Tag: president joe biden

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The past couple of weeks has been difficult for the Biden Administration. Aside from its usual level of tone-deaf incompetence, its signature infrastructure bill, Build Back Better, has been getting criticized more than Dave Chappelle’s recent Netflix special. But unlike the aforementioned special, the Build Back Better agenda isn’t intentionally funny.

The more that comes out about Build Back Better, the less it seems to get people’s support. Of course, it doesn’t help matters any that information about it comes out in dribs and drabs, all while being promoted as costing nothing. As you might expect, I’m a little skeptical.

And by a little, I mean a lot.

This week, let’s look at the agenda and try to piece together what it is.

Build Back Better

What the Left thinks it means – an important approach to rebuilding our infrastructure, create jobs, and achieve more energy independence

What it really means – a laundry list of programs and expenditures that will do little-to-nothing towards infrastructure

Back in my youth, I loved this time of year because that meant all the national chain department stores would send out their Christmas-themed catalogs. There you could see all sorts of cool toys and gadgets to make children’s Christmas lists a lot easier to make, but more expensive to fulfill. These days, the best we can hope for is a list of things we’re going to be paying for on the federal credit card. With Build Back Better, we are hoping in one hand and shitting in the other and seeing which hand fills up first.

Let’s just say you might want to hold off giving high fives for a while.

Build Back Better is shrouded in mystery, mainly because the Left doesn’t want us to know what’s in it to avoid having to answer questions. Don’t get me wrong, there is some infrastructure in Build Back Better, but so far not a lot of what we know about it would qualify. Instead, much of it is recycled Leftist ideas that didn’t go over well the first time, including what I would call a soft reboot of the Green New Deal (complete with money going to the Socialist Socialite because reasons). And, surprise surprise, there are people out there who want more details before we spend $3.5 trillion.

Like Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.

Well, the Left hasn’t taken this too well, considering they’re all-in on harassing the Senators and calling for them to be recalled, removed, or otherwise defeated in the next primary. To date, neither Manchin nor Sinema has changed their minds and it’s unclear whether pinning the Left’s failure to make an argument in favor of Build Back Better on them is going to work. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say…it’s not.

In a rare moment of self-awareness, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi admitted Democrats haven’t done a good job in selling the benefits of Build Back Better. Granted, there may not be much there to sell, but I have to give the Speaker credit for acknowledging the lack of persuasion. And for staying sober long enough to do it. Combine this with the “ram it through at all costs” approach used on Sens. Manchin and Sinema, and you have an image problem worse that Jon Gruden right now.

This begs the question of why there’s a problem getting people to support Build Back Better outside of the party faithful. A lot of it goes back a few months to the Left’s “X is infrastructure” approach. Child care, health care, living wages, and so on were thrown into the same bucket and people started to wonder why, including your humble correspondent. It created a lot of jokes outside of the Leftist hivemind, but the fact anything under the sun could be considered infrastructure if you wanted it to be undercut the validity of any infrastructure proposal by cheapening the idea of infrastructure. (And that is how you fit one word into a sentence multiple times without looking like you’re just trying to pad out a weekly blog post about words the Left uses…okay, let’s move on.)

Let’s not overlook the lack of transparency in this situation. Yes, it’s called Build Back Better, but what does that consist of and how is better being determined? Even the Biden Administration can’t come up with concrete answers, and it’s their fucking plan! When the people who came up with the thing can’t tell you what it’s about, you know it’s either horrible or they’re incompetent.

Insert “Why Not Both?” meme here.

Seriously, though, Build Back Better proponents can’t seem to get out of their own ways and level with us. Instead, we’re hearing how it will cost nothing (which it won’t, but try telling Leftists that offsets of costs don’t mean there weren’t any costs in the first place) and how it will make the wealthy pay their fair share (except the top 1% pays around 40% of the federal tax burden as of this missive). These are red-meat issues for Leftists, but they don’t play that well on Main Street. Most people today care about paying their own bills and ignore politics because it’s pointless. Except for a select few of us, that is, who pay attention to the minute details of every soundbite, campaign promise, or proposed spending.

Geez, we desperately need hobbies!

As long as Build Back Better is more high concept and less brass tacks (and more high tax), it’s going to be a hard pass from me. However, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I’ve come up with a new name for it, and the Biden Administration won’t even have to change the abbreviation. I call it Biden’s Big Boondoggle. Catchy, isn’t it?

The Return of Fuzzy Math

It’s finally here, kids! Democrats have put together a $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill that, according to them, will cost us zero dollars. If you’re like me, and God help you if you are, you’re reaching for your brown BS flag to challenge the math. Now, if we only had a press corps that would do that job for us…oh, well. We can’t expect the media to stop cheerleading for the Biden Administration and start doing their jobs, right?

Anyway, the infrastructure bill is full of Leftist pet projects, including (and I’m not making this up) “tree equity.” The Reader’s Digest Condensed Version of the idea is it’s not fair poor people don’t have trees in their neighborhoods, so the federal government is going to fight the problem by planting trees. A noble idea, to be sure, but I’m not sure if I trust the same government that can’t figure out how to pass an actual budget to plant a flower bed, let alone a tree.

Oh, but don’t worry! All $3.5 trillion is accounted for thanks to tax increases on the wealthiest Americans. That means, according to Leftist logic, it won’t cost us a dime. Wellll…not exactly.

I will admit this next part of this entry is as boring as an Al Gore speech, but it’s important to understanding the situation and the lies surrounding it. I promise not to go into too much detail because, really, there isn’t any need for it. Like your appendix or another “Scary Movie” sequel.

The zero-cost claim is based on a bit of creative bookkeeping on the government’s part. What they do is spend the money over a few years and attempt to “pay it off” through increased income, i.e. taxes. Slap a popular idea on it and everything works out for the best.

Except when it doesn’t, which is most of the time.

A glaring problem with this approach is the fluidity of money. Thanks to market forces, inflation, and confidence in the strength of the dollar, what you buy today may not be able to buy as much tomorrow, and that includes government spending. And when you’re dealing with the kind of numbers we are now, it gets expensive.

Then, there’s a looming tipping point when the takers outpace the givers. For now, we’re on the positive side of that, but we’re a lot closer to the edge than we think. Leftists will reply, “Well, that’s because the wealthy aren’t paying their fair share,” and for once I agree with them. The rich and powerful in America are not paying what they owe to keep this country afloat.

They’re paying much more.

As of this writing, the wealthiest 1% pays around 40% of the tax burden. Although the Left says this is only reasonable given how much money they’re making, the fact we expect such a small percentage of Americans to support close to half of our tax burden is concerning. By the time you get to the top 25%, the tax burden is almost completely paid in full. I don’t know about you, but that seems a bit…unfair.

And the Biden Administration wants the rich to pay more than their fair share so they can pay their fair share?

I’m just as confused as you are.

The other thing to keep in mind regarding government spending is it’s never enough. There will always be some new wrinkle that only the government can screw up…I mean fix. And what’s the best way the Left can come up with to fix problems? That’s right, kids: throw more money at them! I mean, it’s worked with public education, right?

Let’s take the “tree equity” part of the spending bill, for example. During the rollout phase, invariably someone will say “This is great, but what about X?” And, just for the sake of an example, let’s say X is Antarctica. The sensible thing to do is realize trees may not grow there because, well, it’s Antarctica. The Leftist thing to do is create Make Antarctica Green Again and send millions of taxpayer dollars to whatever Leftist think-tank came up with the dumb idea in the first place. And, surprise surprise, it will always find a way to get funded year after year, even after it’s been determined trees don’t grow in Antarctica.

But I’m sure this infrastructure bill will be different…

The biggest underlying flaw with the no-cost idea is it defies common sense. No matter how many offsets you claim will occur, there will still be costs involved. Time, effort, sweat, and, yes, even money go into every endeavor we undertake from putting trees in Antarctica to getting up in the morning. And, yes, I know Leftists are trying to make a distinction between net and gross costs in trying to justify the zero-cost statement, but remember these are the same people who think free college is going to be a thing. Of course, I wonder who’s going to tell college professors they will be working for free…

Regardless, there is a lot of room to doubt the Biden Administration’s claims the proposed infrastructure bill will cost us nothing, mainly because the Left and economic literacy aren’t on speaking terms. Meanwhile, we will be adding more debt to future generations to address long after we’re gone.

But at least we’ll get “tree equity.”

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There are some weeks when your humble correspondent struggles to find an appropriate Lexicon entry based on the events of the day. Other times the Topics Gods shower me with topics.

Let’s just say I hit the motherload of motherloads this week. From the Socialist Socialite wearing an expensive dress with “Tax the Rich” on it while attending an event catered to the wealthy to the FBI being shown to be the Keystone Kops with federal funding, there was no lack of content. But I’m going to focus on a new Leftist turn of a phrase that came up during a recent confirmation hearing.

President Joe Biden nominated Jennifer Sung for a position on the 9th Circuit Court, and during the hearing she was questioned about a letter from Yale Law School students and alumni that she signed regarding then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that said he was “intellectually and morally bankrupt” and that “people will die” (a direct quote from the letter) because of his stances on abortion and gay rights. Sure, she’s a nutter, but on the bright side the 9th Circuit Court is going to easily retain its title of Worst Circuit Court EVER.

In attempting to defend her position, Sung used the term “rhetorical advocacy.” Leftists glommed onto this, accusing anyone who found it nonsensical of being too dumb to figure out what it means. Unfortunately for them, I’m a word guy, so I will take a crack at it.

rhetorical advocacy

What the Left thinks it means – supporting a position in a general, high-level way

What it really means – a stupid way for a Leftist to get out of a public statement

The year was 2018, and then-President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the open seat on the US Supreme Court. At that point, the Left lost their collectivist hivemind because Kavanaugh was…a conservative! Before you could get Christine Blasey Ford on an airplane, the Left went to town trying to find a way to take down Kavanaugh.

Enter Ms. Sung and the aforementioned letter. At the time, the letter didn’t make the news because it didn’t meet the Left’s definition of news. To them, Kavanaugh being “intellectually and morally bankrupt” was an article of faith and, thus, didn’t need to be questioned. The funny thing? If Kavanaugh were a Leftist, that bankruptcy would be a resume enhancer.

Three years later, Ms. Sung’s signature is coming back to haunt her own judicial nomination. Even if you buy the idea of rhetorical advocacy, the problem of whether the words themselves were hyperbole comes into play. Granted, I haven’t been spending the past 3 years keeping track of the number of deaths directly related to Kavanaugh’s position on social issues, I’m going to go out on a limb and say the number is in the neighborhood of, oh, zero.

As the late Rush Limbaugh said, “Words mean things.” If Ms. Sung were concerned about the language used in the letter, she had a personal obligation not to sign the letter. Yet, she did because she never thought it would come to light. Oops.

Rhetorical advocacy is a ten-cent word that sounds impressive, but really isn’t. Once we break down the parts of the phrase, we can see what I mean.

Rhetorical involves the use of language, written or spoken, to convey an idea. This Leftist Lexicon post is an example of what I mean. Maybe not a good example, but an example all the same. Advocacy involves the support of an idea or cause through thoughts, words, and deeds. Put the two words together and you get…a redundancy. Advocacy uses rhetoric, and rhetoric can be used to advocate for a desired outcome. When you put it in the context of the letter Ms. Sung signed, the two terms are interchangeable.

This leads to the question of why the Left has adopted this meaningless term while mocking those who don’t think it’s all that great. Fortunately, there’s a simple answer: it’s to give them cover for their bullshit. Remember, Leftists love to play word games to make themselves sound smarter than they actually are. By throwing together the two words in question, it makes the result sound high-minded and intellectual. As we’ve seen, it’s neither, and it’s not that effective when it comes to providing cover.

I have a simple philosophy when dealing with people: take them at their word until they give me reason to doubt it. Although I disagree with Ms. Sung’s conclusions regarding Justice Kavanaugh, the fact she’s shying away from the words she signed off on now that the letter has come to light tells me she’s not willing to own up to them. Cowardice in the face of potential career advancement is no virtue, no matter what fancy-sounding words you use to soften the blow. I would have rather had her say, “I signed that letter because I agreed with the sentiments within it” because it would have been honest. Absolutely wrong, but honest.

Putting all that aside, the fact the Left is attacking those of us who think “rhetorical advocacy” is a bunch of bullshit is a sign they have no valid argument for the letter, nor Ms. Sung’s nomination. Who would want a judge on any level of the judiciary that can’t stand behind a statement without parsing it through an ideological lens? Any verdict offered by such a judge would be suspect and grounds for an immediate appeal to a higher court.

Which, if you think about it, makes her perfect for the 9th Circuit Court.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There are some things about the 1970s that I miss. Great music. The Bicentennial. The lack of millennials. Yet, there are some things I wish would stay there.

One of those things is leisure suits, but since they’re not really that relevant, we’re going to talk about inflation. If you’ve been watching your nickels and dimes lately, you’ll see those nickels and dimes aren’t going as far as they used to, say, a year ago. Hmmm…I wonder what happened within the past year that could have caused that to happen. I don’t know, but I’m Biden my time, if you know what I mean.

But if listen to the Left, this current round of inflation is no big deal and we shouldn’t freak out over rising costs. Of course, these same Leftists think Paul Krugman is knowledgeable on economics, so you can take that with a grain of salt. Meanwhile, let’s take a look at inflation from someone who isn’t notorious for being wrong.

inflation

What the Left thinks it means – a normal economic condition that shouldn’t concern us

What it really means – an economic condition worsened by bad economic policy

I recognize economics is a subject so dry it makes the Sahara Desert look like Atlantis, but I do have to go into a bit of it to give us a baseline of knowledge to understand the impact.

When the cost of business goes up, goods and services get more expensive, resulting in the producers getting less money for the same effort. The producers then have to make a decision to address the shortfall, everything from adjusting the price to firing employees. More often than not, they raise prices, which in turn affects the value of our money.

But that’s not the only thing that affects monetary value. Politicians indirectly have an impact on it through legislation, regulation, and regurgitation (of talking points). One glib comment from a politician or squawking head and the economy can tank faster than a Proud Boys stand-up act at the Apollo. Even the hint of some new taxes or regulations of a particular industry can create economic instability.

Fortunately, we don’t have a current President who is notorious for making ill-informed staaaaa…oh, crap.

Say what you will about Donald Trump (and, believe me, I have), but one thing I will give him credit for is understanding how the economy works. And before you comment on the number of bankruptcies he’s filed, keep in mind Trump has been a part of the American social fabric since the mid 80s. He’s been all over everything from casinos to reality shows to steaks to online education. He’s the orange Ron Popeil.

Compare that to the laundry list of political and media knuckleheads who can’t tell their assets from a hole in the ground, and yet have the power to impact the economy without knowing how it works. (I’m looking at you, Socialist Socialite.) And, as it turns out, these are the ones who make the statements that cause the most economic headaches.
Take the aforementioned Paul Krugman, for example. He may have a Nobel Prize, but the fact he’s wrong more often than he’s right condemns both Krugman and the Nobel Committee. I mean, would you follow the advice of someone who said the Internet was a fad and would go the way of the fax machine (it didn’t) and advised people to get out of the Stock Market after Donald Trump was elected because it was going to crash (it didn’t)?

Oh, and did I mention Krugman is also one of the people saying inflation isn’t that big of a problem right now?

Although inflation is a pretty easy concept to grasp, the Left doesn’t get it, mainly because they aren’t economically-minded (except when it comes to their own bottom lines). A big reason for that is because they rarely think of money as a tangible matter. To them, it tends to be symbolic in nature, namely as a symbol for the rich oppressing the poor, men oppressing women, and so on. As a result, their “solutions” to the problems they make up…I mean find are simplistic. Just take X amount from Person A and give it to Person B and all will be right with the world!

Of course, they never see themselves as being Person A because they love spending other people’s money on stuff they want. They see money as power, which I can grant them to an extent. As long as they have money, they think they have power, but only they know how to use it property. Just ask them. That’s why there are a lot of rich Leftists out there. And the irony of their greed while chastising others for it is not lost on your humble correspondent.

The problem is their lack of understanding of the actual costs of inflation usually winds up hurting the people Leftists always want to court come election time. When prices go up, the ability for a significant chunk of the population to buy even basic goods goes down. The Leftist solution is to give more of other people’s money to that population while getting them to believe they deserve it, or should I say entitled to it. It works great to keep rich white Leftists in power, but it sucks if you’re constantly on the economic treadmill trying to make ends meet. But it’s never the Left’s fault. It’s always someone else. For example, President Joe Biden blamed the rising cost of beef, chicken, and pork on…wait for it…the meat producers! To believe that, though, you have to believe the Left had no influence on prices skyrocketing due to inflation when they have control over the laws getting passed and policies getting enacted.

But they don’t care because a) they assume everyone is as dumb as they are, and b) most of the Leftists who are okay with rising inflation make enough money to afford it. And it all goes back to their greed. After all, as long as it doesn’t inconvenience them, the Left is fine watching people suffer at their hands.

The Party of Compassion, everybody!

In order for us to weather the self-inflicted economic storm, we need to use our heads when it comes to spending. Cut coupons, comparison shop, budget for needs rather than wants, and do what you can to keep costs down, including learning how to make or grow what you might need to buy. Granted, not everyone is Bob Villa or has a green thumb, but it’s never too late to pick up some pointers or ask questions from those who are more knowledgeable. The one currency that never experiences fiscal ups-and-downs is human kindness. Even if today’s more divisive world, you can find someone willing to lend a hand in times of need.

The other thing we can do, which might a bit harder, is to vote for candidates with a strong understanding of economics. This isn’t a “Vote Straight Ticket Republican” idea, since the knuckleheads who got us into this mess come from both major parties. Take a hard look at what a candidate says and grill him or her on the economy. If they give a half-hearted or nonsensical answer, strike them from your short list. If they give a solid answer or an answer that checks out from the research you do ahead of time, give them a second look. Even if they aren’t your favorite person, ask yourself if you can afford a popular dullard impacting any part of the economy and vote accordingly.

The dollar you save might be your own.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The world has some really evil people in it, but there is one who is at the top of the heap. His actions have caused thousands of COVID-19 deaths, threatened millions more, and doesn’t follow the science like the way we’re told it has to be followed. I’m speaking of, of course, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

Or at least that’s what the Left thinks of him.

With the attention DeSantis has garnered with the Left, I think it would be worthwhile to do a deep dive into the Governor to see if we can pinpoint why the Left hates him with the passion of a thousand suns.

Ron DeSantis

What the Left thinks it means – a cruel, incompetent governor who will kill as many people as he can through bad decisions

What it really means – Donald Trump with better impulse control

I think we’ve hit on the main reason the Left hates DeSantis, but more on that later.

Trying to keep track of how well different governors have been doing with the pandemic is like trying to calculate the color bleen: theoretically possible, but more likely to be maddening, and definitely pointless. While the sensible thing would be to count the number of cases and the number of deaths, the Left kept changing the rules to soften the blow of the multiple custerfucks from Democrat governors and to criticize Republican governors who had enough sense to, you know, not put COVID-19 patients in nursing homes where those susceptible to it were.

Among these eeeeevillll Republican governors was Ron DeSantis. While the Left fawned over Andrew “Sexual Assault and Letting Old People Die Are a Part of My Culture” Cuomo, DeSantis actually did the job Cuomo was being lauded for doing without actually doing it. And for that, the Left hates him.

Well, along with being a threat to the Left’s plans to keep the White House in 2024. And given how the current guy is doing, DeSantis only needs to keep breathing to beat him. If you think the Left had a hate boner for Donald Trump, prepare for one that will last far more than four years and will not require seeing a doctor because DeSantis dares to do something Donald Trump did and continues to do: call out the Left when they lie about him.

Let’s just say the Left has been very busy lying about DeSantis.

As I’ve noted before, the Left hates anybody who fights back against them in any way, and I do mean any. Even a marginal disagreement over policy can turn you in to persona non grata in Leftist circles. Just as Lawrence Summers, a former Harvard President whose only crime was to note men and women are better at different tasks and fields of study. How scandalous! When it comes to DeSantis, though, the Left have been having fits over how he and his communications director keep calling them out.

Of course, Leftists have fits at the drop of a hat, so that’s nothing new.

There is a line of thought that the reason Leftists are going so hard at DeSantis is because they’re afraid he’s going to run in 2024. I agree with this to a point, but I think there’s a bigger fear at work here. The Left is afraid of a 2016 repeat where a candidate who wasn’t supposed to win actually does. It wasn’t that long ago that the Left underestimated Donald Trump (when they weren’t using him as a ratings boost, I might add) and miscalculated just how unpopular Hillary Clinton was (or at least how clueless the Left is when it comes to acknowledging the screamingly obvious).

If current trends continue, 2024 is going to come down to an established Leftist pawn…I mean candidate in Joe Biden, an inexperienced Leftist pawn…I mean candidate in Kamala Harris, and whomever the Republicans put forward. If current trends continue further, the Republican candidate is going to be Ron DeSantis, which works against the Left. Whether the Left supports the doddering old fool or the doddering young fool, they will have a hard sell for the American people, although not as hard a sell as when they tried to convince people to vote for Hillary.

The other aspect that scares the ever-loving bat snot out of the Left is DeSantis isn’t as unpredictable as Donald Trump was. Oh, DeSantis is as passionate and driven as Trump was, but he has a better control over his passions and words, which makes him Trump 2.0: all the Leftist butt-whuppin’ with a smaller likelihood of mangling the English language. That alone makes DeSantis dangerous to the Left. Oh, they’ll still paint him as a racist/sexist/homophobic/bigoted/fascist/religious nutjob/Hitler-wannabe, but it won’t affect him while having the potential to pimp-slap the Left in the process. Because…lack of self-awareness.

While DeSantis isn’t going to be everyone’s cup of Earl Gray (I’m looking at you, Lincoln Project), there is something to be said of someone who doesn’t take shit from Leftists and lets them know exactly what he feels about them. If some people have their way, that something will be “Mister President.”

For others, it will be “Skippy.” Don’t ask me why.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The year was 2001, and it was an even bigger odyssey than Arthur C. Clarke or Stanley Kubrick could have ever imagined. We were still reeling from a contested election, and making all sorts of hanging chad jokes in the process. We were still learning about the evil that is Nickelback. And there was the War on Terror, which sent thousands of young men and women to the Middle East to fight with different factions, such as the Taliban.

Now, 20 years later, we’re leaving Afghanistan (at least in part) and leaving it to…the Taliban.

As much as I like reruns, there is a logical limit to everything, except Leftist rhetoric. While the Left is trying to put a positive spin on the debacle…I mean successful withdrawal from Afghanistan, we would be remiss if we didn’t take a look at the new boss, who is the same as the old boss.

the Taliban

What the Left thinks it means – bad guys who are better than the far right in America

What it really means – terrorists who should have been wiped from the face of the Earth when we had the chance

In the aftermath of 9/11, we were looking for the people responsible for the multiple attacks on America and landed on the Taliban, both figuratively and literally. After some fighting, the Taliban were removed like David Duke at the NAACP Image Awards. Then, we did something which, in retrospect, was kinda dumb. Like inviting David Duke to the NAACP Image Awards.

We let them go.

Instead of curb stomping them, we let them get away, including one Osama bin Laden. You know, the mastermind behind 9/11? Although we eventually found and killed bin Laden, that didn’t kill the Taliban. Quite the opposite, actually. That’s because of the nature of Middle Eastern terrorism.

Even though there are multiple terrorists groups operating in the Middle East, they aren’t exactly working out of different Q’orans. Their main purpose is to spread Islam worldwide through conversion, coercion, or, their personal favorite, killing the non-believers. So far, they haven’t been that successful with the first two methods, but with the third option, they’ve done a bang-up job. Literally.

And the Taliban are no different. They will be as bad as they were in 2001, if not worse. That means women and children will be endangered, rights will be restricted, and we will have to learn more hard-to-pronounce names to at least appear to be educated on the goings on. And it means our political leaders will have no clue of what’s going on in the first place.

Case in point, the Biden Administration. Instead of worrying about the destabilization of the reason and the geopolitical implications of the Taliban regaining power in Afghanistan, our fearless leader and his ever-on=the-ball Administration are concerned with…the Taliban being inclusive. And remember, kids, Joe Biden is supposed to be the foreign policy expert.

In other words, we’re boned.

Although the Biden Administration is willing to take the Taliban at their word, there are two big reasons we shouldn’t. One, they have no reason to follow through with any agreement they make with us. Granted, I’m no expert on the Muslim faith, but when their interpretation of their holy book makes it okay to lie to and kill non-believers, I’m pretty sure they’re less trustworthy than a car dealership working straight commission and with a lot full of lemons that would make Country Time want to file a lawsuit against them.

Oh, and the second reason? They’re freaking terrorists!

Of course, this hasn’t been a problem in the past because we used to have a good intelligence network in that part of the world. Then, some Leftists (such as the Commander in Briefs, Bill Clinton) got it in their heads that getting intelligence from terrorists might make us look bad. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news to the Left, but the best intelligence against the bad guys comes from the bad guys. The result of our insane pearl-clutching can be seen where the Twin Towers once stood.

Am I blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11? No, but it’s hard to argue his actions didn’t have at least some bearing on what lead up to it, including the infamous briefing that amounted to “Osama bin Laden may try to do something with airplanes at some point down the road” written by the same group of people that thought satellites could do a better job of getting secret information from terrorists than having actual people on the inside.

The point is the Left got us into this mess by inadvertently giving terrorists what they want and getting nothing in return. This is because the Left’s version of foreign policy is always having to say we’re sorry. That’s sure to get you a lot of friends, but very few will be allies, especially if there’s hard work to be done. You know, like trying to execute a mass exit from a country where the enemy is heavily entrenched and now has access to the toys we’re abandoning?

The Left isn’t the sole party to blame here, but they are the ones who keep setting the rules of engagement and making the blunders that lead us into having to deal with groups like the Taliban on a regular basis. Unfortunately, there’s not a lot we can do until our leaders change their minds on how to deal with the Taliban. And if I could humbly offer a suggestion, one that I’ve held since 9/11.

Go back to the original rules of engagement, namely 1) take out the enemy, 2) take or break their stuff, and 3) do steps 1 and 2 in such as way that it makes the enemy reconsider whether they want to continue hostilities. If so, repeat steps 1-3. If not, then they might be willing to knock off their shenanigans for fear of us repeating steps 1-3. In recent years, we haven’t had the courage to even attempt step 1 without feeling guilty. We need to stop feeling guilty when it comes to dealing with people who want us dead.

Until then, we will have to put up with history repeating itself. in other words, a geopolitical version summer TV.

Sometimes Less Is Moratorium

Last week, the nation’s Capitol was awash in moratorium fever, and not even a cowbell would have quelled it. House Democrats started beating the drums about the end of the eviction moratorium put in place due to COVID-19 and told us it was important that it get extended by the end of July. Of course, they knew about this in June, but they just had to get it taken care of with mere hours to spare.

Any parent who has worked until 2 AM on a science project due later that day for a son or daughter knows this feeling.

As much as I would love to dunk on the process in this case, the actual subject of this piece is the eviction moratorium itself. What started off as an act of kindness in the midst of a fracking pandemic has become a hot button issue where very few people pushing for the moratorium extension have fully thought out the implications. (I know. I’m as shocked as you are that a dumb Leftist idea wasn’t planned.)

The eviction moratorium seeks to forgive past due rent due to the economic impacts of the pandemic. With businesses either slowing down or going out of business altogether, it made sense to allow some flexibility. The only problem with that is some people will take advantage of it. What was considered a safety net was quickly and easily turned into a hammock, all with the help of people like the Leftists pushing to extend the moratorium. Between the handful of economic relief checks and the changes to the unemployment process, it became easier and more profitable to sit at home and let the government take care of the details than it was to find a new job.

Oh, and to spend the “free” money on big-ticket items instead of, you know, paying the rent as outlined in the rental contract.

Wait a minute…am I saying the renters had to sign a contract to live in someone else’s property? Yes, yes, I am. Maybe they didn’t cover this at Leftist colleges and universities, but a rental agreement is a contract and getting Big Daddy Government to step in on your behalf doesn’t negate the contract. At least, not yet. If Leftists get their way, the federal government will be able to undo any contract it wants, even ones they’re not a party in. That in and of itself should scare you, but if not, I can put on a Frankenstein’s Monster mask and say it because, damn it, I care.

But this has a much larger impact than what the Left want to believe. Instead of sticking it to landlords, who are often regular people instead of megacorporations, the moratorium extension has the power to make it so the megacorporations get to own more rental property. Here’s how. When you are the owner of rental property, your income is dependent upon rental income coming in on a regular basis. COVID-19 put a King Kong-sized monkey wrench into this situation. Instead of being able to count on rental income, the owners either had to take the lumps without expecting to get paid or wait for a government bailout. And since the latter doesn’t quite fit with the Left’s strategy or their understanding of basic economics, the landlords had to eat the losses. Great if you’re a renter struggling to find a use for a Bachelors degree in Albino Native American Feminist Slam Poetry Studies, but bad if you’re the landlord.

If the moratorium becomes a permanent thing, it’s likely fewer people will rent out properties, provided those properties aren’t foreclosed upon due to…non-payment! Once the properties get foreclosed, usually anybody can snatch it up including a little organization called BlackRock. BlackRock just happens to be one of the largest property management companies in the country. Oh, and I forgot to mention they have former employees working in the Biden Administration as economic advisors after serving in government roles under President Barack Obama.

Scummy as hell, but hey. No mean Tweets, right?

Now, here’s the Rod Serling style twist. By pushing for the federal government to extend the eviction moratorium, Leftists are making it possible for a corporation to corner the rental property market. Brilliant! But I’m sure the Socialist Socialite has already figured that out and is lobbying against the moratohhhhh yeah, she’s in favor of it. Just goes to show you people can get a degree in something and still not know a damn thing about it.

Anyway, the Leftists pushing the moratorium haven’t thought through the issue carefully enough to be informed. Then again, that’s never stopped them before, so it’s not that hard to imagine they would spout off about the moratorium without considering the economic and legal implications which will screw over members of their base while enriching at least some of their donors.

At least there aren’t mean Tweets, though, amirite?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It’s official. The Biden Administration is engaging in the War on Misinformation! As we breath a collective sigh of…well, utter confusion to be honest, we’re left with some serious questions. What is considered misinformation? Who determines what constitutes misinformation? What is Joe Biden’s favorite flavor of ice cream? (Okay, that last one wasn’t really mine. That’s an actual question asked of the President by a “reporter.”)

Ice cream question aside, we’re entering a strange new territory, one where the rules of reality as we know them are null and void. It’s to the point we’re one ironic twist away from a Rod Serling voiceover. This isn’t just a Leftist ploy; this is a question of reality itself, and we’re not even college-age stoners. Well, you might want to light up a fatty and settle in because this one is going to get weird.

misinformation

What the Left thinks it means – false information that damages society

What it really means – information that damages Leftist narratives

As I’ve noted before, the Left has a love/hate relationship with the truth. They love it when the truth backs them up, and they hate it when the truth doesn’t back them up (which is most of the time). With the advent of a Donald Trump Presidency, however, they started hugging the truth tighter than a “popular” girl’s prom dress. And, surprise surprise, the Left found misinformation with every Republican/conservative statement, no matter how factual the statement was. There’s a reason Trump supporters and others have come up with the #TrumpWasRight hashtag, and it’s not because they’re cult members.

It’s because, well, Donald Trump was right.

But the Left can’t bring themselves to admit the truth. After all, they claim reality has a liberal bias (except when it comes to the number of genders, the effects of Welfare on the poor, and the absurdity of the government spending money to prop up the economy, just to name three). When the facts don’t fit, the Left does its best to either memory hole the truth or poison the well (not literally, unless you count Flint, Michigan) by attacking the source instead of refuting the information.

I’ve covered an aspect of this previously when I discussed media “fact checkers”, but for those who haven’t read it yet, here’s the short version. Most fact checkers you’ll find are tainted by biases, especially well-known and oft-circulated ones like Snopes and FactCheck.org. They would scrutinize every word Donald Trump said to find the worst possible interpretation while giving Joe Biden as much leeway as a needle thrown in the Grand Canyon. Yes, I know this smacks of “whataboutism” but it’s not wrong. Check out Politifact’s recent “fact check” on whether President Biden wants to ban handguns, which is a direct quote from the man. Let’s just say Politifact’s interpretation is the fact checking equivalent of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (Speaking of which, does Melinda get half of the foundation in the divorce?)

To bring this all together (finally), this process of partisan fact checking lends itself very well to misinformation. Combine that with social media’s lax and contradictory application of misinformation standards and you see the crisis for what it is. It’s like trying to get a sip of water from a firehose. There’s a good chance you’ll get something, but you’re more likely to get overwhelmed by the sheer volume being sent your way.

And that’s only part of the problem. Our attention spans are getting shorter than…wait, what was I talking about? Oh, yeah, attention spans! With the sheer amount of information we get on a daily basis, we have to pick and choose what we consume, which makes it easier for misinformation to get around. After all, if someone with some authority says something and it gets repeated by others, it must be right, right? Oh, by the way, Dr. Fauci, phone call on line 5, one for each of your positions on masking.

I don’t disagree with the notion misinformation can be destructive, but it gets more destructive when it becomes politicized because all politics is personal on some level. That’s why political attack ads are effective and still being used today. Where I part company with the Left is in the danger assessment. The Left claims misinformation can be deadly, citing the number of COVID-19 cases and President Donald Trump’s mishandling of the pandemic. If only we had followed the science and listened to our non-Trumpian leaders, we could have saved millions of lives!

Except not even the Left follows the science completely and gives off misinformation on the regular to sustain the notion President Trump made the pandemic worse. He could have taken other actions, sure, but while he was trying to get a handle on the situation, the Left and the media (but I repeat myself) gave constantly changing information. First it was “you don’t need masks” to “wearing masks is a sign of Asian hate” to “OHMYGODTHEWORLDISGONNADIEUNLESSYOUMASKUPANDQUARANTINEINPLACE” to “don’t trust the vaccinations because Trump rushed them to the public” to “maybe you should get them if you’re in a high risk group” to “OHMYGODYOUNEEDTOGETTHEFAUCIOUCHIEORYOUWILLKILLEVERYONE.” Put simply, the people who are so concerned now about misinformation are the ones who benefitted most from it politically and ideologically. If that and the gradual escalation of hysteria aren’t huge red flags that can be seen from orbit, I don’t know what to tell you.

Actually, I take that back. I do know what to tell you: be smart about what news you consume and do your own research before taking a stand. Not only will you be able to develop intelligent opinions, you will be able to ferret out the bad actors, and this time I’m not talking about Tara Reid. And don’t buy into the idea misinformation is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn’t matter who initially distributed it or what their intentions were or what greater good they think they’re serving. If something is wrong, it’s wrong. End of story.

And whether it’s the federal government or Big Tech doing it, I’m not a fan of the current crop of self-professed determiners of truth and falsehoods being the ones to dictate reality to us. Some of these folks are confused by the idea there are only two genders, for the love of Pete! Do you want these nozzleheads anywhere near the decision-making process on what is misinformation?

Anyway, I wish the Biden Administration the best of luck in their battle against misinformation. I mean, it couldn’t be any worse than our showing in the War on Drugs, right?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I’ve been trying to avoid writing about this, but since the Left can’t stop talking about it for 2 microseconds, I suppose I’ll have to weigh in. After moments of tepid unrest (as opposed to the usual white hot variety), tensions between Israel and Palestine flared up, resulting in rockets being exchanged, and not in the white elephant kind of way. To put it mildly, they were putting some heat on those things.

As they typically do in situations like this, the Left has already taken sides with Palestine, with members of “The Squad” openly calling Israel an “apartheid state.” I’m sure that’s going to go over well with the white nationalists there, but that’s not important right now. What is important is the Left’s political gamble taking sides with Palestine, a gamble they’ve made before and won handily. In the grand scheme of things, does this matter?

Why, yes. Yes it does.

Palestine

What the Left thinks it means – a nation being oppressed by Israel merely for trying to get its land back

What it really means – a nation that no longer exists, due in no small part to its leaders

The biggest problem when discussing Palestine is agreeing on the basic facts that are not in play, mainly because there are so many people who disagree on them. However, there is one fact not even the staunchest of pro-Palestinian propagandists can spin away.

Palestine doesn’t exist today.

Oh, sure, they did at one time and the United Nations even recognize Palestine as a state, but that means nothing in 2021. Especially that second part. If your ace in the hole is a UN proclamation, you’re better off in admitting you got nothing. At least then you won’t have to worry about explaining away the UN’s noted anti-Israel bent. If anything, they should get bent.

The country that was once Palestine was comprised of a lot of land in the Middle East in what is now Jordan. Not Israel. Not the West Bank. Not even the Gaza Strip. Jordan. The fact Israel and Jordan are neighbors doesn’t help the situation any because they have easy access to each other and their respective populations and property. In short, this is a property line dispute with heavy artillery.

But as a former homeowner myself, I can tell you it’s hard to have a property line dispute when you don’t actually own the property. If the Palestinians had a valid claim to Israel, I would be one of the first to say so. As it stands, all they have are a UN proclamation and apparently nobody who knows how to read an ancient map. But what they do have is Leftists willing to carry their water for them. As it turns out, this is their default position on Palestine because a) they like to at least appear to support the underdog against the powerful, and b) they have a major anti-Semitism problem.

Let’s start with the first one since it’s first and all. The Left loves a good David vs. Goliath story, not because they necessarily want David to win, but because they love making Goliath look like a jerk in the process. Instead of fighting for the little guy, the Left tends to fight against the big guy because it’s easier to paint the big guy as the villain just like they did with the big banks. Of course, when it’s a big guy who agrees with them (I’m looking right at you, Jack Dorsey), the Left turns a blind eye…until it becomes convenient to throw you under the bus. Just ask Amazon.

Or we can just ask Israel. With the two terms of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and the first year of Joe Biden’s term, Israel knows full well what the Left thinks of them and how they will make nice to your face while helping the opposition. The Left has even sent political advisors to Israel to try to defeat Benjamin Netanyahu, all because he has this crazy idea that Israel should exist. That MONSTER! Out of Clinton, Obama, and Biden, only Clinton had Israel and Palestine try to work out some sort of agreement. Even when Israel was willing to give in to Palestine’s conditions, their leader at the time, Yasser Arafat walked away. Since then, the possibility of peace between the sides is more remote than a hermit at Ice Station Zero.

This is where the anti-Semitism comes into play. Yes, there are Leftist Jews who are on the “Free Palestine” bandwagon and will criticize Israel in the same breath they order brunch, but they are being used for votes and money, just like every other group the Left associates with. The Left loves the money and power the Leftist Jews give them, but nothing else beyond that. As long as the Israel-Palestine conflict continues, the Left will use it for their own ends without doing anything to help the situation.

Oh, and it should be pointed out, as the Left loves to do, the Palestinians are also Semites. So, what would you call a group of people who use the death of people they allegedly support to enhance their own political and fiscal power? Some could say they were…anti-Semites…

Amazing, but not unexpected from the Left.

Beyond that, some of the Left’s favorite hustlers…I mean figures have a history of out-and-out disdain for Israel and its people: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, Louis Farrakhan, just to name a few. More recently, “The Squad” has shown it can flex with the best of them when it comes to attacking Israel. No matter how many times they get caught, however, the song never changes. Israel will always be bad, and Palestine will always be good. And as long as there’s money and votes to be had, the Left won’t care.

The larger question is whether Palestinians want peace. I can’t point to anything specific, but I get the feeling the majority of them do. Constant fighting without a reason to fight erodes your soul pretty fast, and the way many Palestinians have found a way to live without fighting is…by moving to Israel. Contrary to popular belief, Palestinians in Israel enjoy a modicum of power and respect so long as they don’t wreck anything. They even have a place at the table in Israel’s version of Congress, the Knesset. Hard to argue Israel is an apartheid state when they give more freedom to Palestinians than Palestine does.

And therein lies the real tragedy of it all. Palestinians really don’t have an ally on the Left, but Hamas does. That’s not an insignificant distinction to make, either. Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by the US and others, and currently holds all the power in Palestine. Oh, and they’re much more militant than Arafat was, and he was militant enough as it was for a guy who could pass for Ringo Starr in an off-Baghdad production of “Lawrence of Arabia.” The other option is to seek sanctuary with the ”enemy” or try to stay enough under the radar as to not attract attention. With fanatics like Hamas, though, neither option is good enough. You’re either in all the way or you’re a traitor.

Hmmm…I wonder if that attitude has anything to do with the religion Hamas members follow…naaaaaaah!

In the end, there will be more fighting, more death, and more heartache until both sides of the Palestine/Israel conflict decide enough is enough. Even then, the Left will find a way to paint Palestine as a victim instead of a participant, if only to secure more money and power for themselves. If only to try to stem the tide of eternal war (and, admittedly, make Leftists even madder than they are now), I will defend Israel’s right to exist.

And I will continue to act as an Israeli Chamber of Commerce for Palestinians looking to get out from the conflict.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you’ve watched the Left as long as I have, first off, I’m sorry. Second, there are some cues when they’re going to try to advance/distort a word, idea, or concept by what phrasing they use.

This past week, the word “competent” has been thrown around like Tom Brady throwing footballs at training camp. The Left and the media (but I repeat myself) have expressed everything from not-so-subtle exhaling to sycophantic gushing over their perception of the Biden Administration as being head and shoulders above the Trump Administration. They seem pleasantly surprised at how the Biden Administration seems to know what it’s doing.

But, as we’ve seen previously, the Left loves to play with the language to make themselves look smarter, faster, and better.

competent

What the Left thinks it means – mature, intelligent, and empathic leadership shown by political leaders

What it really means – a phrase that should rarely, if ever, used to describe any Presidency

Why, yes, my general cynicism about government is coming through! How could you tell?

Seriously, though, competence isn’t normally associated with government as a whole because we’re dealing with human beings in power. The chance we’re going to get a savant in a Cabinet role is less likely than Donald Trump marrying Rosie O’Donnell. Even when we get someone reasonably intelligent in a role (see Dr. Ben Carson), the fit might not be there, which will result in a litany of mistakes.

Now, imagine that same work being done by stereotypical WalMart shoppers. That’s closer to how competent government is these days. Frightening, isn’t it? Add to that the immense number of regulations, policies, procedures, legalese, and general ideologically-driven goals, and you have a situation where even the best of intentions gets turned into the worst of bureaucracies.

In spite of the media’s best attempts to prop up Joe Biden as a good President, most people just aren’t buying it. The policy wonks, like your humble correspondent, see an Administration tackling problems like Pee Wee Herman while making somewhat manageable problems worse. And a lot of these are unforced errors, meaning they could have been prevented if someone had just taken the President aside and said, “I know what you want to do here, but it’s like letting Hunter have Charlie Sheen as his rehab partner.”

Take the border crisis, for example. Before he came into office, Joe Biden laid out a pretty clear invitation for illegal immigrants from Mexico to come on in! Then, when people took him up on his offer, the Administration was caught off-guard. I mean, how were they to know an open invitation to come here would be accepted so readily? It’s not like the President was in office for nearly half a century or anything, right?

One of the legitimate knocks against the Trump Administration was the lack of experience in important roles within the government. It seemed like President Trump handed out these roles like Planned Parenthood hands out…well, whatever it is they hand out. Now, with a new Administration, we see…exactly the same problems as the Trump Administration, but with a lot more tolerance from the Left. Seriously, who was the genius to made Pete Buttigieg Secretary of Transportation because he likes trains? I liked trains when I was 7 or 8, but I don’t put that on my resume so someone in a future Administration would put me on a short list for the Department of Transportation, or any Cabinet post for that matter. Given the nozzleheads in charge, I’m surprised Hunter Biden wasn’t put in charge of the DEA.

It’s because of the unforced errors that the Left is talking about competence with regards to the Biden Administration. The idea is to persuade you with multitude (i.e. an appeal to popularity) than to get you to think whether the Administration fits the definition. As you might have guessed, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t, if only because Obama Administration failures…I mean holdovers like Anita Dunn, John Kerry, and Jen Psaki managed to find work again after screwing up so badly.

But at least there aren’t any mean Tweets, right?

Even if you set the lowest possible bar for competence, government finds a way to limbo under it with room to spare because there is no punishment for failure. If anything, people tend to fail upward. Want proof? Who is President and Vice President right now? A two-time Presidential candidate whose mental faculties are on the decline and a Presidential candidate who dropped out before the Iowa Caucuses due to a lack of support. And people expect competence out of these two?

I mean, aside from Leftists.

I have a saying that applies in this situation: “If you have to say it, you ain’t it.” If the Biden Administration or its stenographers in the media have to keep telling us the Administration is competent, it’s a clear sign it’s not (oh, and that the media are hacks). But don’t just take my word for it. Watch the Administration carefully and see if they perform at even basic levels of competency. Or you can do the DMV Test. If your local DMV works more efficiently and effectively than the federal government, there’s a problem, and Spoiler Alert it’s not a local one.

I know the Left wants to create a clear difference between the Trump Administration and the Biden Administration, but you can’t just slap a descriptor on the latter and call it a day. Government by its very nature doesn’t solve problems and expecting people who have spent a good chunk of their lives proving it and/or covering up for it to suddenly get it stretches reality like Mr. Fantastic, only less believable. When the Biden Administration does something right, I will be among the first to call it out because I’m good like that. Given what I’ve seen so far, though, I may be waiting a while. Good thing I packed a lunch!