re also seeing the same situation play out in Seattle, Washington, right now, with a group calling itself “Free Capitol Hill” creating its own community-within-a-community called the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. And, as you might expect, it’s been a clusterfuck. The best part of it is these morons were allowed into City Hall because…a Councilmember let them in. And to repay her, the protesters called for the Mayor to step down because reasons.
As you might expect, the Free Capitol Hill group is pro-defund the police.
But you’d never hear it from the Left’s mouthpieces in the media and their designated political flunkies like the Socialist Socialite. They’re trying to spin “defund the police” into “reform the police.” The main goal is simple: get people to believe what is being repeated isn’t the real goal of those calling to defund the police. Yeah, about that. Seems there are too many people on both sides calling bullshit or at least saying the messaging is wrong and hurtful to the Left. Not that they necessarily disagree, mind you, just that the message can get interpreted in a way that makes the Left look anti-police.
Which, of course, they are.
I wish I could say that was an attempt at humor via hyperbole, but I can’t. (And, yes, I know I just typed it, so don’t write in about it, okay?) Leftists are on the front lines of this controversy because people are talking about it, but what have they actually done? Demonized police officers as a whole for the actions of too many bad cops. Granted, those too many bad cops shot themselves in the feet with a Howitzer, but their actions have been used time and time again to tarnish the reputations of many police officers. Plus, hating cops guarantees the Left will be able to garner votes and money from people of color, who also aren’t fond of the men and women in blue. Few, if any, Leftists even stop to consider they treat police officers more harshly than they treat Muslims (i.e. #NotAllMuslims after any terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslim radicals).
The funny thing is police unions give a ton of money to Democrats in both the House and the Senate, while the officers themselves are currently giving more money to President Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans probably for the same reason flies respond better to honey than to sulfuric acid: self-preservation. The rank and file police know it’s the Right who support them with actions and words, and they know their unions spend dues to help candidates who don’t support them ultimately. Now with the defund the police idea catching fire, they get to see the disconnect between leaders and members play out yet again.
However, we must acknowledge this momentous occasion. This is the first time the Left hasn’t thrown money at a problem in an attempt to fix it. Well, this isn’t exactly true. The defund the police side wants the money spent on police spent on other items, which represents a laundry list of Leftist causes. Public education, ending misogyny and racism, and universal health care, to name just three I’ve seen being tossed around. How universal health care helps make communities safer isn’t exactly spelled out, but I’m sure they’re working on it…eventually. Right after they get done rioting…I mean protesting.
That’s par for the course with Leftists. They sow the seeds of a problem to exploit it later for personal gain, and in this case, it’s honest police officers getting caught in the crossfire. More often than not, too, it’s never those who created the problem in the first place who get the axe. Politicians find ways to keep people under their thumbs, and police unions are usually untouchable. Yet, who are the ones making decisions on what to support and how officers get trained? The answer is, of course, Donald Trump because he’s always the bad guy these days.
Unfortunately for them, this isn’t something the Left can blame President Trump for saying and doing. They’ll try, but it won’t work. This is their baby and they’re going to have to be the ones who figure out how to change its diaper.
In the meantime, we can be safe in the knowledge we can both support police officers and want the bad ones to get their comeuppance. It’s not an either-or proposition, kids. If the Left gets its way, your local police department will wind up like teachers’ unions: incapable of firing the bad to make room for the good, which is a goal we can all support. But we can’t do that by defunding or abolishing the police.
What may make a difference is for police officers to be empowered to engage their communities and prevent bad cops from getting a Get Out of Jail Free card when they screw up. The key will be to reducing the fear and distrust between police and the people they are supposed to protect. It does no one any good to know there are people living in fear or hate because of what the police do to the criminal element. It’s going to be a lot of work, but if it helps create a better working relationship, I’m all for it.
Let’s take the Left at their ever-changing word. They want police departments eliminated through the death of a thousand paper cuts made worse by red tape. If they get what they want, we will all feel the pain.
