Stop Calling Trump's Claims Lies When We Haven't Investigated the Truth

In reading some of the reporting about Donald Trump's recent CNN Town Hall meeting, which ran 70 minutes long on May 10th, I tend to have trouble with the constant assertion that, when Trump speaks about election fraud or stolen elections, that he is lying.

Maybe he is. Maybe the whole stolen election thing is a complete and utter falsehood. But at the same time, I have long said that there are many questions which have been asked, and you'd think that it would be at least a rather big concern for anyone who has an ounce of patriotism in their blood.

Why haven't we ACTUALLY looked into it?

Instead, all we have done, really, is to turn a blind eye, claim it as fact that it never happened, and leave it at that. Well, that and point fingers at so-called whacky mindless MAGA nuts. Okay, and silence anyone asking the question or suggesting it could have happened.

If there is nothing to hide, and the left wants to assert without question it is in fact a lie, why not use it as an opportunity to have an open and honest investigation to find out if it did in fact happen? Why would it not be paramount to at least try and set the record straight once and for all rather than simply wave a hand and deny it ever happened?

And maybe, just maybe, that's why Trump is still such a threat to the left and continues to be made into a target. Maybe that's why they continually want to shut him down and silence him, and maybe even get an indictment good and solid enough to bar him from being able to run for president ever again.

Because maybe he knows something, and maybe if he once-more has control of the Justice Department, he may have the means to actually prove that the election was indeed stolen.

Why else would they be going after Trump so hard? They (the left) supposedly won the hearts and minds of the American people. They got their way. Trump's out and they're in. So why so much effort and focus on the former president?

I mean, I will grant you, it's more conspiracy theory stuff. But I think it is still something to consider. The effort on the part of the left is just too heavy to deny there might be at least some reason behind it. If Trump posed no threat, they'd just leave him alone to enjoy a happy retirement in Mar-A-Lago and be done with him.

And about that lying thing, something Trump was accused of all throughout his presidency and continues to be accused of now. 

How many times have Trump's words turned out to actually be right?

Too many times to count. Yes. Trump embellishes. He always has. But are those really lies? Maybe we could call them simple tall tales. Okay, fine. He's guilty. But speaking of lies, how many times has Biden been caught in outright, verifiable lies? 

Again, too many times to count.

Why hold a "liar" to account who happens to actually be telling the truth a lot of the time and turn a blind eye to an actual, verifiable and certifiable liar?

The bottom line is that I am simply frustrated sometimes by the manner in which "news" is reported and with the assignment of certain words to suggest a true statement when in fact the statement is actually an opinion. "Trump is lying about election fraud and stolen elections" is not a fact. It is an opinion because there has never been an actual investigation to prove that an election was not stolen. 

So, we can sit here and argue all day about whether or not someone is lying. But until there is verifiable and incontrovertible proof one way or the other, all of it is conjecture. It's conjecture that it was stolen and conjecture that it wasn't.

The word "lie" does not apply here and nor should it.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/jimbauerwrites to find all the things I write about and places I write.

North Dakota Transgender School Bill

Regardless of where you happen to stand on transgender issues in general, I think most people can agree on one thing.

The entire movement has gotten way out of hand and especially involving children in the discussion is irresponsible and dangerous.

We can argue all day whether or not this is a fad, mental health issue, a true movement, an issue of rights, or even an issue of "free speech" as some in the movement have suggested. But the one thing that remains constant, in my view, is that it is not something we need to be introducing nor encouraging in schools. And North Dakota's governor, Doug Bergum, is right to address the issue in a recent bill that prohibits public schools and government entities from making it a requirement that teachers and other employees refer to students by their preferred pronouns. It also requires school officials to notify parents if a student is wanting to identify as transgender.

The bill goes a bit further to say that students identifying as another gender cannot use a preferred bathroom without the consent of a parent or guardian.

Frankly, I think this is as simple as calling it a common sense bill. Somewhere along the line schools almost everywhere have tried to assume the role of the parent and remove the parents from the equation altogether when it comes to a variety of issues, including transgenderism.

And there's a reason for that, of course. It's all about liberalism, which permeates public schools and the agenda of curriculum, and a strong desire by school officials to push their agenda onto children. It's indoctrination, simple as that. Their message is not resonating with most right minded, thinking adults, and rather than work on those minds, why not work on the impressionable minds of children which can be easily shaped and molded and manipulated.

And of course, they want to do this as much "under the radar" as possible. Because they know parents, at least most parents, object to almost all of this agenda. Pushing politics, CRT and all kinds of other liberal causes and issues really should have no place in the classroom, and left unchecked, teachers and administrators would do it, and do.

Naturally, there is pushback from the other side on this. And about that free speech issue. That's one of the things the opposition to the bill are talking about. "This may infringe on an individual's right to free speech." Never mind the right of others to not be forced to call someone else by a desired pronoun if they don't want to. That would be free speech also, but according to the opposing side it is relabeled as bigotry or insensitivity.

What is also a bit concerning, if not alarming, about the opposition's response to the bill is that they fear that "students may be subject to dangerous repercussions from an abusive parent." This is outright blasphemy considering an "abusive" parent will simply be deemed one who does not condone nor conform to the demands of those who encourage transgenderism. 

Throughout all of this movement the one thing that has been apparent is that the rights being infringed upon are the parent's rights to guide and rear and address personal matters and concerns with their children through religious guidance, psychology and via other medical professionals.

The bottom line is that we have to protect the children, and parents have a right to know not only what is being taught in their schools, but what our kids are being exposed to in terms of information. And we, as parents, also have a right to disagree with the manner in which certain things are taught or explained, as well as to have a say in what the agenda of teachers and administrators happens to be. 

Parents have a right to know when Jonny scrapes his knee on the playground or when Jonny decides, via whatever influences or catalysts, he wants to be Josephine instead. And parents also have a right to understand what things happened that may have caused the scraped knee or imbedded the idea that being a boy was no longer desirable.

What irritates me more than anything is the vilification of anyone who has anything to say or does anything to oppose the movement. And Bergum is being, and will be, vilified for sure. Yeah, the movement is the minority without question, and that is not to suggest the minority should not be able to stand up for or speak out against opposition. But, it is the way it is done that becomes the bigger issue.

You are vilified to the point of being an evil person who must be abolished from the face of the earth for simply having a different viewpoint—which is the majority viewpoint by the way. And the media certainly does their part to drive the point home and make a strong effort to not just call out opposers, but literally destroy them through false reporting, misrepresentation of the news, and other shaming tactics.

Either way, I do think the majority of the American people are paying more attention than anyone thinks, and as I have said before about the strong pushback against woke and cancel culture, and the force feeding of LGBTQ+ issues, I find it encouraging and refreshing.

It's about damn time!

The majority has been silent for far too long and the left and their agenda has gotten way more attention than it ever has deserved. That's coming to a head and finally the majority is shouting louder and pushing harder than the minority should ever have been allowed to.

Like the way I write or the things I talk about? Keep up with all the places I write on Facebook.

Facebook Settlement: To File a Claim or Not

If you have been keeping up with the news, there's all this hype over the massive settlement in a case against Facebook over privacy matters that's making its rounds. If the settlement is approved, there's apparently $725 million that's up for grabs.

Is it worth applying? I guess that's a yes and no answer. I mean, the math makes it look like mostly just a big waste of time, and frankly the only ones who will get rich from this whole thing will be the lawyers. You have to keep in mind a few things about the totality of what's actually up for grabs.

For one thing, we can assume that the lawyers are going to keep about 33% of the loot, unless they have negotiated a different amount. Assuming it is 33%, that removes $239.25 million from the money for the claimants.

Ah, but there will also be other fees the lawyers will likely want to recoup. How much would that be? I have no idea. But let's assume it's $50 million just for good measure. We now have a balance of $435.75 million. 

Still a staggering amount of money. Even though Facebook has billions of users, claims are only open to people living in the United States, and that's currently about 239 million users. So, let's say all 239 million religiously submitted their claims and everyone gets their cut.

Everyone gets $1.82 respectively.

Of course, not everyone is going to submit a claim. In fact, the actual number of claimants may be only around 10%. That's 23.9 million users staking a claim on this settlement. So, if that were to be true, claimants might now receive $18.23 each.

I have estimated that somewhere around 50 million people might actually go through the process and fill out the form when all is said and done. That would mean $8.72.

Regardless of how many people fill out the claim form, the bottom line is that none of the money will be felt by anyone at all except the lawyers who collect the lion's share and Facebook who has to pay the settlement.

I suppose if there is any rationale whatsoever to actually staking your own claim it's that if you leave your money on the table, someone else will simply get a bit more for their troubles.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/jimbauerwrites to follow the other places I write.

Make Sure Bud Light Boycott Really Bites In

Most of the time when conservatives boycott something, the impact is short-lived, for whatever reason. I think most conservatives just eventually move on. I mean, don't get me wrong. It's a good quality to have, and a lot of times conservatives don't really participate in boycotts all that much anyway—although we will be apt to participate in more focused support for certain companies who follow certain principles and do the right thing.

Think Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A.

But the Bud Light controversy is sticking, and conservatives across the country are sticking it hard to parent company Anheuser-Busch InBev, not just leaving Bud Light on the shelves and refusing to order the beer in bars and restaurants. They are sticking it to their other brands as well and simply not buying any of the beers made by Anheuser-Busch. 

No doubt the pain is being felt. The company is losing billions of dollars in revenue each week and meanwhile, other beers like Miller Lite and Coors Lite are flying off the shelves.

There is even a beer that was launched being monikered Ultra Right, that is being contract brewed somewhere in Northern Illinois, created by Seth Weathers, a former director in Georgia in 2016 who headed up former president Donald Trump's campaign.

It should be noted that it was initially going to be contract brewed by Bent River Brewing, but company president Nick Bowes declined to brew it after he saw what the marketing would be for it. Perhaps conservatives should take note of Bent River as well?

Because again, as I have asked multiple times before, is business about money or politics? And if you want to inject politics into your business plan, maybe that should have an impact on your business? Good or bad mind you. Certainly, Ultra Right would be doing that with their own beer brand. And being marketed as an unwoke beer is certainly a political statement if there ever was one.

By the way, I should point out that Miller Lite and Coors Light are American beers of course. But the company that produces them are no longer American, and while that doesn't necessarily matter in light of the Bud Light controversy, perhaps just keeping that somewhere in the back of the mind is something to think about.

As far as large American breweries go there's Yuengling and the Boston Beer Company to consider. Boston Beer makes Sam Adams. Yuengling says they aren't woke. Boston Beer has not currently taken any position.

As far as the boycott is concerned, I think the message being sent needs to be a clear one. We are tired of this woke crap being shoved down our throats and being forced to submit to it. In other words, we can't just go back to business as usual when it comes to Anheuser-Busch InBev. In order for the message to have long legs it needs to serve as a warning and poster child for any other company who wants to engage in woke politics that their best move would be to cease and desist. Otherwise, businesses wanting to engage in such antics will simply calculate their short-term losses to maintain appeasement for the minority groups wanting to push their politics on everyone else.

In other words, businesses will be allowed to simply have their cake and eat it too.

At least for now it appears that this boycott will have a lasting impact. But it's also way too soon to assert that as a reality. And it's not about necessarily punishing or bringing down a company. It's simply about making it clear that businesses need to know their customers and simply stick to branding and selling products and leave the rest up to advocacy groups to have their say. It's to say that if you decide to cow-toe to minority pressures while alienating your core customers to accomplish it, there will be a price to pay for it.

Even if Anheuser-Busch backtracks and apologizes to save their business, I think conservatives need to say no. It's not enough. Your last move was the final straw. It's what broke the camel's back. We have to determine whether or not the apology is really genuine. We have to know that they really got the message. And other businesses need to be all too aware that if they decide to go the direction Bud Light and Anheuser-Busch did, there's not going to be an easy way out of it.

What's the old saying? You shouldn't have to say sorry to one's you love. Beyond that, sorry doesn't always cut it. And in this case, perhaps it shouldn't.

Like what I have to say or like the way I write about it? Follow me on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/jimbauerwrites to follow all the places I ply my trade on.

Creating the Illusion of Bigotry is About Words

I want to talk about words, and how certain words are strategically used to create division, and the illusion of bigotry. I use the word bigotry because it has morphed into that from before being mainly just about racism. I say that even though the word "racism" these days carries a very different meaning now than it did not so long ago depending on who you ask to define what it is.

Take the phrase, "Your kind of people." It's a rather benign statement that does not by itself mean anything specific. It requires context in order for the phrase to have meaning or a definition.

The phrase can be used in its entirety, or it can be abbreviated. "Your kind." It means exactly the same thing depending on the context. It also means different things depending on the nature of the conversation in which it is being used.

Many people often say, "I know your kind." Adding the words, "of people," may be a bit redundant because we are all people, of course. But it doesn't in any way change the meaning of the entirety of the phrase.

Unless the one hearing the words wants it to.

Ultimately a "kind of people" can be anything. There are good people, bad people, devious people, unscrupulous people, charitable people, mischievous people. In other words, it can be said that in this world there are "all kinds of people." Another common phrase that is used in the English language.

Depending on who you direct the words to, and often times regardless of the context, "Your kind of people" suddenly becomes a racist statement even if, in the context of how it is stated, it has no racial component to it whatsoever.

In other words, to the ear of someone who wants to create division, the ears will process the word or phrase in a way that creates the illusion of bigotry.

It's not just a white or black issue, though. Thus, choosing the word bigotry over racism. Because the same thing is happening with the LGBTQ community and the "fight for their rights" argument permeating the political landscape today. Words are being turned into something else in order to create the bigotry to further the cause and perpetuate the idea that bigotry exists on a level that perhaps it really doesn't. 

It's designed to widen the divide and justify a reason for the argument. It's a strong-armed attempt to change the conversation.

That's really what the pronoun thing is about when you get down to it. It's a challenge. It's a call to create an argument. It is a cause to force someone into a challenge for which now they must defend themselves and for which the person who believes they are being bigoted against can now point fingers at and assign blame.

"Could I speak to her," now becomes a bigoted statement if it is directed at someone who wants to be called they. By itself nothing at all is implied by the term "her" unless the word means something else to the person it is directed at.

The word, "her," now becomes a challenge. The person who wants to be called "they" now gets to put the other person on the spot to see if they will now assume using the new desired pronoun or will pose an argument against it. And if the person does not comply with the challenge, they are now confirmed to be a bigot.

Communication is the greatest form of bringing people together. But when you redefine words and make the language used confusing, that's what creates the divide. Because when people no longer know how to communicate, some people avoid the communication altogether.

"What do you mean by your kind of people?" asks boldly the black man if it is said to him by a white person. The challenge has begun, and a benign statement now has been redefined and the entire context and nature of the conversation changes from one that had no racial connotation, to one that now does.

You've been put on the spot to now defend yourself but have also been immediately accused. Beyond that, your defense will be harder since the person accusing has, presumably, already made up their mind.

In other words, one side is saying, "You can't use those words." Or they are saying, "You have to carefully choose your words around me." A person who is not racist now has to communicate in a way that proves he is not racist at every word.

When a group of people assumes they are bigoted against, it is on the other side to constantly prove they are not a bigot. They are guilty until deemed innocent. And if you slip? Now the challenge is on—but the accusation remains, often times despite the defense.

Take the word cis as another example. Beyond being so far just a made-up word transgender people use to describe non transgendered people, if you say you are not "cis," but just a man, suddenly the affirmation of the word "man" and the denial of the word "cis" implies you are a bigot. 

And that's the challenge. That's what the so-called bigoted person is now forced to do. Either to accept the definition they have chosen for you and change your verbiage or be accused of being a bigot if you don't.

The English language, or any language for that matter, is supposed to be simple enough that words mean something, but all words must mean the same thing to everyone or else the ability to communicate breaks down.

But of course, context and body language and inflection also play large roles in how we communicate with each other, and even changes the nature of words used. Calling someone stupid can be playful, joking, or serious.

It's all in how you say it and in what context you call someone stupid which determines if the word is being used to accuse or to simply suggest or is nothing more than a joke.

"You're an idiot!" with a furled brow, raised voice and wave away means a very different thing than, "You're an idiot," with a smile and giggle and wave away. The context should immediately assign to the person the word is being directed at what is meant by the word "idiot." And often times it is clearly understood.

Unless they happen to be certain words deemed to have specific other meanings that have been reassigned to the words—again, such as to create the illusion of bigotry or racism. To create the divide and further the gap. To put otherwise normal, benign people on constant alert, and to stand at the ready any group of people who want to perpetuate the illusion of bigotry to challenge it and have an opportunity to affirm it.

When one is predisposed to assume something exists, in any encounter, regardless of the nature of it, that person will deeply look for any reason to find the thing they are predisposed to believe exists. And anything can be turned into an opportunity to say, "See, right there. There it is."

The problem is that the more one or another group tries to redefine language, the more divided as a people we become. The more unable to communicate effectively we become. The less inclined we become to have an open and honest conversation about anything. Especially in situations where any number of words may be up for challenge as to what they really mean depending on who says them and who hears them.

The answer is that any of these "redefined" words or phrases can be bigoted. But they need to be understood on a different level, and the context should be sought just as strongly as the bigotry is being sought to be found. 

Because here's the deal. If you are looking for bigotry, and are predisposed to believing it is present everywhere, you will find it. No matter where it comes from. No matter the context. No matter the meaning. You will find it.

Everyone says we want to eliminate racism and we want to eliminate bigotry. And I think on all sides, deep down, that's what most people really want to do. At the same time, in order to do that, if we really want to accomplish it, we need to stop finding ways to breathe new life into it. We need to stop finding new ways to rekindle flames when the fire is dying down.

Rather than look for ways to divide each other, we need to find ways to come together. And if we can be creative about how we change the meaning of words to perpetuate the illusion of bigotry, I think we can be equally creative about finding ways to remove the illusion and just go back to words meaning what they actually mean.

I think the world would be a much better place if we did that.