What To Do With Stim Checks

We didn't ask for it.  We don't even need it.  But the federal government keeps sending us money.  This money has always been attached to some stimulus bill we're told is related to the devastating effects of the Covid-19 virus.  If not for Covid-19, they tell us, we would not be without jobs.  Of course, that's not true.  We're without jobs because so many Democrat governors locked down their states, allowing only those jobs <i>they</i> deemed "essential", without providing any explanation for how it was determined one job was essential and another wasn't.  Seems to most people that if one intends to feed one's family and repay one's debts, one's job...whatever that job may be...is absolutely essential to that person.  Where do any politician get off presuming to insist that one job is "essential" while another is not?

But this is old news, and with this new administration there are far more sinister presumptions afoot.  Rather, this post concerns those stimulus checks.  They're doing it again...or about to...and it's absurd.  JUST CEASE THE FREAKIN' LOCKDOWNS,  DAMMIT!  That's the key.  Let business do business without government interference, since those doing the interfering are those with the least understanding and knowledge of how to stimulate anything. 

But I digress again because of the plethora of stupid imposed upon the nation at a level unprecedented even among Democrats thus far in American history.  It's like they're trying to be a stupid as possible (and they picked the right people for the job). 

But those checks.  What about those checks?  When we first got ours, it sat in our account for months.  Our first thought was to send it back.  As I said, we didn't need it.  For both myself and the fetching Mrs. MarshalArt, we both in "essential" jobs and we didn't miss a day of work.  Our income was unaffected by the feckless fu....well...you know...those buttheads in government.  We weren't in need of "stimulus" no more than anyone else not considered "unessential"...like public sector workers, most of whom are <i>never</i> "essential". 

So we continued to work and were torn as to what to do with those damned checks for which we never asked nor ever needed.  Yeah, sure, it's nice to get some of our tax dollars back, and doubly so to get some of it back without having asked.  But it seemed to use to be wrong (because it so clearly was and continues to be) when all that was necessary was to simply stop interfering with business under the pretense of "stopping the spread" of the Black Plague" known as Covid0-19. 

What to do?

Our first thought was to send it back.  But then, they'd just give it to someone else who neither asked for it nor needed it.  Then we thought, perhaps give it to some charity.  That's a good idea, but before we did, we were angered by a host of other numbskullian nonsense perpetrated by our state morons, and others, and we, frankly, got distracted. 

Then, as it looked as though life was turning for the worse with the "election" of the current President Shit-For-Brains, we felt making a statement with those checks was the way to go.  We came up with a number of ideas that we thought would indeed make a statement and I believe I should share those ideas in hope of compelling others to choose from the list and direct that money that shouldn't have been sent without concern for true need nor better policy.  What follows is a sampling and I'm sure others can add to it in the same spirit in which I've composed it.  We've used our checks for some of the following in one form or another:

1.  This is the most obvious:  in general,donate the money to those ideologically opposed to the current buffoonish administration, which lost no time enacting American destroying policies.  What follows are examples.

2.  Donate to Republican candidates in all levels of government. 

3.  Donate to pro-life/anti-abortion causes, either through candidates or charitable organizations. 

4.  Donate to the National Rifle Association (this one will really piss them off).

5.  Buy a gun, or another gun, or specifically a type of firearm the Buffoon-In-Chief intends to prohibit, like and AR-15.  In fact, make SURE it's an AR-15, just because that's the one they think is so dangerous without having any real or honest argument for why they think so.

6.  Donate to Hillsdale College, or any university like it.

7.  Donate to any home-schooling organization.

8.  Donate to Heritage Foundation

9.  Donate to Project Veritas

10.  Donate to PragerU

11.  Donate to Turning Point USA

also...

12.  Pay any tax debt, which is nice seeing as how this stimulus check is your own money in the first place.  They tax you, use your money to "stimulate" the economy by sending you a check, which you then use to pay your taxes.  Sweet.

These are just a few suggestions.  This was partially inspired by the Evanston, IL reparations policy just enacted.  This will use money from taxing weed to pay for it.  Thus, those people of color toking up will be paying for their reparations.  I like it.  Now, with that in mind, my suggestions are similar, in that money from morons will be donated to those who are diametrically opposite those morons.  It's a beautiful thing.

What's Your Source?

 This is in reference to something that keeps coming up in what I'll loosely call "discussions".  It has to do with supporting one's claims and the sources one uses to do so. 

As far as supporting one's claims, it's far more likely that a right-leaning person will provide than will a left-leaning person.  This seems to be the standard.  Now, that's not to say that it's common for a claim to be made by either side and support is provided at the same time.  To the extent that it does at all, though, it's more likely the person doing it leans right.  It's just that we have such better understanding of reality that it's not likely we're going to make a claim that can't be supported.  Indeed, our claims are based on supporting evidence to which we've already been exposed.  The left is too moved by appeals to emotion for them to think in terms of whether or not something they claim is true.  So to have the supporting evidence as a source for their claims is not likely since it doesn't exist.  Only the emotional appeal does. 

Now all of that is a particularly general analysis of the reality in "discussions" between left and right.  Where the rubber really meets the road is in how each side responds to the source cited for the presentation of supporting evidence.  Both sides will immediately balk at the bias of the source.  From that point the response is decidedly different.  The lefty will simply dismiss the info provided by the source whose bias is in opposition to the lefty, while the right-leaning person will investigate the info, find opposing evidence and then present it...to which the lefty will again simply dismiss it if the source is again, biased towards the right.  

I'm often given polling data to be considered as evidence of a premise.  But I have a huge problem with polling data.  They poll so few people and expect the results to mean something.  How do they compute margins of error in a polling of two thousand people in order to assess the position of the adult population of a nation of 330 million?  That is to say, if they used some model to compute that margin of error, wouldn't they at some point have had to actually poll the entire adult population to see if their model is accurate?  When has that happened?  These questions regarding the legitimacy of polling data manifests in so many ways and in so many discussions that, to me, it's somewhat of a joke, which I'll explain a bit later.  But some of those questions include the manner in which the question is worded and whether that wording allows for a truly accurate assessment of a population's sentiments.  Too often it doesn't.  And does the poll truly respond to the issue being debated in the discussion?  That, too, isn't always the case.  One might say it rarely does.  And more often than not, a poll is simply no more than opinions of ostensibly millions of other people, all of whom are idiots for holding such an opinion.  That is, millions of people believing something isn't what makes what they believe actually true, so what good is the poll for proving a point other than how many are as buffoonish as the lefty offering the poll as evidence?

I was recently offered two surveys meant to support an opinion of Trump's ranking as president against all other presidents we've had.  The problems were many.  

1.  Again, the small number of respondents.  One from from less than two hundred political science people.  The other less than two hundred historians.  I looked up how many working historians there are in the United States and it's around 3000.  Again, this survey had less than two hundred.  Both were allegedly a survey of Democrat, Independent and Republican voters, which could account for the low amount of respondents given how few conservatives there are in academia these days.  But this leads to the next point:

2.  Being Republican doesn't mean one isn't totally and completely a Trump-hater.  So for this "debate", political affiliation is no guarantee the respondent isn't as biased against Trump than were those who always vote for the Dumbass party.  This is important.

3.  Both of these surveys ranked Trump after only his first year in office.   Apparently that's a thing with these surveys, but I don't see how anyone would give it the time of day.  To compare a president with one year in office against all others having served full terms?  Doesn't seem just.  But here's the thing:  one of them ranked Trump lower than William Henry Harrison.  Look him up and tell me survey is worth a shit.

4.  The categories of qualities used to measure the presidents strangely omits any actual accomplishments, policies enacted or things of that nature.  Seems to me those are the things that most impact the nation.  How well one speaks not so much.  In his first year, Trump got a lot of stuff done and none of it was mentioned or weighed against the policies of others.  I think it was crystal clear that by the end of that first year, Trump did far more good for the country than did Obama in eight years.  That might be subjective, but I'm willing to have that debate because the arguments can actually be measured.  (That Lilly Ledbetter Act will really put me to the test!)

The bottom line here is that when it's all said and done, this poll is simply a compilation of opinions, none of which is evidence of regarding whether or not Trump was actually good or bad as a president.

Another problem with sources is of course bias.  But bias alone isn't a problem if the source gives good, accurate and complete information.  That's kind of redundant, because if the info isn't complete, it's neither accurate nor good.  I'm routinely given links to leftist sources that leave out important details or repeat details that have been proven false or irrelevant.  I still see leftist sources referring to Trump's "false" or "debunked" claims of voter fraud, without ever providing information regarding the court case or investigation that has proven any claim false or without merit.  In the meantime, I provided a link to a report regarding a fellow who catalogued all election fraud cases that actually got time in court, was seen all the way to their conclusions and reported that of these 18 cases, 15 were ruled in Trump's favor.  I saw no leftist news source who reported it, but my buffoonish opponent...we'll call him, Dan Trabue...rejected this evidence because it was reported in the Epoch Times, which he rejects as being unreliable due to...get this...it's relationship to members of Falun Gong and a section of it's publication that reports on wacky psuedo-science!  Now, let's assume Falun Gong has a reputation for lying like Dan does, and that it really takes the psuedo-science it is said to report as entertainment totally seriously.  Does this mean that the report regarding these election fraud cases is crap?  Wouldn't it mean that a serious seeker of truth might want to do some research to validate or invalidate the information?  That's what I try to do...because it seems logical to assume nothing about anything I read regardless of who presents it.

Now, let's be honest.  Each of us decides for ourselves what news sources we can assume are going to be actually honest and accurate.  We can draw comfort from those sources that have proven themselves willing to make corrections and do so as soon as they find the mistake is made and do so with some degree of honor, as opposed to the bottom right corner of page 14.  If Rush Limbaugh realized he reported something wrong, he would lead off his radio show with the correction. 

I found a few websites that ranks news sources, generally according to bias and reliability.  With regard to the latter, I've found nothing that explains how they go about it, other than by having equal shares of Republicans, Independents and Dumbasses (usually no more than around about a half dozen of each) all reviewing the same random sampling of stories.  None of them actually investigate the stories for themselves, which to me would seem the only way to truly assess whether or not the story or issue was covered reliably and accurately.  And so many news sources do no more than basically copy/paste what others, like the Associated Press, reported.  I mean, are there that many actual journalists who actually leave their computers and investigate stories?  But keep in mind, that's no guarantee, either.  We saw idiots standing before burning buildings last summer saying the BLM protests were "mostly peaceful".  And I've seen a shot of someone sitting in a boat reporting on a hurricane, only to have some guy walk by behind the reporter with the water only up to his knees.  Finding reliable sources can be tricky.

But even if an organization is doing decent reporting, there's also the problem of what they choose to report and how.  Lefties went out of their way to find and report on anything they could spin into negative Trump stuff.  That's more than simply letting one's bias manifest.   That's lying and that sort of crap has led to the accurate assessment of the lefty media being enemies of the people.  No news source is honest if it reports nothing good about Trump as if he never did anything good at all.  We know he did.  There was plenty to report in that vein. 

I was asked if I thought NPR and the BBC were were reliable.  I don't spend any time with them.  But one story to which Dan linked from NPR had a decided lefty spin that was deceitful in how it reads.  I didn't delete it.  But Dan deletes pretty much every link I offer with absolutely no attempt to disprove anything within the link, simply because it's from a right-leaning source. 

I don't care about bias.  I care about accuracy, details and truth.  The lefty cares only about agreement. 

The Real War On Women

When conservatives and the GOP (not necessarily the same thing) objected to activism leading up to the Roe v Wade decision, we began to hear the bleating of Democrats as they wailed and whined about a "War On Women".  This false framing was meant to inflame the passions of stupid women and spineless men against Republicans, because that's a better tactic than appealing to intelligence that may not exist.  (We conservatives really need to adopt this strategy and make it a weapon for good.) 

Of course the reality is, as it always has been, that the unborn are human beings...people...persons...endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life.  This is, as it always has been, the reason conservatives and moral people everywhere oppose abortion except to save the life of the mother in those almost non-existent cases where a pregnancy puts her life at risk...if the mother so chooses not to take that risk.

But today more than ever we see who it is who is waging this war one women.  In every way, Democrats and other leftists are the true aggressors against women, their true oppressors.  The worst part is, some of those waging this war are women, too.  They exploit women in whatever manner best suits their extremist agenda without regard to the harm they force women to suffer.  Let us count the ways:

1.  "The Right To Choose"

Since I mentioned abortion already, I'll begin the list with it.  As the subtitle suggests, the issue has been falsely framed as a woman's right to choose her medical decisions.  But no one has ever sought to deny them this authority.  However, what is being "chosen" is to kill a child.  The many problems for women aborting have been presented many times in many ways at many different websites.   These many problems...harm to their physical, mental and emotional health... are rejected and dismissed by the leftist and radical feminists (no friend to real women) as they market abortion as a tool for enhancing "self-determination".  In reality, it leaves them more vulnerable to men who will take advantage of this "right" in their quest to use women for sexual purposes.  The left defends it.

2.  Pornography

This is marketed under the fraud of "free speech".  Nonsense.  There's no real "speech" that is protected under this ruse.  No lesson taught, no cause championed, no political issue to address.  It isn't a means to celebrate the beauty of the human (mostly female) body.  It's simply a way to indulge sexual urges.  And in order to satiate such urges, women are routinely victimized.  All manner of perversion and deviancy is allowed and porn is a multi-billion dollar industry.  Take women out of that equation, and the industry dies quickly (homosexual porn would not sustain it).  What's more, women in porn, who laughingly are regarded by themselves and purveyors as "actresses", are nothing more than women prostituting themselves.  Worse, too many are forced into the "business" for the enrichment of others.  There is no moral aspect of pornography, and the left defends it.

3.  Immigration

The horror of the current administration's moronic immigration policy is a distinct assault on women.  By reversing Trump policy, human trafficking is made easier.  Women and girls are the main victims of human trafficking and enslavement takes place within our borders as a result.  Women and girls are forced into porn and prostitution (same thing, really) in order to enrich traffickers.  Also, as Biden's erasing of our borders and invitation that we'll accept absolutely anyone for any reason with any issues that will do nothing but increase American problems and costs, women are subjecting themselves to all manner of threat by the cartels who force payment in order to "protect" their journey to our country, often raping them along the way.  This doesn't even get to the many crimes against women perpetrated by illegal immigrants the left invites into our country with little to no vetting.  And the left defends these immigration policies.

4.  Gun control

While I am not one who believes guns are the ultimate answer to self-protection, they are one answer and have been instrumental in protecting innocent people since firearms were invented.  Called "the Great Equalizer", handguns provide for weaker people a ready means to defend against stronger, more aggressive oppressors.  This means that women can ward off assholes.  But gun control makes that harder.  A government against whom the 2nd Amendment was written to defend us believes itself possessed of the authority to disarm us.  Women are most victimized by this world class idiocy and the left defends it.

5.  Transgender "rights"

With the U.S House of Representatives passing the damnable "Equality Act", women are victimized by the left once again.  Should this abomination pass the Senate and get signed by President Asterisk, women will effectively be thrown back to pre-historic times.  They will be made subordinate to men, specifically mentally disordered men who think they're women.  Catering to these men (as well as to women similarly afflicted) is not the way people of compassion help them.  But putting that aside, the effects on women are monstrous.  It took a long time for women to attain the level of equality they will now lose with the passage of this Act.  Athletics in particular, women's facilities most tragically, employment at well will all be made "women optional".  Women will risk greater injury with men competing against them in sports.  They will lose jobs with men competing in positions meant for women.  Look at what President Mumbles did with his nomination of Richard Levine for assistant HHS secretary.  An actual woman could've been nominated, but as he did with all of his appointments, President Puppet nominated by identity politics rather than by qualification and merit.  Leftist defend this.

6. Radical feminism

One might think this is counter intuitive.  The reality is that radical feminism has done great harm to women.  I mean really, how does "manhole" hurt women?  Why must the name of this thing be changed?  What kind of moron thinks "mankind" does not include women and children as well?  The radical feminist moron...that's who. 

Radical feminism has served to erase the important differences between men and women in a false attempt to provide women equality.  This nonsense has led to things like the disparagement of women who choose to be mothers and homemakers...as if those aren't important cultural endeavors.  It has led to the devaluation of rape, by making everything rape.  It has led to the stupidity of regarding as sexist the act of a man holding a door open for a woman.  It has led to the conflict of women looking for recreational sex, which makes them victims of men looking for recreational sex.  Women are then often faced with the problems associated with it, such as pregnancies and disease.  It has led to the notion that women are weak and unable to overcome problems that come their way (both my mother, mother-in-law, wife and all three daughters---only two of which are conservative---would strongly disagree) and need some governmental help to get by.  It has led to more effeminate men and a smaller pool of worthy men to marry when women guided by feminism decide they want to marry. 

Real women rebuke radical feminists and don't believe they're at some great disadvantage they cannot overcome if they really want to achieve.  For the women in my life, I don't even think the thought ever crosses their minds.  But the left defends this crap.

7.  Politics

This is a most egregious area of concern.  Women are constantly exploited for political purposes by the left more than by anyone.  This is what the left does with every group, pitting one group against the opposing party as if that group is not a concern of the opposing party.  And women are among the most exploited.  "The first woman" this, and "the first woman" that.  Hillary got support in 2016 because of her sex.  Biden picked many women for appointments just to cross off the "woman box" on his list of identity politics selections.  Some will say the GOP does it as well.  I would argue that the GOP are more prone to seeking out qualified people and then, if it seems politically profitable, pick from that list a woman.  Look at Vice President Cackles (Hat tip Theodore Roosevelt Malloch).  She was not chosen for any reason regarding merit.   She wasn't even chosen because Americans actually wanted her.  She was chosen because she's a woman (as well as a minority).  That checked off the box.  Now it's true, finding a woman of true substance and merit among the Democrats is a tough job, but in that case, there were plenty of moronic men among them from which to choose, any number of which are certainly more qualified and intelligent than this tramp.  But the left defends these selections.  "It's time", they say.  That may be true...if one wants to stretch reason to its extreme...but to select a woman simply because she's a woman is an insult to women, just as selecting a black person just because the person is black is insulting to black people.  Merit is everything.  Superficial characteristics such as sex or race are nothing.  That's true of the politics of business as well as the politics of government, but pandering is what the left does and what the left defends.

So as is so easily seen, if there's anyone waging a war on women, it's the left/progressive/Democrat Party...not the GOP or conservatives.  I resisted the compulsion to go into great detail on any of these areas, and could likely have come up with more areas where Dems have shown their disregard.  Most annoyingly deceitful is the criticism of the use of words like "whore" and "slut" in reference to women who are actually and demonstrably whores and sluts as some kind of insult to all of womanhood.  Defending women's choice of provocative dress with the nonsensical "teach boys not to rape" is classic leftist bile.  Suggesting women and girls be cognizant of their choices because they be putting themselves at risk by how they dress, where they go and with whom they spend their time is somehow patriarchal to the leftist.  It's almost as if the leftist wants to see women suffer.  But then, that's what one <i>does</i> want when waging war, and the left has been warring against women for a long time.

UPDATE::

 
Below is a link to an article describing how the left cares so deeply for females.  That's sarcasm.  Allowing girls to subject themselves to irreversible surgical/chemical procedures shows a vile lack of disregard for their welfare.

https://www.city-journal.org/canadian-father-jailed-for-speaking-out-about-trans-identifying-child