The Difference Between The Right And The Left

I have sat quietly watching the Supreme Court decisions unfold in June. Oh, don’t get me wrong. I was happy to see the fact that the state of New York, which quite frankly I’ve always viewed as not just liberal but run by a bunch of narcissistic idiots that would never be allowed to even run for office in another state, get their anti-gun carry law banned. And I was happy that a “right” that was never granted by the Constitution (abortion) was overturned and given it’s rightful place back to the states, as should have happened some 50 years ago.

But what all of this has taught me is the overriding difference between the left and the right.

When the right has something passed that they don’t like, they go along with it until it can be changed. Oh, they may hold peaceful (that should have been underlined, in bold and in Italics!) rallies, as the pro-life group had done with abortion for decades. But they don’t riot in the streets. They don’t threaten bodily harm to the members of the high court. They don’t cry and weep incessantly like we’ve seen over the past few weeks. They go with the flow, gather up their members and when the time is right they change it.

What the left does is hold riots. They threaten. They go to violence almost immediately. If you don’t go along with what the left wants on an issue, you’re “cancelled” or banned. You’re the pariah. You’re the problem. It doesn’t matter that what they want makes no sense. It doesn’t matter that what they want is wrong. That doesn’t have anything to do with it. They want some crazy idea to be thrust, and they are going to spin it as “saving the children” (well, not in abortion’s case), or taking medicine or food out of grandma’s mouth. But they never give you both sides of the equation. Just because in the New York case, people can carry guns now without going through an arduous process, they think it’s going to lead to more crime. And the liberal media is going to highlight any time there is a shooting anywhere in the state, just wait.

As far as abortion is concerned, the left has always been more about protecting a non-existing “right” of women’s ability to choose what to do with her own body, rather than protecting the life of the unborn within that body. They knew they could never win an argument if killing a baby was a part of it, so they made it about “women’s health”. It’s not about women’s health. It’s about eliminating a pregnancy without regard to what they are actually doing so the women who are doing it don’t feel ashamed or guilty for killing a baby.

Of course, there are other differences as well. There’s the whole large government vs. small government argument. And you’ve got the states rights vs. federal government argument (which I thought the 10th Amendment answered quite clearly). And they don’t accept any argument that runs counter to their addle-minded way of thinking.

One of the best arguments I heard over the few weeks was, “Guns are in the Constitution. Abortion is not. Period.” Tough to argue with that one.

And until we get the youth of America educated properly, and not indoctrinated in our public schools, this fallacy of whatever I believe is right and what you prove to me that it isn’t right is dead wrong and you don’t deserve to live! has to be eliminated from our society.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

But What’s The Outcome?

I saw an interesting poll from the Southern Poverty Law Center the other day. It basically says that 44% of all Americans and 53% of Republicans feel that we are headed toward a civil war.

I find those numbers to be absolutely amazing.

So, basically half of the country already feels that there is no working with the other side, that it’s pretty much come down to blowing up what we have started some 246 years ago, and starting again? That is going to leave a lot of unanswered questions. Well, fear not. Here is my take on what would happen if indeed we had a civil war.

First of all, what the outcome is depends on who’s in charge. You saw all of the violence in the streets while Trump (and some of Biden) was in charge, right? Expand on that. And realize that the government has the greatest weapons of all time, and probably would be using them against whatever side the insurrection came from. Oh, the rebels, and again, they could be either liberal snowflakes or conservatives, would gain an early upper hand…but you can’t compete with the types of weapons in the United States arsenal. It’s just not possible.

But let’s take the government out of it and look at the two sides. You have liberals that feel that no one should have guns, and you have conservatives that say they’ll fight to the death to preserve their right to bear arms. In a conflict between the two sides, is there any contest? Wouldn’t you see more and more conservatives going to riots held by the left and just leveling everyone taking part? The left would destroy the property, the right would destroy the people destroying the property. They wouldn’t wait for the courts to take over.

I really can’t believe that leftists have it in them to defend their way of thinking if it ever got to that. I mean, look at their attempt to hold “autonomous zones” in places like Portland and Seattle. That was an abysmal failure. They didn’t want police around, so they kept them out. But it became a Lord of the Flies situation all over again. And those folks are going to win an armed insurrection against gun owners who are fighting to the death? I don’t believe it for a minute.

But, let’s forget about the two sides for a minute and concentrate on one thing. The government. The current swamp wants to remain in charge. Let’s face it, Trump wasn’t able to even begin draining the swamp in four years. It’s going to take a protracted effort, with more than a hundred million people to get involved. And you thought the 1860’s civil war was bad? You ain’t seen nothing yet! Whomever wins this civil war is going to be determined by whichever political party is in charge of DC at the time it breaks out. That is the outcome of THIS civil war. We will learn what countless countries have already learned…you can’t match up and fight the United States. You have to employ treachery and almost terrorist tactics in order to do it.

Will it ever happen? I have no idea. But I will say that when over half of the population thinks something will happen, it usually does.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Musk Buys Twitter. So, Will It Matter?

I think the short answer is yes, it will matter somewhat. I don’t know all that much about Elon Musk. What I do know is, like every other billionaire out there, he’s an egotist. He’s smart. He’s got more money than the US Government. And he seems to make the proper business decisions more often than not.

He’s also more for free speech than previous ownership and management.

That I think is going to win back some of the more conservative folks that either got banned from Twitter, or just left to pursue their passions another way. I can tell you I got reinstated after a year in Twiter-Jail. I didn’t ask to get reinstated, it just happened. It wasn’t because of Musk either. All of a sudden one day, the account was back up! I have no idea what had happened.

I got banned because I posted a tweet that said that Juan Williams, the token liberal at Fox News, wouldn’t make it through the year on “The Five” because he was just plain bad. The folks in charge at Fox News realized that and were struggling to find someone on the left that could take over and do a credible job of presenting the left’s argument without trying to read everything. They also needed someone that Jesse Watters didn’t have such an easy time making a fool of. For that post, I got banned. I appealed. It was denied. Apparently, you can wish that George W. Bush should be assassinated on Twitter, but you couldn’t pontificate the firing of Juan Williams. I told Twitter to stick it where the sun don’t shine and that I didn’t care if they banned me permanently. Oh well.

So, now Elon Musk is going to be at the helm of Twitter, which by the way, was losing a ton of money ever since all of this banning people took place. Musk will turn that around. But it’s not without controversy.

While conservatives are happy and think that maybe Twitter will once again become the neighborhood fence where everyone can chat, liberals are apoplectic. You would have thought someone shot their dog! Even Jeff Bezos, former head of Amazon is weighing in. He says that because Musk is in charge now, China will have inroads to Twitter. That’s because China makes all of the car batteries for Tesla. OK, I kinda sorta see the connection there, but not sure how that works. Then again, maybe Bezos is just jealous that he didn’t come up with the idea of buying the tweet-fest first?

We’re going to have to give Musk time to make the changes once he officially takes over. It’s to be an overnight change. It’ll take time. I mean, the guy has got to weed out all of the liberal naysayers that are going to be against him from the word “GO”. And he’s got to replace them with someone more mainstream that doesn’t want bots determining what people are able to post. At least those bots.

Overall, was it a good thing Musk got Twitter? Yes. Will it change the world? No. Will everyone be satisfied? Will everyone EVER be satisfied about everything?

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

More West Coast Loony Toons

Leave it to those idiots on the west coast. They love coming up with the wackiest, stupidest, most insane ideas politics has ever heard of. When something hits you as just so far out in left field that it’s in the corn field 10 miles away, I’d bet my life savings it started in California. And so did this!

San Francisco is going to start paying people NOT to shoot other people.

You heard right. The city of San Francisco, who has been facing an uptick in shootings and murders, has decided to rectify the situation the only way they know how…throw money at it. So, they are proposing to pay “people who are of high targets” of either being shot or shooting people $300 a month not to shoot people, or to be shot. You would qualify for an additional $200 a month if you actually work at a job during the month, or are on parole and obey your parole officer.

So, just to make sure you understand the story here…you’d possibly get paid up to $500 a month for not shooting anyone, not being shot, and either working or obeying your parole officer.

And how does this morally bankrupt city plan to pay for this when they can’t even afford to solve their homeless problem?

Well, they plan on doing it through donations, moving money around in their budget, and yes, even a federal grant. So, even if you live in New York, or Vermont, you’re going to end up paying for it.

It’s obvious that we have reached the point where no idea is bad if it involves throwing money at people. The only thing that can get you in trouble today is if you sexually harass someone, and that’s only if eleven women come forward. If it’s less than that, or you’ve murdered 15,000 nursing home residents, or if you’ve ruined your state’s economy through bad management and incompetence, you’re ok. In fact, you probably will get a reward for your service.

Have we reached the point in our country where Porky Pig says, “That’s all folks!”? I think we have. There is a solution, though I’m not sure it’s actually doable. I’m thinking we take the people living on Catalina Island and Alcatraz, and move them to the mainland, and take all of the liberals, and move them to the islands off California. Don’t allow any boats or planes to show up at the islands. Let the liberals and the socialists fend for themselves. You can call it a real-life “Real Life”. It’s just another “Lord Of The Flies” version. In fact, Fox TV could probably put a film crew on the islands and make it a TV show! Since most of the people on those islands would be actors, actresses, directors, and producers in entertainment, it might be interesting to watch them live their lives ala Napoleon, in exile.

Think about it. Not only would we save money, but we’d actually get a neat TV show or two out of it!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

What Can They Say Now?

We had the second incursion toward the United States Capitol building this past week. It wasn’t done with a gun, but with a car. A guy that is a professed follower of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, killed another Capitol Police Officer on Friday afternoon and injured another. The police were standing guard next to a barrier leading to the Senate’s main entrance at the Capitol.

25 year old Noah Green from Indiana rammed into the two officers, killing William Evans, an 18 year veteran on the Capitol police force. Green then emerged from his vehicle with a knife, and started charging another officer. He was shot dead.

So, what is the narrative on this one?

You can’t be blaming this on Donald Trump. Are you going to arrest Louis Farrakhan? The anti-Second Amendment people can’t say much regarding the incident since it was a killing by car, not a gun…even though Green had a rather large knife with him when he got out of the car.

And my point on this matter is very simple. Green, like so many others in society, have caused anguish and grief not because of the weapon that they chose, but because of the mental illness they obviously were dealing with.

This is what his Facebook page said prior to the incident:

“I was on the right track and everything I had planned was coming into existence. It required long hours, lots of studying, and exercise to keep me balanced while experiencing an array of concerning symptoms along the path (I believe to be side effects of drugs I was intaking unknowingly). However, the path has been thwarted, as Allah (God) has chosen me for other things. Throughout life I have set goals, attained them, set higher ones, and then been required to sacrifice those things,”

Facebook has since taken the posts (and the account) down. But there are many aspects to this crime that are concerning to the left.

First of all, it wasn’t a shooting. It was a car ramming into someone. Are we going to get a call from the left to ban cars now? Oh…wait…AOC has already done that for a different reason! We need to go back to horse and buggies! Second, is there going to be any reaction from the left toward Louis Farrakhan? I mean, he IS the leader of this organization, right? He IS responsible for his “flock”, right? I’m sure he doesn’t want his followers to start ramming into people in cars, right?

Third, Facebook got really good at quickly taking down anything that was the least bit offensive toward Joe Biden during the last election. So was Twitter. So was YouTube. Google only showed you stuff that enhanced Biden’s chances for winning and didn’t show much at all as to why Trump should be reelected. So, why was Facebook behind the pace on this one?

Liberals need to wake up and realize that actions like what occurred on Friday are going to happen over and over again. Sometimes it will be with a gun, sometimes with a car, sometimes with a knife, sometimes with a bomb. The reason it happens is because they have driven such a wedge filled with hate and visceral language into our society that anyone with a mental health issue takes it as a cue to engage in such heinous acts. The liberals are the ones that started this mess, and they need to finally wake up and apologize and fix it. I know liberals don’t like to apologize for anything, but in this instance, we are heading down a path of self-destruction as a nation unless they do. And before it happens, the only thing we of normal minds need to do is to make sure they never have a position of power again.


Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

So What IS “White Supremacy”?

I think it’s interesting the way the left has veered into a new term for Donald Trump. Apparently, their focus groups (and yes…they use focus groups ALL the time!) have told them that “racist” isn’t working anymore. So, they’ve put that word on the shelf because of their over-use of it, and now they’ve come up with “White Supremacy” as their new go-to word to describe Republicans in general, but more specifically, Trump.

Now, this is interesting. If you look into the dictionary, you’re going to see the definition of “white supremacy” is something along the lines of this: “The belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and should therefore dominate society.”

I don’t recall anything that Donald Trump has ever said that specifically says that white people are superior to those of all other races. I DO recall him saying that America is the greatest country in the world. And I wouldn’t call that white supremacy simply because we still are a melting pot. In fact, thanks to the myriad of illegal aliens that dot our landscape and hide in the shadows, we’re probably more of a melting pot today than at any other time in history.

And that brings me to the point for today. The left is trying very hard to tie Donald Trump to certain words…and “white supremacy” is only the latest attempt. This is nothing new with the snowflakes. They are consistently using the same talking points, and the same words to describe situations. And “white supremacy” is only the latest. What I think is funny is that there are several people of color of both parties that have publicly stated that they’ve known Donald Trump for decades and the man is not racist, he’s not a white supremacist…in fact if anything, he goes the other way.

But that’s not how the left wants him to be perceived. And the reason, as always with this crowd, comes down to politics. They want him perceived to be a racist, and a white supremacist because that will sway some black voters that would otherwise vote for him. Same for the Latinos that are enjoying the greatest economy of their lifetimes. See, Trump has been successful at raising minority standards of living in the past three years, where Bobo Obama, a man of color himself, only spewed hatred and racism. He spawned violence (see Ferguson, Baltimore, Cleveland, and other cities as an example!). He was more of a “black supremacist” than what you see with Trump, but he was not able to increase minority standards of living. In fact, under Obama, EVERYONE’s standard of living declined.

So, you’re going to hear from now through election day, that Trump is a “white supremacist”, that he’s a “racist”, that he’s a member of the KKK, and any other thing these guys can think of. What you need to remember is, the leftist socialist snowflakes do anything, say anything, act anyway they have to in order to achieve victory. It’s sad really…but they are the ones mentally lacking in this case. And they are the ones more often than not that are the racists.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Making Sense Of The Senseless

Over the weekend, there were two incredibly evil acts of violence that tore apart not only El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, where about 30 people were senselessly murdered by two gunmen. One of them, the one in El Paso, was an admitted white nationalist and was out to try and murder immigrants. The other in Dayton, was killed, and the motive wasn’t entirely made clear. The shooter in Dayton was a Satanist, and a leftist liberal.

What is clear is that the left loves to politicize this tragedy. We see it every time there is a mass shooting of any kind. You can almost write the script as it happens…there is the obligatory wailing and gnashing of teeth followed by the immediate call for more gun control.

If you are in the camp that agrees that gun control is the answer to stop this violence, you also would believe that stopping abortion would be necessary to stop the senseless killing of children. For to believe one but not the other is inconsistent. You can’t come out as very anti-gun violence, and still be for abortion in any sense of the word…it doesn’t make sense.

Let’s be clear about the gun violence. People that are deranged are going to figure out a way to kill people regardless if guns are available or not. Go back to 1888 in England. There were five women murdered by a still unknown assailant who later became known as “Jack The Ripper”. No gun was used. All of the victims were strangled to death.

In today’s society, the problem isn’t necessarily the guns, it’s the mental condition of the people buying or using them. Obviously in the two cases over the weekend, both of these people were mentally ill and should not have been allowed to own or use them. But what I find interesting is the fallacy in the liberal way of thinking.

The biggest misconception the left has in this particular situation is that they feel that more laws are going to be the answer. They are convinced that if you just had strong enough laws, up to and including taking away guns from everybody, then you wouldn’t have to worry about gun violence anymore. That is an extremely naive way of thinking. In truth, even if you took guns away from the law abiding people of this country, there would still be guns in this country. Drugs are illegal in this country, and you still have drugs. Murder is still illegal in this country and you still have murder.

The problem isn’t the guns, it’s the people. If these gunmen know going into their shooting rampage that the odds are they are going to be killed, do you think they really care if they are breaking the law or not? And for the leftist snowflakes that want to blame the President, or the Republicans for this, they are so far off the reservation on this one, I would question their ability to serve in any political capacity. They aren’t leaders. They’re sheep.

When America wakes up and realizes that prior to buying a gun, it needs to be determined that the buyer is sane, mentally ill, or poses a threat to people if he or she owned a gun. If there is anything that would show that they would, deny them access. Now, I’ll be the first to admit, that isn’t going to completely stop mass shootings…but then again, the left can’t guarantee that in any sense of the word either.

I’ve always made the offer that I would back any left-wing proposal to eliminate guns in this country under one condition. Let the left write the rule. Whatever they want as long as it pertains only to gun control would be allowed. And after the first murder by firearm that occurs in this country, they lose their right to ever ask for anyone to be denied access to guns ever again. No one would ever take me up on that…because they understand they are just about amassing power. And the only way to do that is to take it from the people. That’s the one thing they are best at!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Does The GOP NEED The Left?

I’ve heard this question debated in several different forums in the past, and it’s an interesting question. You can ask it about either the Republicans need the Democrats, or you can ask it about the Democrats needing the Republicans. Either way works. And in actuality, I’ve come to believe that yes…you do need the opposition…for several reasons.

When government is working well (which it hasn’t been for some time), you need to left in the case of the Republicans, to show the idiocy that they display and would lead by if in fact they were given the chance to lead. The Democrats need the right, basically for the same reason. Because both sides represent not the middle, but more of the fringes of the party. There are no more moderate parties in our political system. You’re either conservative, or you’re liberal.

When government is working not so well, you have ballast. I talked about that yesterday. If you have just conservatives, you have a tendency to go overboard and push things too far to the right (and yes…there is such a thing as going too far to the right!). If you are liberal, well…we know they are always pushing things as far left as they can through incrementalism. By having two parties, you get a balance of a sort. It’s not a perfect system, but it does show a little bit of ability to bring whichever side is running things back closer to the middle. And regardless which side of the aisle you’re on, you have to understand that America is a slightly right of center country. We’re more moderate than either the Republicans or the Democrats would like us to believe.

And that is exactly why the current crop of Democrats are going to fail. It’s exactly the reason Barack Obama failed as president and had to issue so many ill-fated Executive Orders. He couldn’t get things through Congress, even when he had both Houses under his party’s control, because the American people didn’t stand for the “transformational change in government” that he was trying to sell to us. Had America realized what he was talking about during the election, he may not have won by as great a margin. I doubt he would have lost to someone as inept as John McCain, but it wouldn’t have given him any sense of a mandate.

The current crop of Democrats have pushed the party so far left, that someone like a Joe Biden seems almost conservative in comparison. He also looks very worn out and tired, and that’s what 50 years of politics will do to a person. But the problem is, most of the Democrats still in the field vying for the nomination, are much farther left than most Americans are. The Republicans learned that lesson some ten years ago when the Tea Party tried to push the GOP to the right. They pushed too far and it led to losing seats in both the House and the Senate.

In the end, as sad as I am to say it…the conservatives actually need the left, and the left actually needs the right to survive. Otherwise, one side pushes too far and we become either Nazi Germany, or Venezuela. Neither are very good choices if you ask me!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

A Shifting Court?

We’ve just concluded the session for the Supreme Court. This, remember was going to be the game-changer. This was the Supreme Court that was going to move the country so far to the right that they were going to legalize the dismembering of liberals. Remember the cry about how if Brett Kavanaugh got confirmed, Roe v. Wade was through? Remember how when you team up Neil Gorsuch with Kavanaugh and the rest of those dirty conservatives on the court, our country as we know it is finished?

It ain’t so.

Today we are still here. Yes, the conservatives won some battles in the high court, and yes, some liberals won some battles in the high court. And it appears that the liberals (once again) were dead wrong. There is a very solid reason behind their being wrong. That reason is that conservatives respect the document known as the Constitution and follow it to the letter. Liberals don’t. Liberals say it’s a “living, breathing document”, which of course is utter nonsense. It’s not living, it’s a piece of parchment. Actually, they say that because they don’t agree with it. They say it’s living and breathing because they want to change it…that it was written to undergo change…which it was. It’s called “amendments”. And we have several of them. But the ones that are there in the Bill of Rights are there to stay. You aren’t going to mess with those.

So this term the High Court heard 78 cases. And when you break it down by whether liberals or conservatives won, it was pretty even. Again, that’s because while liberals try to push this country farther and farther to the left to achieve their agenda while legislating from the bench, the conservatives are more apt to look at the rule of law and decide cases on that, rather than their own prejudiced views.

And so, you had Brett Kavanaugh siding with the liberals in a few cases. You had Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the liberals in more than a few cases this year. In the end analysis, both sides won major cases, and both sides lost major cases. And my personal view is that Lady Justice put the blindfold back on this year. Had Merrick Garland been appointed and confirmed as Bobo Obama wanted, she would have had that blindfold off, proving once again the ever truthful adage that liberalism doesn’t work, has never worked and never will work as a long term solution to mankind’s woes!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Dems’ Trying To Change The Rules On Supreme Court

Knowing full well that at least for the short term, and quite possibly at least a generation if Trump gets re-elected, Democrats are going to be on the short end of the stick when it comes to Supreme Court justices. That’s because the high court now has a 5-4 advantage for the conservatives, and there are possibly three justices that will be stepping down in the next five years. Clarence Thomas may retire sometime soon, especially if Trump wins re-election; Ruth Bader Ginsburg may either retire or die…most likely the latter, and Stephen Breyer isn’t a spring chicken either. That means that IF all three were to vacate their seats, Trump would end up with a total of FIVE Supreme Court nominees!

Believe it or not…that would not be the record. Don’t forget, George Washington nominated all of the Supreme Court as the first president…and Franklin Delano Roosevelt had nine nominations (all confirmed) in his 11 years in office.

But Democrats are trying to figure out a way to reverse this trend. That’s the one thing that no one can argue about the left…if they see themselves on the losing end, they want to change the rules. Well, they are looking to do that again.

Elizabeth Warren has said that the “Republicans ‘stole’ a Supreme Court seat, when they didn’t let Obama nominate Merrick Garland”. And then they “changed the rules by making the Supreme Court nominee only need 51 votes to get confirmed”. Actually, it was Harry Reid that started that second part when he changed the 60 vote rule to non-Supreme Court presidential appointees, so it would be easier to get Obama appointees to take office. Little did Harry realize that two could play at that game, and the 60 vote rule has pretty much been shelved for appointees.

Meanwhile, South Bend, Indiana mayor, Pete Buttigieg, has stated that he would like to see 15 Supreme Court justices…5 chosen by the Republicans, 5 chosen by the Democrats, and 5 that would rotate in and out on an annual basis from the appellate court system. Of course, there are many more liberal judges in the appellate system than on the Supreme Court, so Buttigieg would basically be tilting the playing field his way.

The problem with the Democrats is that Warren is wrong when she says that the Republicans “stole the seat” that Garland was nominated for. It was called politics, and Mitch McConnell played it like he was at the last table of the World Series of Poker. Obama was standing there with his male member in his hands. As far as the rule change that Warren talked about, she can blame that one on Harry Reid. When he made the move to get Obama’s appointments approved, he opened the door for the GOP. I seriously doubt Republicans would have done it with Supreme Court nominees had Reid kept the rule the way it was.

And as for Buttigieg, he needs to stop reading gay porn magazines and look at the Constitution because while there’s nothing that says you can’t change the number of justices on the high court (FDR wanted to increase the number and pack the court with his nominees to get his socialist ideas through); the idea of Republicans and Democrats choosing justices IS unconstitutional and wouldn’t fly. The president has the power to appoint justices to the Supreme Court “with the advice and consent” of the US Senate. Anything else is illegal.

Marco Rubio (R-Fl) is about to introduce a Constitutional Amendment that would limit Supreme Court justices to 9 members. Of course, as long as the Democrats have the House, that one won’t go anywhere…but I bet there would be enough states to go along with it, should the Republicans take back the House in 2020!

What the left needs to do is stop crying, and start doing their jobs. Stop whining and bitching about not having a “fair court”, and if you do your job well, the American people will thank you for it by electing more of your party. That’s the way it’s worked for 243 years.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!