Author: theobjectiveobserverblog

Always go with funny...

The Dangers of Hyperbole

An Objective Take on Trump

Former President Trump has been called many things in the last four years. Many, many things. As we pointed out in Trump Eats Baby for Breakfast, the hyperbole regarding President Trump reached and continues to be a deafening crescendo. With all of the negativity regarding Trump, some may find it surprising then that a Politico reporter recently opined that Trump’s base is “getting stronger”. We here at The Objective Observer however do not find this surprising at all. To understand why, keep reading.

The short answer, of course, is the hyperbole. As pointed out in Trump Eats Baby for Breakfast, much of the American populous got the impression over the last four years that it didn’t matter what President Trump said or did, the media and pundits were going to blast him for it regardless. If Trump had helped an elderly nun to cross the street, the media would have claimed he was trying to intentionally throw her under a bus. At every turn, the worst possible motivations were assigned to President Trump’s actions and presented as the unequivocal truth when, in fact, little or no evidence was provided as proof of those motivations. This amounted to, in effect, putting words into President Trump’s mouth.

There are very real dangers to the levels of hyperbole surrounding Trump. But, before we get to those dangers, let’s take a look at all of the mean, nasty things that President Trump has been accused of being and contrast that with what an objective individual might conclude. To this end, we will analyze the following claims:

  • Trump is a Russian sympathizer
  • Trump is mentally ill
  • Trump is anti-Semitic
  • Trump is a racist
  • Trump is a white supremacist
  • Trump is evil
  • Trump is stupid
  • Trump hates Muslims
  • Trump is a misogynist
  • Trump is a seditionist

First, before we get started, let’s make one thing perfectly clear. We here at The Objective Observer are no Trump apologists. Fact is, we generally think that Trump is, well, he…he kind of comes across as a complete asshole. That being said, none of us here have ever met the man in person. So, while there is the possibility that Trump is not a complete and utter arrogant ass, he most definitely comes across that way. But, just because an individual comes across as a self-absorbed narcissistic asshole does not immediately mean that person is necessarily a horrible person or entirely incorrect on every single issue. One has to be objective about these sort of things after all.

Trump is a Russian sympathizer

OK, the hyperbole on this one is well documented and we won’t spend much time belaboring the obvious. Democrats claimed that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to steal the election from perennial loser, Hillary Clinton. Democrats and the media were 100% certain of this fact and told anyone and everyone they could for years. Hell, it seemed like you couldn’t even get off a bus in New York City without being beaten, stripped naked and berated with evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia.

Juxtapose the hyperbole with reality. Reality is that after multiple investigations, millions of dollars, entire herds of Democratic lawyers there just wasn’t any evidence to support this false narrative. And, turns out, the Trump administration was actually tough on Russia. Even NP freaking R admits this.

Trump is mentally ill

This one crops up quite a bit in the media as well as Washington D.C. Nancy Pelosi and others have, on multiple occasions, suggested that the 25th amendment to the Constitution should be used to remove Trump from office because he is “mentally unfit”, “mentally ill”, or just plain “crazy”.

But, if we take one small step back from the precipice of blind hatred, an objective observer finds no real evidence of true mental illness or a mental unfitness to perform the duties of President. Sure, his behavior may not fit neatly into our Presidential stereotypes but it’s not like the guy is a cannibal or dropping nukes on people or indiscriminately starting wars for no reason or showing obvious signs of schizophrenia or bulimic or overtly OCD or abuses alcohol or has some irrational fear of spiders or something. There’s just no factual evidence for any real mental illness or disorder, it is all just hyperbole and people’s opinions.

Trump is anti-Semitic

The hyperbole is that Trump is “Hitler”. We aren’t making this up. This comparison has been made over and over and over again. This has been coupled with less strongly worded accusations of anti-Semitism. Basically what the hyperbole is saying is that Trump is so anti-Semitic that he would be willing to exterminate 6 million Jews if given the opportunity.

OK, of all the things that Trump gets called, we here at The Objective Observer have never been able to quite grasp this one. It’s so far outside the bounds of credulity that it is simply beyond us. Has Trump demonstrated an insensitivity to Jewish stereotypes? Absolutely and without question. Does that make him Hitler or just old? Probably just old. But somehow an insensitivity to Jewish tropes gets blown out of proportion to where the guy is Hitler? That’s just ridiculous.

First, let’s just be clear, comparing Trump to Hitler minimalizes the Holocaust. People who do that are called Holocaust minimizers, like King Biden. King Biden compared Trump to Joseph Goebbels for example and frequently made reference to Trump and “Nazis” and even comparisons with Hitler. Do we really think King Biden is a Holocaust minimizer and denier? Not really. We are just using unfair hyperbole to prove the point here. Shit like that works both ways.

To any objective observer Trump is clearly not anti-Semitic. Trump was a friend to Benjamin Netanyahu and all of Israel. Trump moved the United States embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, got tough on Iran, brokered middle east peace deals and, well, the list is long. To any objective observer, these are not the actions of an anti-Semite. They just aren’t. And we are not the only ones that see it, more Jewish people voted for Trump than any Republican in over 30 years.

Trump is a racist

OK, this one primarily seems to stem from Trump’s border wall. The hyperbole here is that Trump is a complete racist bigot that hates Hispanics. We are not making this up, there is an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to this subject of Trump and racism. That article alone is too long to detail all the ways in which Trump has been branded a racist, we do not need to, or have the space to, belabor all the times this hyperbole has been repeated in the media and among law makers in Washington D.C.

So what about reality? Reality is that presidents have been building walls for decades, including Obama! Turns out, there are legitimate reasons for countries to protect their borders. Also, more Hispanics voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016. Trump actually reversed a decade of declining Hispanic support for Republicans. So, here again, reality does not match hyperbole. Without question, Trump said some stupid, insensitive shit about Hispanics. But, again, the hyperbole takes this and makes it ridiculous. If Trump was truly as much of a racist bigot as the hyperbole suggests, then Hispanics should have fled in droves. They didn’t.

Trump is a white supremacist

This one is similar to Trump being an anti-Semite and racist but we particularly want to explore this one in terms of black Americans. The hyperbole labels Trump as a card carrying member of the KKK. Fascist, Nazi, Hitler, white supremacist, it has been repeated so often in the media it is now commonplace.

Here again we see that Trump has said some dumbass, insensitive shit when it comes to black Americans. Some of it may even rise to the level of demonstrating some prejudice towards blacks. We here at The Objective Observer find his familiar way of addressing groups like the Proud Boys and his courting of far right groups for votes particularly distasteful. But does that make him a “white supremacist” or just a politician? Probably just a politician. Politicians suck, what are you going to do? Trump is clearly not a white supremacist, as in hang black Americans from trees and burn crosses in their yards. That’s just going too far for anyone being objective about the matter. Fact is, Trump did quite a bit to help blacks in America from criminal justice reform to funding historically black colleges, to opportunity zones, etc. We are not saying that Trump is any Abraham Lincoln but the actions he took are not those of a “white supremacist”. Apparently, blacks agree as they voted for Trump in record numbers.

Trump is evil

This is another hyperbolic claim that is levied against Trump again and again.

Again, demonstrate the factual evidence for this. Trump is being lumped in with truly evil people like Pol Pot, Nero, Hitler, Stalin, the Kim dynasty, Mao Zedong, Genghis Kahn, Ivan the Terrible, Idi Amin and Himmler? Truly evil people that brutally murdered tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of people? Be reasonable.

Trump is stupid

Yet more hyperbole that is repeated over and over. Even Snopes has had to debunk this claim.

Again, evidence people. Show us an IQ test or something. To any reasonably objective individual, Trump’s success in business and the very fact that he could actually get elected President seem to fly in the face of any legitimacy being given to the hype that Trump is a complete moron.

Trump hates Muslims

This one mainly stems from Trump’s travel bans and gets repeated ad nauseam.

Reality is that there exist in this world terrorists who hold radical Islamic ideologies, like the ones that attacked on 9/11. Americans would be prudent to take measures to prevent further attacks. One could objectively view the travel bans from this perspective without jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an Islamophobic bigot. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t, but apparently a good number of Muslims don’t think so as Trump got more Muslim support, not less, in 2020.

Trump is a misogynist

Yeah, OK, this one is a given. Next.

Trump is a seditionist

The hyperbole here is that Trump planned the January 6th, 2021 riot at the Capitol in a bid to usurp the Presidency of the United States.

OK, an alternative, objective, rational perspective might be that Trump bitched a lot about an election he lost, took things a little too far and shit happened. Look, any objective individual understands there were “issues” with the most recent Presidential election. And bitching about these issues is nothing new. Gore still claims the election was “stolen”. Hillary still claims the election was “stolen”. So, big freaking deal that Trump thinks that the election was “stolen”. Sure, he was more vocal about being pissed off but somehow this gets turned into intentionally trying to destroy America’s institutions of democracy? Sorry, we don’t buy it. If Trump is a seditionist then every single person that participated in the whole Russia hoax thing is a seditionist. And every single person that worked on Gore’s attempt to overturn the election is also a seditionist. Again, the hyperbole here goes far beyond any rational or objective thought process.

Conclusion

OK, this has been one hell of a long article so there had better be a pay off to all of this, right? What has been the point of all of this analysis regarding the hyperbole versus looking at things objectively and dispassionately? Well, the point of all of this is that hyperbole is dangerous and it is dangerous in two very specific ways.

First, extreme hyperbole radicalizes people. There is no question that if you feel that the new “Hitler” is coming to take you away to a concentration camp, it can radicalize you to violently object. There can be little question of this radicalization on the left. The extreme hyperbole may have been intended to produce voter turnout, just like how Trump courted the far right, but given the last year of riots and violence there is a solid argument to be made that the extreme hyperbole regarding Trump was a major factor in radicalizing Americans and incenting those Americans to violence. There is also no question that the extreme hyperbole helped or was the major reason for the divisive state of America today. That’s not a good thing.

Second, extreme hyperbole creates distrust. When fair minded Americans hear extreme hyperbole and it doesn’t match up with what they are seeing with their own eyes, they start to question things, get suspicious and begin to distrust the sources of that hyperbole. So, when that hyperbole is coming from the media and government leaders in Washington D.C., well, now that extreme hyperbole is, in effect, destroying trust in the free press and faith in our institutions of government. These same individuals then also start to feel empathy for the target of that hyperbole and begin to view that person as something of a martyr. This is why why Trump’s base is digging in and getting stronger. None of this is rocket science people. So if Trump comes back even stronger in 2024, Democrats only have their own outrageous hyperbole to blame.

So, bottom line, what we are saying is that all of you liberal, Stalinist commies that do nothing but rape small children, drink their blood, murder old people and promote white genocide all day, just knock it off with all of the extreme hyperbole already…

Wasn’t Me

With Apologies to Shaggy

We here at The Objective Observer sometimes like to put our thinking caps on and attempt to puzzle out the really hard questions. The latest question we have been pondering is exactly why conservatives and liberals constantly seem to be each other’s throats and find it nigh impossible to have a productive conversation on just about any important policy issue. Well, the good news is that we believe we have cracked the code on this one and it is all thanks to a Shaggy song, It Wasn’t Me.

Now, of course everyone knows this but It Wasn’t Me is a reggae song by Jamaican-American artist Shaggy from the multi Platinum album Hot Shot. The song reached number one in the United States as well as the UK Singles Chart in 2000. In short, the lyrics tell the tale of a man being caught “red-handed” by his girlfriend while he is having sex with another woman. The man asks his friend for advice and that advice is to simply deny everything, regardless of any and all clear evidence to the contrary, with the phrase “It wasn’t me”. The most memorable bit of the song is perhaps it’s chorus, which goes like this:

But she caught me on the counter
(Wasn’t me)
Saw me banging on the sofa
(Wasn’t me)
I even had her in the shower
(Wasn’t me)
She even caught me on camera
(Wasn’t me)

She saw the marks on my shoulder
(Wasn’t me)
Heard the words that I told her
(Wasn’t me)
Heard the screams getting louder
(Wasn’t me)
She stayed until it was over

OK, clearly this dude is screwed in more ways than one. But how pray tell can a two decades old song by Shaggy help enlighten us as to why conservatives and liberals can’t have a simple, civil conversation you might ask? Well perhaps we watch too much Juan Williams on The Five, but the answer seems rather obvious to us. You see, we can almost always predict Juan’s answers when another one of the hosts lays out something blatantly obvious that the left has done wrong. Invariably, the template of Juan’s response goes something like the following:

“Well, you can talk about xyz if you want to, but the real issue here is…”

or

“I’m not sure I understand your point, but the real issue here is…”

And then Juan invariably goes into some liberal talking point that may or may not be related to the issue at hand or the original point being made. Seriously, you can bank on this format of a response at least once or twice per show.

Now look, we’re not here to pick on poor ol’ Juan. We love Juan. Well, there is one person here who doesn’t but that guy is kind of a jackass anyway. The rest of us feel that Juan has the absolute most gigantic balls of any Democrat by far because he will actually go on a show dominated by four other conservatives, at least two of whom pull absolutely zero punches, and hold his own. So, mad respect Juan.

Watching this tactic by Juan got us thinking though and we started watching more closely to news and opinion delivered by MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, you name it. And everywhere we turned and watched we couldn’t find a single instance of any Democrat ever admitting fault for anything, or even admitting that one single member said or did anything wrong. It was incredible. Like some kind of herd or pack mentality or perhaps even a genetically bred inability to admit anything even resembling a mistake. And before you go flying off the handle about The Objective Observer beating up on poor liberals, we absolutely understand that conservatives also deflect and all that. But it’s the frequency and consistency with which Democrats engage in this behavior that is the difference. It’s staggering. Democrats and liberals literally will not concede a single point no matter how much anyone stares at them “buck naked…on the bathroom floor”.

So, what is the point of all this, what can we learn? Well, what we have learned is that dumbass conservatives need to stop thinking that they are going to win an argument or make a point by mentioning something wrong that liberals have done or think that highlighting some kind of hypocrisy on the left is going to score them points or something. Because, frankly, it’s not going to do them a damn bit of good or help make the two sides see eye-to-eye. You simply can’t shame the shameless.

Perhaps Shaggy said it best:

They caught us lying to FISA
(Wasn’t me)
Saw us spying on Trump y’all
(Wasn’t me)
Stolen election by Russia
(Wasn’t me)
Impeached over a phone call
(Wasn’t me)

Killing nursing home patients
(Wasn’t me)
Loot and riot in the street
(Wasn’t me)
No cabinet posts for Asians
(Wasn’t me)
Erasing women complete

Truth in Advertising

First World Problems

Taking a day off from politics, because, let’s face it, we all need a break; we found ourselves asking, what exactly is it with all the mad hate for Subway? It wasn’t that long ago that Subway was sued over their “footlong” sandwiches not being exactly 12″ long. So what if Fred DeLuca and Peter Buck happen to be like every other male in the known universe and regularly exaggerate measures of length? Big deal! Can that really be called criminal? This time around, it is the tuna; or supposed lack thereof, that has become the next first world problem.

Look, it’s not like we are Subway apologists here at The Objective Observer. Sure, Subway makes decently priced, relatively healthy food but then again, they did end up employing a child rapist and child porn dealer. And let’s be honest, the guy was like 425 pounds and living in his parents basement…they knew. You provide that description to any rational, objective individual and it’s immediately apparent that dude is a creepy, deeply disturbed child porn sex trafficker. Make no mistake, they knew. Everyone knew.

Besides, if you are going to go after Subway for anything, it has to be for the “Italian” bread. That shit is straight-up white bread, plain and simple. There’s no Italian about it. It isn’t made in Italy, they don’t use a stone oven or baking stone to cook it and we’ve never, not once, seen anyone basting the top and sides with water when cooking. So, if you are going to sue Subway for false advertising, it has to be for the “Italian” bread, that’s all we’re saying.

Except that we’re also saying some other things. Like why is Subway being singled out like this all the time? What about all of the other bullshit advertising that goes on? Like Kraft. Kraft advertises their cheese via the tagline “It’s the easiest because it’s the cheesiest.” WTF? How in the world does being “cheesy” translate into being “easy” to use? That doesn’t make any God damn logical sense at all. Besides how exactly is it the “cheesiest”. You are telling us that it is “cheesier” than, oh, say a solid block of Colby? That’s total bullshit! If two things are 100% cheese, then one is not “cheesier” than the other. They are both just equally “cheesy”. So Kraft, calling your cheese the “cheesiest” is just an outright freaking fabrication and lie unless Kraft cheese is somehow incomprehensibly comprised of 101% cheese! What if we purchased Kraft cheese specifically because we want more cheese in our diets and need something that is easier to use than other cheese? And then neither turns out to be true. Because it’s still just cheese, you know, with all of the massive headaches that using cheese entails…

And, not that you can find them, but what about Grape-Nuts? This one really pisses us off. There aren’t any grapes or nuts in that shit. Not a single grape or nut, just these hard, brittle little gross tasting things that you swear are going to crack your teeth wide open and make it sound like you are chewing on sand paper. What the hell? Now, of course, we; like everyone else on the planet, understand that FDA regulations specifically make exclusions for “fanciful names” and that Grape-Nuts gets its name because it contains maltose, the sugar found in grapes, and supposedly has a “nutty” flavor. Everyone knows that. But still. That’s pretty thin Dr. Kellogg. Real thin. Sure, it’s not like you are claiming something truly ridiculous like Rice Krispies can help your immune system or eating Mini-Wheats makes you smarter. Oh shit, Kellogg’s really did claim those things? Wow. You guys…you guys are dumb. Well, anyway, what we are saying is that when you purchase something called Grape-Nuts and it turns out to not have any grapes or nuts in it that really pisses people right the hell off.

What about all of those penis enlargement pill advertisements? Sure, Extenze got sued over them but those ads are still out there. Never mind exactly how we know that…but, just trust us on this one, they’re still out there and they are still just as fake. Well, you know, we assume that they are fake. It’s not like we have tried every single one of them or anything…

Moving on, none of this even mentions Budweiser’s “King of Beers” slogan, not that they are pushing that complete and utter nonsense at the Super Bowl this year. Exactly what beer died and made Budweiser king? Did we miss the coronation? King of armpit sweat or dirty bong water maybe but Budweiser sure as hell isn’t subjugating other beers under its divine rule of tastiness that’s for damn sure. And while we are on the subject, Miller’s High Life, the “Champagne of Beers”? That shit is barely beer, let alone Champagne. It isn’t even made in France for crying out loud.

We could go on but we suppose that you may be asking yourself, with all of the fake news out there and the Corona virus and the rioting and mayhem in Washington D.C., why the hell is The Objective Observer suddenly so concerned about truth in advertising? Well, Mr. Smarty Pants, we’ll tell you why. Oh yes, we’ll tell you. It’s just that…it’s just that, we still can’t get this God-damn cheese to work! And, well, we were…we were really looking forward to those grapes and nuts.

On Biden’s Watch 01/01

January 2021

This post is part of the series On Biden’s Watch.

January 2021

January 20th, 2021

January 21st, 2021

January 22nd, 2021

January 23rd, 2021

January 24th, 2021

January 25th, 2021

January 26th, 2021

January 27th, 2021

January 28th, 2021

January 29th, 2021

January 30th, 2021

January 31st, 2021

Penance

Kneeling on Rice, No Not Susan Rice…

Welcome to our new series with single word titles. All joking aside, despite King Biden‘s and the Democratic party’s stance on abortion; which the Catholic church still very much frowns upon, by all accounts King Biden is a devote Catholic. Hell, after all, King Biden was just recently called out as being the most religiously observant commander in chief. Thus, being such a devote Catholic, we trust that King Biden is well acquainted with the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings regarding the Sacrament of Penance, sometimes called Reconciliation. For all the non-Catholics out there, we will provide a synopsis. The concept of penance can perhaps best be summarized as voluntary, self-inflicted punishment as an expression of repentance for having done wrong. Most often, this means that Catholics first check to make sure they have some pepper spray, enter a confessional with a priest, say what they are sorry for and then bolt as fast as possible before anything “bad” happens. Young, supple boys are better off doing this via Zoom.

With King Biden being a devote Catholic and all, we here at The Objective Observer feel that the concept of penance is applicable to King Biden‘s calls for “unity”. You see, it is Catholic doctrine that even after you have done bad, awful, horrible things, you can admit your wrong doing through the Sacrament of Penance and thus once again be reunited with Christ. Hooray! Now, we are not calling the Republican party Christ in this case because they are, well, Jesus, just take one look at those sorry bastards. Nor are we asking King Biden to risk rape by hanging out in a small, confined confessional with some creepy, lecherous Catholic priest. What we are asking is for King Biden and the Democrats to admit their past sins so that the country can actually begin the process of healing.

You see, to any objective observer, King Biden and the Democrats have committed numerous sins that unquestionably drove a wedge between Americans. For many, the entire reason the country is so divided is because of King Biden and the Democrats. Therefore, calls from King Biden and the Democrats for “unity” ring hollow and are not taken seriously. Calls for unity sound more like an order to “obey” versus any true token of peace. Thus, demonstrating a bit of penance would go a long way to helping the country heal.

And let’s be clear about these sins that have driven Americans apart. The first sin was not accepting former President Trump as a legitimately elected President of the United States. It was the Democrats that originally committed acts of, dare we say, sedition in trying to overturn the 2016 election through the whole Russia collusion hoax. And it was proved a hoax by the Mueller Report. Say what you will but after 3 years and millions of dollars in investigations the end result was bupkes. There is clear evidence to any objective observer that King Biden and the Democrats weaponized the FBI, lied to the FISA courts and committed many other acts intended to delegitimize and unseat President Trump. Penance needs to start here by King Biden and the Democrats admitting that what was done was wrong.

The next most egregious sin, all of the obstructionism. As we have pointed out in Filibuster First Strike, the Democrats did everything in their power to pout, stamp their feet and gum up the works. During the Trump administration, cloture was invoked an astounding 427 times during the 115th and 116th sessions of Congress, both with Republican majorities in the Senate. This is over 1/3rd of the total times that cloture has ever been invoked. The Democrats even had a name for this, the “Resist” movement. Remember that? This resistance went so far as to actually hurt and kill Americans. Nancy Pelosi stated that she held up COVID-19 relief efforts in order to hurt Donald Trump’s reelection chances. Without question, King Biden, the Democrats and specifically Nancy Pelosi need to demonstrate that they are sorry for destroying the operation of the United States government for four years and most definitely need to be penitent about intentionally inflicting harm on the American population out of pure spite.

Now, that’s just two items for which to show some legitimate penance. We could go on. Like all the leaking. Holy cow, it is like the Democrats were seeking to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that “the deep state” actually exists. That’s just mean, underhanded Nixonian dirty tricks. And the demonization. For the love of God, do not minimalize the Holocaust by calling Trump “Hitler” and his supporters “Nazis”. That’s just pure vitriol. And that first impeachment…

Again, we could go on all day about all of the sins of the last four years committed by King Biden and the Democrats. But nobody is asking for full atonement because, we may be mistaken, but to atone for that many sins would likely require flogging or kneeling on rice or who knows what. Catholics are just plain nuts when it comes to that shit. Christ, with so much to atone for and how bat shit crazy the Catholic church is, if King Biden and the Democrats were to be penitent about everything they would all likely wind up dead. Nobody wants that. Well, ok, almost nobody wants that. Undoubtedly there are a few coyote hat wearing morons out there that might wish ill.

Anyway, the point is, nobody is expecting full atonement for all past sins. But, just a little penance, some paltry admission that “yeah, these last four years we kind of took things a bit too far” would go a long, long way to healing this country. Despite a seeming lack of interest on the part of King Biden and the Democrats to publicly admit their guilt and ask for forgiveness, we here at The Objective Observer still hold out hope that King Biden and the Democrats will one day soon perform some small, trifle amount of public penance. We have to believe, because to not believe means losing all hope that America can ever be healed.

Silence

Roberts’ “The Do Nothing Court”

Sometimes significant eras of the Supreme Court in the United States get named. For example, The Warren Court, refers to the period during which Earl Warren served as Chief Justice from 1953 to 1969 and is widely regarded as the most liberal court in the history of the United States. We here at The Objective Observer believe that the current Supreme Court deserves its own name in the annals of history as well. As for the name? How about “The Do Nothing Court”.

Look, we’re just going to come right out and say it. Chief Justice Roberts is, well, it just seems like he is kind of…well…a pussy. There, we said it. Look, we apologize for the coarse language but there’s just no other word that better conveys the sentiment. Chief Justice Roberts appears to be so concerned about keeping the Supreme Court out of the realm of politics that his dumb eunuch ass is causing some real damage to America. Perhaps it is some keen mental calculation to avoid some hypothesized “greater harm” but at the end of the day it just looks like he doesn’t have the balls to tackle the real issues.

And let’s talk about those real issues:

  • Emoluments – Emoluwhats? Well, that’s pretty much what Roberts’ “The Do Nothing Court” said after recently dodging the question of whether or not President Trump essentially received unlawful gifts because of exactly how he organized his trust. In effect, the Supreme Court gutted the case by avoiding it but, you know, corruption, money in politics, using power for personal gain, just going to leave that one sit, eh?
  • Election – Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020) – Refused to hear, lack of standing. Seriously, there tens, if not hundreds, of millions of American’s that want clarity on whether secretaries of states can circumvent state legislatures and unilaterally change election laws, a seemingly clear violation of the Constitution, and you take a pass? Article Two of the Constitution states “each state chooses members of the Electoral College in a manner directed by each state’s respective legislature“ and the Roberts’ “Do Nothing Court” is just going to let everyone twist in the wind on this so, what? We can have an even more contentious election next time? Idiocy.
  • Gun rights – Roberts’ “The Do Nothing Court” has steadfastly refused to hear gun rights cases since the landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which established an individual right to gun possession and the subsequent lesser heralded (because it was obvious) McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), which stated that the Second Amendment applied to cities and states. Perhaps Roberts considers the issue settled, but there are still important questions and loose ends that need to be clarified like whether gun rights extend outside one’s home and whether certain types of semi-automatic rifles can be banned.

There are more.

Instead, Chief Justice Roberts’ “The Do Nothing Court” has tackled such hard hitting cases as:

  • Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, where the court found that “the Court’s ERISA preemption jurisprudence, in particular, is divorced from the relevant statutory text”. Thanks for clearing that up.
  • United States v. Briggs, where the Court rejected that “a five-years statute of limitations for certain offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice applied to rape prosecutions”. Oddly specific?
  • Carney v. Adams, in which the Court rejected…oh, never mind. This was another dodge, lack of standing. Even though the law being challenged prevented the complainant from actually achieving standing. Sooo…
  • Tanzin v. Tanvir, those infringed by the federal government under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA) can get money. Yay! Greed! For those of you not familiar with RFRA, this law reinstated the Sherbert Test, which we believe has something to do with how much milk or cream is in a dairy product…

Sure, one might debate the perceived politics of The Warren Court. One might even debate if The Warren Court was good or bad for the image of the Supreme Court. What one cannot debate is the immense historical significance of The Warren Court in deciding such landmark cases involving:

The Warren Court was not afraid to take on the tough issues of the day and this provided clarity for Americans living in the racially turbulent times of the Civil Rights Era. In stark contrast, Chief Justice Roberts’ “The Do Nothing Court” seemingly seeks at every turn to do everything it can to simply avoid taking on any and all tough questions, keeping issues muddled and Americans in the dark.

At such a turbulent time in American history, we think the American people need the clarity that only a strong Supreme Court can provide. Even if many do not like the answer, clarity is better than uncertainty. Unfortunately, we instead seem to have a Supreme Court intent on doing nothing, keeping the waters muddy, confusing the American people and building the lasting legacy of being nothing more than a forgotten footnote in history.

OK, fine, we apologize to you Chief Justice Roberts for calling you a pussy. But, seriously man, grow a pair already.

King Biden

Rules Without Representation

Turns out, what occurred on January 20th, 2021 was not the inauguration of a President of the United States. No, we’re not saying that Joe Biden was not legitimately elected or any other such nonsense. What we are saying is that it turns out, to any objective observer, what occurred on January 20th, 2021 was more of a coronation, not an inauguration, for the man we seem to have in the White House acts more like a king than a President. In fact, what we are currently witnessing in Washington D.C. is nothing less than an unprecedented usurpation of power on a scale once thought unthinkable. If you doubt this, read on.

Let’s look at the number of executive orders signed by the past 5 Presidents as well as their average per year:

  • Donald Trump – 220 total, 55/year
  • Barak Obama – 276 total, 34.6/year
  • George W. Bush – 291 total, 36.4/year
  • Bill Clinton – 364 total, 45.5/year
  • George H. W. Bush – 166 total, 41.5/year

The most executive orders signed by any President is actually Franklin D. Roosevelt with a whopping 3,728 total executive orders, averaging 307.8/year. But even those lofty figures are absolutely dwarfed by what is currently going on in Washington D.C. today. The current administration has signed 40 executive orders in roughly a week. This is an unprecedented pace that, if continued, would result in well over 8,000 executive orders in 4 years or a mind boggling 2,000/year, absolutely obliterating FDR’s “record”. Think about that, the current administration is signing executive orders over 6 times faster than any other President of the United States…ever. This means that Biden is on track after four years to have signed over a third of all executive orders in the entire history of America. The entire history.

While executive orders are supported by the Constitution, they were originally intended to facilitate the operations of the federal government. The first 15 Presidents of the United States only signed a grand total of 143 executive orders, or an average of about 10 per President. These executive orders were used for rather mundane operational things like lowering flags to half-staff to mourn the death of a former President. Heck, up until the early 1900’s, executive orders were actually largely unannounced, undocumented and only seen by the specific agencies impacted.

The nature of executive orders changed when Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, issued executive orders such as Executive Order 6102 “forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States”, and Executive Order 9066, which sent Japanese Americans to internment camps. Yeah, FDR, he was greeeeeeat… Under FDR’s immense wisdom, executive orders became federal mandates that were, in effect, laws or rules that must be followed until such time that they were canceled, revoked, adjudicated unlawful, or expired. In the United States, laws are supposed to be made by the legislative branch. However, starting with President Roosevelt, the intended purpose of executive orders was warped to, in effect, create law. These are the types of executive orders being signed today under the current administration.

Americans used to be against this sort of thing. In fact, “taxation without representation” was a rallying cry for the American Revolution. The issue was that King George III of England levied taxes on the American colonies but the American colonists had no representation in Parliament. Thus, the American colonists considered this unfair. To any objective observer, the insane overreach in the tidal wave of executive orders currently being signed strikes a similar tone. One might call them “rules without representation”. Rules; laws, are being made while ignoring the proper vehicle by which such rules and laws should be made via the people’s representatives, Congress.

This is not democracy, this is a single individual exerting their own personal will, by force, upon an entire population. We Americans typically call such a thing a dictatorship, or dare we say, monarchy. Thus, we here at The Objective Observer would like to prostrate ourselves in subservience before our oh so divine and benevolent ruler, officially recognizing, anointing and crowning Joe Biden, King Biden, the new King George III.

All hail King Biden.

King Biden I

Minimum Wage

Have We Lost That Much Faith in Free Markets?

There has been quite a bit of chatter recently about passing a $15/hour federally mandated minimum wage in the United States. Pundits have already weighed in on this topic, yammering along predictably political lines and citing how “complex” the issue is, etc. However, is it possible to simplify this problem and take the politics out of the equation in order to look at the issue objectively? We here at The Objective Observer would certainly like to think so. So let’s give it a try. Let’s analyze the issue according to the following questions.

  • Is it constitutional?
  • Does it make sense?
  • Why the magical $15/hour? Why not $10 or $20 or $100?
  • Does it follow American tenants and ideals?
  • What are the impacts?
  • Who is helped and who is hurt?

Is it constitutional?

Seems so considering West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) and then later United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941). Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean much considering the Supreme Court’s spotty record on protecting free speech in America. After all, the Supreme Court is certainly not immune to protracted periods of dumbassery. In addition, there are those that have argued that more recent Supreme Court decisions that aren’t approaching 100 years old, like Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015) may indicate a shift in opinions or serve as precedent for the Supreme Court to declare federally mandated minimum wages unconstitutional. But, for now, seems to clear the constitutional hurdle.

Does it make sense?

Well, Mississippi has the lowest cost of living in the country with a Cost Index of 86.1. California is nearly double that at 151.7. See for yourself. So, there is a solid argument here that if two states are so different that one has a cost of living that is half of another, then why would both states have the exact same minimum wage? Wouldn’t one expect for the effective minimum wage in those states to reflect a similar proportion as their costs of living?

This is, in fact, exactly what we see. Mississippi has no state minimum wage and thus the effective minimum wage is the current federally mandated minimum wage of $7.25/hour. California currently has a $14/hour minimum wage. California’s minimum wage is just shy of twice that of Mississippi’s, just as California’s cost of living is just shy of twice that of Mississippi’s. Hark! Is that the faint sound we hear of the free market doing its job?

Now, let’s look at this another way in terms of the current administration’s latest buzzword, “equity”. You see, the image at the top of this article is meant to visually explain “equality” on the left versus “equity” on the right. America has traditionally sought to guarantee equality of opportunities but the new focus is on guaranteeing “equity of outcomes”. Setting aside that “equity of outcomes” is the same goal as socialism while simultaneously setting aside the artist’s rather unfortunate decision to use racist stereotypes, portraying minorities engaging in illegal activity by trying to watch a baseball game without paying… Setting all of that aside… Setting all of that aside… >deep breath< OK, seriously this time, setting all of that aside, does an equal $15/hour for everyone jive with equity of outcomes? Absolutely not, that tall guy in Mississippi is making out way better than that poor little baby in California. And besides, when we objectively look at that equality vs. equity image, all we see is some tall dude with male pattern baldness being a complete and utter asshole. And whether you believe in equality or equity, assholes are assholes.

So, whether we look at this based upon common sense principles of looking at reality and fairness or we look at this through the current administration’s new lens of “equity”, we have to rule this one a fail. That high of a federally mandated minimum wage does not make a lick of sense based upon the wildly different costs of living within these United States.

Why the magical $15/hour? Why not $20 or $100?

Currently, Washington D.C. is the only place in the entire country with a minimum wage of $15/hour. Incidentally, Washington D.C.’s Cost Index is 154.3. This minimum wage thing then starts to smack of yet another case of the political elites being wholly and decidedly myopic. Let’s face it, Washington D.C. in no way, shape or form represents the majority of America. Instead, Washington D.C. is an oddball of an area that in many ways is the complete and utter opposite of over 80% of the United States. But here we see perhaps where this magical $15/hour number comes from. It comes from what the political elite see as working in Washington D.C. Well, hate to break it to you, but there is an argument to be made that if it works in Washington D.C. it will most likely fail everywhere else in the country.

As for the second part of this question, reasonable people might ask, if $15/hour is good, then why wouldn’t $20/hour be even better? Hell, throw caution to the wind, make it an even hundo! We can’t be certain, but the real reason for the magical $15/hour seems to be based on federal poverty level definitions. The poverty level for a household of four in 2020 is an annual income of $26,200. So, if you work 85% of the time; hey, vacations and holidays man, then during the typical 2,080 work hours in a year, that gives you 1,768 hours. $15/hour multiplied by 1,768 hours gives you $26,520, or just above the poverty level. So, this rather arbitrary number does not seem to be based on any kind of science related to why $15/hour versus some other figure, it seems more about a bunch of myopic politicians being able to pat themselves on the back and say “We ended poverty!”. Note, there would still be poverty. Thus, we are going to have to fail this one based upon a lack of “listening to the science”.

Does it follow American tenants and ideals?

Well, first up is fairness. Fairness is a core American ideal. One might argue that everyone making at least the same amount of money is perfectly fair. However, we disagree. Based upon Mississippi and California above, there is certainly no fairness here. People in Mississippi benefit much more than people in California so, that’s not fair. Thus, the $15/hour minimum wage fails the fairness test.

How about another cornerstone of America? Belief in free markets. While free markets are never perfect, we Americans tend to believe in the superiority of the free market system given the alternatives. Have we so little faith in the free market system that we require a $15/hour minimum wage? We are not saying that minimum wages are socialism or anything but it certainly smacks of being anti-free market. That being said, it’s most definitely socialism. To quote Karl Marx:

“To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.” – Karl Marx

Considering that the magical $15/hour figure’s purpose is to seemingly raise everyone above the poverty threshold, even if that won’t actually happen, this definitely strikes an objective observer as a “to each according to his needs” kind of moment. So, we are going to fail this one too, a $15/hour minimum wage does not strike us as being very American.

What are the impacts?

Doubling the minimum wage would unquestionably lead to inflation. This is called wage push inflation. Small raises (10%) only have minimal inflationary risk, but “large minimum wage hikes have clear positive effects on output prices which can ripple through to higher consumer prices”. A >100% increase in the minimum wage therefore will result in higher prices for everyone. It almost seems like a tax on the more wealthy in this regard, with a wealth transfer to the less wealthy. Oh, shit, that’s exactly what it is.

In any case, the number of impacts is actually rather long and there is a lot of general disagreement about the specifics of possible impacts. The reality though is that nobody knows because nobody has ever doubled the federal minimum wage before. So, go educated yourself, we are going to rule this one as neutral and call it a day.

Who is helped and who is hurt?

There seems to be a decent amount of consensus by economists in terms of who is hurt by minimum wages increases:

  • Young workers
  • Unskilled workers
  • Job seekers
  • Small businesses

As evidence, according to macroeconomist Greg Mankiw, 79% of economists believe “a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers.”. Also, to summarize a 2015 survey regarding a $15/hour minimum wage hike; oh yeah, this is not a new idea folks, 83% of economists believed that raising the minimum wage to $15/hour would have negative effects on youth employment levels. Similarly, 76% believed a $15/hour minimum wage would have a negative impact to the number of jobs available. Finally, 67% of those same economists believed that a $15/hour minimum wage would have a negative impact on small businesses with less than 50 employees. Negative impact in this case means “going out of business”.

As for who it helps, we guess we could conclude from the above that it would help large corporations and skilled adult workers? It’s hard to say though. We do just want to point out that $15/hour can pay for a LOT of automation to avoid having to pay someone at all… Just sayin’ We live in a world of technology after all. Robots don’t get paid wages. So, can we draw a conclusion on this point? Sure we can. Seems to an objective observer that the $15/hour minimum wage hike proponents argue their case on the idea that this would help bring people out of poverty. However, economists seem pretty clear that the impacts would in fact harm those individuals most likely to be in danger of poverty; young, unskilled and jobless workers. So…fail.

Conclusion

OK, tallying the results we have 1 pass, 4 fails and 1 neutral, with the neutral really the result of us just being too damn lazy. But, even if we would assign that neutral to the pass category, it’s still 2 to 1 in favor of fail. There, this whole minimum wage issue really isn’t that complex after all…

Filibuster First Strike

Who Went “Nuclear” First?

There has been a tremendous amount of drama of late regarding the power of the filibuster in the Senate and whether Democrats should invoke the “nuclear option” ending the filibuster. Even Twitter has been blowing up around phrases like “Merrick Garland” where a tremendous amount of vitriol is directed at Senator Mitch McConnell while also mentioning the filibuster, cloture, nuclear option, etc.. Now, if you are having trouble connecting the dots between all of this, fear not, just read on and all will be explained.

OK, let’s get the historical basics out of the the way. The filibuster is a tradition, mechanism, rule or whatever in the Senate that preserves the minority party’s voice. Basically it means that any single Senator can essentially block a piece of legislation ala Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Another word that is relevant here, cloture. The concept of cloture was adopted by the Senate about 100 years ago in order to reign in the absolute, unbridled power of individual Senators who might wield the filibuster with wild abandon. Cloture originally required 2/3rds of Senators to vote to end debate although today the required ratio is 3/5ths of Senators, or 60 votes given that today there are 100 Senators. Yes, the math works.

It is important to note here that the Constitution itself says nothing about the filibuster or cloture. The filibuster and cloture are simply traditions and rules of the Senate and have proven over the years to be an important reason why the Senate has fulfilled its originally intended role as the more deliberate, reasoned and thoughtful chamber of Congress. Yes, the filibuster/cloture has been used in regrettable instances but it is the Senate, and specifically the filibuster/cloture, that has prevented wild swings in American law and policies depending upon the whims of who is in power. As a legislative mechanism to promote debate in order to preserve American liberties and way of life, the filibuster/cloture has no equal.

OK, almost up to speed. Let’s flip back to the present. With Democrats having control of the presidency and both chambers of Congress, there are those individuals that see this as a historic opportunity for Democrats to push through certain long standing legislative goals. And these individuals are pretty passionate about said legislative goals. Goals some might characterize as “radical”. However, the razor thin “majority” in the Senate means that there has to be bi-partisanship, otherwise the legislation will not survive cloture and the filibuster.

So, what are you to do when you can’t get 60 votes? Get 51 votes instead. You see, Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority vote and these rules changes are not subject to cloture/filibuster. Changing the Senate rules in this manner is often referred to as the “nuclear option”. By changing the Senate rules in order to effectively eliminate cloture and the filibuster all together, Democrats could get their entire legislative agenda pushed through the Senate with zero bi-partisanship. This is actually kind of how Obamacare came to be, along a strict, partisan vote facilitated through a similar but different “trick” called “reconciliation”, but that’s for another article.

OK, so with the Senate split evenly at 50/50, Democrats and Republicans, Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer have been locked in a power struggle over the control of the Senate and the Senate rules. Long story short, Mitch McConnell recently won a major victory in that battle when at least two Democratic Senators stated unequivocally that they would not support ending cloture and the filibuster in the Senate. So, this kind of dashes the hopes of all of those very passionate people that wanted to get their legislative agenda and goals pushed through.

But how the hell does Merrick Garland figure into all of this you might ask? OK, let’s see if we can succinctly explain all that in a rational way. You see, to those rather vocal and passionate Democrats, Mitch McConnell’s insistence in preserving the filibuster is utter hypocrisy. The reason is that Mitch McConnell used the “nuclear option” to get, what many view to be conservative, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barret confirmed to the Supreme Court. Mitch McConnell changed the Senate rules to eliminate cloture and thus the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, allowing a simple majority vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch. This pissed certain parties off to no end, namely those rather vocal and passionate Democrats. And this is how Merrick Garland comes into the picture. Mitch McConnell and the Republican controlled Senate at the time famously refused to hold a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland, former President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court. This also pissed off those rather vocal and passionate Democrats off to no end.

Now, the evidence seems pretty clear. To any objective observer, Mitch McConnell is clearly a hypocrite, the bad guy and to blame for all of the drama over the current Senate rules regarding cloture and the filibuster. Mitch McConnell didn’t allow a vote on Merrick Garland and then turns around and goes nuclear to confirm Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barret. And that is exactly what we here at The Objective Observer would be saying except, oh yes there is an except, except that this is not the entire story. Wait…there’s more!

You see, it was actually then Senate majority leader and Democrat Harry Reid who in 2013 first invoked the nuclear option, changing the rules so that only a simple majority was required in order to confirm cabinet positions and federal court judges. At the time, Republicans warned Democrats that this would come back to bite them in the ass. And so it has. But, vocal and passionate people tend to ignore and forget small little facts like that.

Looking at this objectively, everybody is in the wrong here. We don’t agree with what Harry Reid did and we don’t agree with what Mitch McConnell did. But who is ultimately to blame for all of this? Is it Democrats? Is it Republicans? Mitch McConnell? Harry Reid? Hell, if we go back far enough to 1806, we could even blame Aaron Burr, a Democratic-Republican; oh the irony, who suggested the original Senate rules change that ended up allowing the filibuster.

Luckily the true and proper villain in all of this is rather obvious if you really think about it. And that villain is…

Georgia.

That’s right, Georgia. You see, it is these Georgia yahoos that, despite all odds, gave us this 50/50 split in the Senate by electing both Georgia Democratic candidates to the Senate in a special election. Note that the probability of this was only 25%. If either one of the Georgia Republican candidates for the Senate or both of the Republican candidates for the Senate had been elected, we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with. So, in conclusion, let’s stop this incessant partisan squabbling and bickering and just all agree to mad hate on Georgia because, ultimately, they’re the idiots that created this whole mess in the first place…