When Kellyanne Conway introduced the world to the term "alternative facts", the Left immediately began equating that to lies. There is just one problem. By doing that, they are continuing in their own deception.
Ever wonder why before testifying in court, one is asked, "Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...?"
The truth - don't lie!
The whole truth - don't withhold any part of the truth!
Nothing but the truth - no opinions; just facts!
It is the second part that causes all the problems. As standard operating procedure, the Left and their lap dogs in the media conveniently leave out facts that contradict their world view. In this whole controversy, that is where the lie really resides.
Showing posts with label the left. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the left. Show all posts
Sunday, February 5, 2017
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Character in Victory and Defeat
It's been said how one handles victory and defeat is very revealing of one's character. "Be humble in victory and gracious in defeat."
Over the last eight years and 2 months, the Democrats and the left have done neither. From Obama's "We won; you lost" to Republicans shortly after taking office to the current daily protests of President Trump and attempts to delegitimize him even before he was inaugurated, the left has truly shown us who they are: petulant children.
Thank God grown ups are back in charge! Don't disappoint us Mr Trump. The adult half of the nation is counting on you!
Over the last eight years and 2 months, the Democrats and the left have done neither. From Obama's "We won; you lost" to Republicans shortly after taking office to the current daily protests of President Trump and attempts to delegitimize him even before he was inaugurated, the left has truly shown us who they are: petulant children.
Thank God grown ups are back in charge! Don't disappoint us Mr Trump. The adult half of the nation is counting on you!
Sunday, July 3, 2016
The Left's Latest Assault on Free Speech and Thought
The Left are great champions of free speech and free thought - as long as
you agree with them. There are many examples of how they try to limit free
speech and thought that they don't agree with.
One of their main tools of the language is to label certain arguments with which they disagree, hate speech and thus something that must be silenced. Of course the substance of the argument is irrelevant. Another example is the evolution of the name for global warming. When it became clear that the predictions weren't matching the agenda e.g. unusually cold winters, Leftists morphed the term into climate change to explain both warming and cooling. Convenient, right?
Now as the public has begun to reject the concept of political correctness, the statists on the left needed to create another "intellectual" sounding term they can use to combat speech and thought they don't like but can't mount a convincing argument against. This new term is micro-aggression.
Actually, according to Merrian-Webster.com, "microaggression which refers to a comment or action that is subtly and often unintentionally hostile or demeaning to a member of a minority or marginalized group—has seen a decided increase in usage over the past several years, though the word is at least 45 years old.
A few weeks ago, UNC Chapel Hill, published a guide, "Career Corner: Understanding Microaggressions." The guide was created using taxpayer money of course. Some examples of microaggression according to the guide are "Christmas vacation", suggesting a "golf outing", when someone says to a women, "I love your shoes." or when someone refers to their "boyfriend" or "girlfriend". Wow, how offensive. Don't we all feel much better now?
If controlling what one can and can't say wasn't so insidious, this would just be silly. It's not however because this is a deliberate erosion of your First Amendment rights. This is how these people roll.
Boy, I can't wait for these people to be in charge.
By the way, try finding the UNC guide using Google. It is no longer available. If they were proud of it , don't you think they would want everyone to read it?
One of their main tools of the language is to label certain arguments with which they disagree, hate speech and thus something that must be silenced. Of course the substance of the argument is irrelevant. Another example is the evolution of the name for global warming. When it became clear that the predictions weren't matching the agenda e.g. unusually cold winters, Leftists morphed the term into climate change to explain both warming and cooling. Convenient, right?
Now as the public has begun to reject the concept of political correctness, the statists on the left needed to create another "intellectual" sounding term they can use to combat speech and thought they don't like but can't mount a convincing argument against. This new term is micro-aggression.
Actually, according to Merrian-Webster.com, "microaggression which refers to a comment or action that is subtly and often unintentionally hostile or demeaning to a member of a minority or marginalized group—has seen a decided increase in usage over the past several years, though the word is at least 45 years old.
A few weeks ago, UNC Chapel Hill, published a guide, "Career Corner: Understanding Microaggressions." The guide was created using taxpayer money of course. Some examples of microaggression according to the guide are "Christmas vacation", suggesting a "golf outing", when someone says to a women, "I love your shoes." or when someone refers to their "boyfriend" or "girlfriend". Wow, how offensive. Don't we all feel much better now?
If controlling what one can and can't say wasn't so insidious, this would just be silly. It's not however because this is a deliberate erosion of your First Amendment rights. This is how these people roll.
Boy, I can't wait for these people to be in charge.
By the way, try finding the UNC guide using Google. It is no longer available. If they were proud of it , don't you think they would want everyone to read it?
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Misplaced Faith
I find it very curious and difficult to fathom how some on the left have such a problem with religion, especially Christianity. Seems they just can't stand to be told what to do by an omnipotent Supreme Being that they don't have any faith in but don't seem to mind being told what to do by 535 lying, cheating, stealing, pompous humans in DC that only 13% (their approval rating) of Americans have any faith in. I find that curious indeed!
Friday, July 31, 2015
Hillary's Emails Damaging Because We Will Never Know
Hillary Clinton's unsecured email server is far more damaging than Jonathan Pollard, John Walker, Aldrich Ames and Edward Snowden combined. (For any of you low information voters who may be reading this, some of these names might not be familiar to you. I invite you to use "the Google".)
The worst part about intelligence leaks is not knowing what was disclosed. Since Hillary illegally destroyed emails that Congress had requested (you try that and see if you don't spend a bit of time in prison), we will never really know what was in those emails and what was possibly compromised. No big surprise that the emails she did provide have a 3 month gap that just so happens to coincide with the Benghazi debacle.
18 minutes of missing tapes brought down Nixon. 10s of thousands of missing emails, and Hillary still may be our next president.
The lack of accountability of our public officials is completely out of hand and will destroy this country. We are spiralling toward 3rd Worldism if we aren't there already and the Left couldn't be more excited.
The worst part about intelligence leaks is not knowing what was disclosed. Since Hillary illegally destroyed emails that Congress had requested (you try that and see if you don't spend a bit of time in prison), we will never really know what was in those emails and what was possibly compromised. No big surprise that the emails she did provide have a 3 month gap that just so happens to coincide with the Benghazi debacle.
18 minutes of missing tapes brought down Nixon. 10s of thousands of missing emails, and Hillary still may be our next president.
The lack of accountability of our public officials is completely out of hand and will destroy this country. We are spiralling toward 3rd Worldism if we aren't there already and the Left couldn't be more excited.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Pressing Hillary on Economics
A significant weakness for Hillary Clinton, if only someone will force her to reveal it, is her lack of understanding of economics. Certainly, the voters won't be able to rely on the media to ask her to explain her economic views because they are under the same misconceptions that the candidate is so it will be up to her potential rivals during the primary race and then during the general election.
Hillary's economic ignorance is typified by her statement regarding record oil company profits. In 2007 she said, "I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence." This has a very populist appeal for many but it begs some very important questions.
First, "From whom would you be taking those profits Mrs Clinton?" Apparently, she and many others believe there is some evil "1 per center" named Mr. Exxon or Mr. Mobil. The reality is that those profits would be taken from the pension funds of ordinary Americans - teachers, firefighters, etc. and the IRAs and 401(k)s of hard working Americans who are doing the right thing and trying to save for their own retirement.
The next question is, "If companies don't make a profit, why would they continue to operate?" I don't know if she has thought this through or not but the answer is they would for a short while but eventually they would not. Companies exist to make profits. They do other things too but those are just secondary benefits to society that are made possible by the existence of profits. Take away profits, lose jobs, goods, services, taxes just to name a few things.
Perhaps Hillary meant just excess profits so let's assume that to be the case. So who determines what excess means? People who believe in capitalism and free-market economics know that the market determines the price of goods and services and ultimately the profits a business receives. Those on the left like Mrs Clinton might believe otherwise but belief isn't fact.
There are other problems with Hillary's economic plan. To help shine a spotlight on them, one of her opponents needs to ask, "Don't excess profits serve some good?" To this she would certainly answer, "No. Excess profits are unfair." or some other such drivel. Here again she would be wrong because she is focusing on fairness which is misguided. The truth is excess profits serve a very important role in the market. When excess profits exist, other companies enter the market to try to take some of those profits away. Further, it encourages the development of alternative products and alternative technologies because they are suddenly affordable. The result is lower prices and greater choices for consumers. Reality bears this out. During the period where there were so-called excess oil profits, market forces drove hydraulic fracturing technology that started the oil boom in the Bakken Shale fields of North Dakota, caused the price of oil to plummet and led to the United States becoming the world's leading producer of natural gas. That is the free market at work. By contrast, the left gave us Solyndra.
Lastly, someone needs to ask Hillary, "What is the model for a government "fund" to do something?" "The Social Security Trust Fund?" Yeah, that inspires confidence.
Hillary's economic ignorance is typified by her statement regarding record oil company profits. In 2007 she said, "I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence." This has a very populist appeal for many but it begs some very important questions.
First, "From whom would you be taking those profits Mrs Clinton?" Apparently, she and many others believe there is some evil "1 per center" named Mr. Exxon or Mr. Mobil. The reality is that those profits would be taken from the pension funds of ordinary Americans - teachers, firefighters, etc. and the IRAs and 401(k)s of hard working Americans who are doing the right thing and trying to save for their own retirement.
The next question is, "If companies don't make a profit, why would they continue to operate?" I don't know if she has thought this through or not but the answer is they would for a short while but eventually they would not. Companies exist to make profits. They do other things too but those are just secondary benefits to society that are made possible by the existence of profits. Take away profits, lose jobs, goods, services, taxes just to name a few things.
Perhaps Hillary meant just excess profits so let's assume that to be the case. So who determines what excess means? People who believe in capitalism and free-market economics know that the market determines the price of goods and services and ultimately the profits a business receives. Those on the left like Mrs Clinton might believe otherwise but belief isn't fact.
There are other problems with Hillary's economic plan. To help shine a spotlight on them, one of her opponents needs to ask, "Don't excess profits serve some good?" To this she would certainly answer, "No. Excess profits are unfair." or some other such drivel. Here again she would be wrong because she is focusing on fairness which is misguided. The truth is excess profits serve a very important role in the market. When excess profits exist, other companies enter the market to try to take some of those profits away. Further, it encourages the development of alternative products and alternative technologies because they are suddenly affordable. The result is lower prices and greater choices for consumers. Reality bears this out. During the period where there were so-called excess oil profits, market forces drove hydraulic fracturing technology that started the oil boom in the Bakken Shale fields of North Dakota, caused the price of oil to plummet and led to the United States becoming the world's leading producer of natural gas. That is the free market at work. By contrast, the left gave us Solyndra.
Lastly, someone needs to ask Hillary, "What is the model for a government "fund" to do something?" "The Social Security Trust Fund?" Yeah, that inspires confidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)