Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

Even before most of America knew Brett Kavanaugh’s name, Leftists were more scared than a Frenchman at a World War II reenactment that the new Supreme Court Justice would overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that made it legal for women to get abortions. Whether it was talking about a “woman’s right to choose” or “healthcare for women”, the Left has it bad for protecting the Roe decision under any and all circumstances.

Including making themselves look like jackasses in the process.

I try not to delve too much into these serious issues much for two reasons. One, I will invariably evoke an emotional response out of a reader which tends to devolve into an online shouting match and open questioning of my lineage. And before we get there, my mother was not a female dog, so you can just drop it. The other reason is because trying to find a lighter touch on a hot-button issue like Roe v. Wade is like asking Lindsey Lohan to babysit while you’re off on a two month European vacation; it might be okay, but more than likely it’s going to wind up badly.

So, with that in mind, let’s take a look at Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade

What the Left thinks it means – A Supreme Court decision that is essential for women’s autonomy, healthcare, and self-worth

What it really means – Bad law based on lies

Hopefully, I wasn’t too subtle with my opinion on the subject matter. I occasionally get accused of being obtuse.

In my younger days, I was pro choice for the same reason Bill Clinton is: to score with the ladies. Unlike Bill, however, it didn’t equate into so much as a second glance from women. On the other hand, I didn’t get impeached for using an immature intern as a personal humidor, so I got that going for me.

As I got older, I decided to do some research on the matter and read some of the legal arguments made in the Roe decision because I know how to party! Anyway, the gist of the arguments in favor of allowing a woman to have an abortion came down to an interpretation of when life began. The lawyers arguing in favor of abortion said British common law made it clear a baby could be terminated within the womb because it wasn’t recognized as a true human being.

Yeah, about that…seems British common law says nothing of the sort. In fact, there is a concept known as the “quickening” referring to a human’s life or spirit. To put it simply, our British ancestors believed a child in the womb had quickening and, thus, was a life. Kind of a problem for the pro choicers who say it’s just a “clump of cells”, wouldn’t you say?

Beyond that, the Supreme Court turned abortion into a federal issue because it broadened the Constitution to include a right that wasn’t really in there: the right to privacy. The arguments made to invent this right were based off the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which has nothing to do with privacy at all. Here’s what it says:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In other words…no state can make a law that doesn’t apply to everyone…which still has nothing to do with privacy.

For all of the legal, Constitutional, and emotional arguments in favor of keeping Roe v. Wade as is, there is one hard fact that the Left doesn’t want us to consider: abortion kills a baby almost every single time. It’s not a clump of cells. It’s not an unviable tissue mass. It’s not a part of a woman’s body. It is a baby. Full stop. With all of the blatant dishonesty and excuses, it’s hard to imagine how much fear the prospect of a child being allowed to come to term puts in the Left.

That’s because the Left makes serious bank off keeping Roe v. Wade in place. Any time a politician suggests even a slight restriction on abortion, the Left whips its supporters into a frenzy and asks them for money. The supporters send money (and dress up like giant vaginas for some reason) to Leftist politicians who will defend the right to kill babies in the womb. Then, sometimes these politicians get into positions where they can allocate federal tax dollars to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood (not directly of course because it would be illegal) who then pays executives with said funds who then turn around and donate money back to the politicians who got them the tax dollars to begin with. No matter how much the Left tries to launder the funds they use for abortion clinics, it is literally blood money.

As much as I disdain abortion as a practice, Roe v. Wade will remain unaffected at least for now. Even with Brett Kavanaugh’s potential appointment to the Supreme Court, it would still take a legal challenge to Roe before any judge, let alone a Supreme Court Justice, would get a chance to render a verdict. But the Left still needs to keep that sweet abortion cash flowing into its coffers (especially considering the DNC makes Arthur Andersen look fiscally responsible). That means maintaining the lies they’ve told since the original court case was settled.

But now that you know some of the ins and outs of the lies, you can be ready to address the lies when they’re told.

Share This:

Concise Conservative Comebacks for Loony Leftist Lines

 
image_pdfimage_print

With the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace the retiring Anthony Kennedy, Leftists have been throwing out all sorts of arguments why we (meaning they) can’t allow this to happen. Don’t you wish you had a handy dandy guide to help you refute those arguments?

Well, I’m going to try to provide one. Granted, I try not to think like a Leftist for too long because it makes my head hurt and I might not come back, but for you, I’ll make an exception. Let’s take a look at some of the Left’s arguments (which I have put in bold to separate them from my responses) and some of my responses (which I have not put in bold to separate them from the Left’s arguments). Yes, I know that last one was redundant, but when dealing with Leftists, it’s best to make absolutely sure. Where applicable, I have tried to make it into a back-and-forth conversation, but if the Leftist jumps to a different argument than the order in which I have written responses, just jump to the appropriate response and go from there.

Ready? Here we go!

Donald Trump shouldn’t be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice while he’s under investigation.

What investigation is that?

That he conspired with Russia to help him win the Presidency.

Oh, that investigation! Seems former FBI Director James Comey and special prosecutor Robert Mueller, both of whom you’ve lauded in the past, have both said Trump is not under investigation. In fact, of the indictments to date, none have been against Trump, nor have they been linked to Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign. All the accusers have at this point is guilt by association, which doesn’t stand up to legal scrutiny.

But what about all of those connections between Trump and Russia? Surely they prove collusion!

Not quite. Much of what you’re focusing on occurred before Trump was President. It could be argued the terms of impeachment spelled out in the Constitution, along with Article 1 Sections 9 and 10 which prohibit actions that punish an individual retroactively (a little thing the kids call ex post facto), mean Trump’s alleged actions would not be legal grounds for impeachment. As a private citizen, which Trump was at the time of the alleged collusion, Trump could conduct business with anyone he chose, even the evil Russians (which people like former President Barack Obama defended against allegations they were bad folks). And, on top of all that, collusion isn’t expressly illegal. That’s where the bar of “high crimes and misdemeanors” comes into play. If no laws were broken, impeachment isn’t a good and true option.

So what? If Trump gets to pick the next Supreme Court Justice, he could be picking someone who would rule on any case involving him!

Strangely enough, you have half of a point here. Appointing a Supreme Court Justice means that Justice might have to hear cases involving the President who appointed him or her. That’s why it’s expected any judge with conflicts of interest recuse themselves from any case that they have a personal stake in the outcome.

See? You’ve just made my point for me!

I’m not finished. Just because you should recuse yourself doesn’t mean you will. In my lifetime, there have been cases where a Justice should have recused himself or herself and didn’t. Clarence Thomas should have recused himself during cases involving health insurance since his wife works in that industry. On the other side, Justices Kagan and Sotomayor should have recused themselves from any rulings on Obamacare because both had direct impacts on it. And let’s not forget Justice Ginsburg, who officiated a same-sex wedding before she ruled on a Supreme Court case involving same-sex marriages. If you’re afraid of a Justice being influenced to vote a certain way because of who appointed him or her, you’ve had plenty of opportunities to say something.

But Kennedy’s son was Trump’s banker!

So what?

So that means Trump could have put pressure on Kennedy to retire early! Doesn’t that trouble you?

The operative words are “could have.” Trump could have talked Kennedy into retiring, or Kennedy could have come to that conclusion on his own. Without plausible evidence to confirm the President pressured Kennedy into retiring, we have to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Well, that and the fact further evidence shows Kennedy’s son did not do business with Trump directly. The bank he was working for at the time did. That’s like blaming Ford for having trouble with your Chevy Volt.

Let’s go back to the appointing of the Justice ruling on a case Trump’s involved in. How can you reconcile that?

Easy. Precedent states the President cannot be charged legally with a crime while in office. That leaves impeachment as the means to remove Trump, and of all the Supreme Court Justices that would be involved, it is only Chief Justice John Roberts who would be involved, since the Constitution states the Chief Justice presides over the Senate portion of impeachment. And since Roberts was appointed before Trump was even a nominee, there is no conflict.

What about Mitch McConnell denying a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland? Shouldn’t we wait until the elections are over, as McConnell said in 2016?

There’s a big difference between a Presidential election and a mid-term election. In 2016, McConnell relied upon what is loosely called “the Biden Rule”, but one that is backed up by Senate history. Traditionally, no Supreme Court nominations are made in Presidential election years since there is a chance the incoming President would not get to choose a nominee, which undercuts the power of the Presidency as outlined in, surprise surprise, the Constitution.

This year, there is no Presidential election; only the election of House and Senate members. There is no affect on Presidential powers, so there is no reason to hold off on the process. Not to mention, there is a current Supreme Court Justice who was appointed in a mid-term election year. Elena Kagan was appointed in 2010…with support of Republicans. Not liking who is President is not an excuse to delay the process.

Okay, okay, but shouldn’t Merrick Garland get a hearing, given how Senate Republicans sat on his nomination?

I actually have no problem with this, mainly because it’s pretty much a guarantee Garland wouldn’t get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But Garland never got a hearing! That’s a stolen Supreme Court seat!

In order for something to be stolen, it must first be owned. The Supreme Court is not owned by any one President or political party, so President Obama didn’t get an automatic appointment because he was President at the time the vacancy occurred. Thanks to a bit of Senate history, Supreme Court Justices aren’t nominated in Presidential election years. Only when that bit of history comes back to bite the Left in the ass does it become an issue.

To go even further into this, the Constitution states the Senate gives “advice and consent” for judicial nominees. Nowhere is there a requirement for any nominee to go through a confirmation hearing. Really, the hearing is for grandstanding politicians to look like they’re doing something when they’re acting like hams.

Well…okay, but what about Brett Kavanaugh? Don’t you right wingers want Roe v . Wade overturned?

First off, Kavanaugh said he considers Roe v. Wade to be settled law and would not consider overturning it. Even if he’s changed his mind, there would need to be a legal challenge to Roe that would need to get through multiple judicial layers before it would even reach the Supreme Court. Will that happen? We don’t know.

Even if Roe gets overturned, the decision to allow abortions would go back to the states. We can argue whether that’s good or bad, but it’s a discussion that should be welcomed by all parties involved. Until Roe comes back before the High Court, though, it’s still just theoretical.

But Kavanaugh is a practicing Catholic! Don’t they want abortion outlawed?

Nancy Pelosi is a practicing Catholic, and she doesn’t want abortion outlawed.

Kavanaugh’s faith plays no role in determine whether he’s fit for the Supreme Court. Remember, the Constitution states there is no religious test to serve, so he could be an atheist and still not be disqualified.

What about gay marriage, civil rights, and other important issues? Kavanaugh will set us back on those and a lot more!

Again, there has to be a legal challenge that makes its way through the courts before it even gets heard by the Supreme Court. And that process isn’t quick, kids. It might be years before such a challenge gets heard.

Didn’t Kavanaugh say a sitting President shouldn’t be indicted or tried?

He did.

So, why should he be a Supreme Court Justice if he feels that way? No President should be above the law.

Because in that same piece you’re quoting from, he goes on to say Congress should change the law. In other words, Kavanaugh feels the current system needs to be changed and wants the body charged with making laws to do it, just as the Constitution dictates.

You keep talking about the Constitution. That’s outdated and should be revamped to reflect current values.

The Founding Fathers already accounted for that. If you can get enough support for your ideas, you can call for a Convention of the States and have the Constitution changed. With today’s political climate, I wish you the best of luck.

Even if you don’t want to go through the trouble of amending the Constitution, it should be pointed out the Constitution has already been interpreted to address many of the issues you hold dear. You may not feel like it’s progressive or conservative enough, but the judicial branch can be persuaded. How far those interpretations deviate from the source material may be an issue, but to call the Constitution outdated is to ignore the framework it provides us to change with the times.

Well, the Constitution doesn’t say how many Supreme Court Justices there need to be, so we should add more Justices so there is a better balance of ideologies.

That is a good point, actually. However, that has the potential to backfire. Remember, when you allow one President to do something, future Presidents can pick up that permission and run with it. Want to see 25 Antonin Scalia-type judges sitting on the High Bench?

Well, maybe we should put term limits on Supreme Court Justices.

Although it might seem like a good idea to limit the terms of Justices, the reason Justices have lifetime appointments is to avoid political favoritism. And when we look at the current Supreme Court makeup, the Justices who lean Left put their ideology above the Constitution. The Justices who lean Right tend to do the opposite. Besides, if we put term limits on Justices, we might be looking at another Merrick Garland situation, especially if the terms are to be 19 years, as is what is being suggested. Then, we might be right back where we started from and nothing will be solved.

Stop talking to me you racist/sexist/homophobe/bigot/Trumpster/insult-du-joir!


And there we have it. Use this as a guide, and may the fates be ever in your favor!

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

To hear the Left talk about the upcoming midterm elections, it’s a lock. They will take back the House and Senate and finally put President Donald Trump in his place (and out of the White House, if they have anything to say about it). Yet, with all great plans, there is a fatal flaw.

And this one starts with a hashtag because why not.

Started by a former Democrat, #WalkAway has caught on among people who saw their party get nuttier than squirrel poop and no longer represented their views. In response, current Democrats acted as they normally do…and started calling the #WalkAway movement names.

Unlike Leftists, I’m willing to give them a fair shake (and a little publicity, perhaps) by exploring their movement in greater detail than the Left can be bothered to muster.

#WalkAway

What the Left thinks it means – a hashtag movement created by Russians, Republicans, and/or Trump to cost the Democrats the midterm elections

What it really means – a group of former Democrats and Leftists who are finding their way out of the Leftist morass

I truly understand what the #WalkAway movement is about because it wasn’t that long ago I was just like them. I was a proud Leftist, believing every word, fighting for every cause, and generally living my life according to the Leftist model. And it sucked. Imagine the worst day of your life, a day when you were at your lowest and most touchy. Now, imagine living that same day over and over again. That’s what being a Leftist feels like.

Eventually, it got to a point where I couldn’t be a Leftist anymore and I struck out on my own politically. It’s not easy by any stretch of the imagination. It’s like being the black sheep of the family, only with a lot less wool. Moving away from the Leftist promises of utopia and into an uncertain ideological world was one of the toughest things I ever chose to do, but it was also one of the most fulfilling.

To put it mildly, Leftists hate free thinkers more than Hillary Clinton hates the Electoral College. They need people to believe only what they’re told, no matter how bizarre or out of character it seems to be. They don’t start right with normalizing extreme positions; they try to get you to build up to it (with their “help” of course) so you can’t back away from the end goal. If you deviate even one micron from the script, they will harangue until you conform or get cast out.

Guess where the Left is right now with the #WalkAway movement, kids. That’s right! They’re in the haranguing stage. Art Bell couldn’t come up with the sheer number of conspiracy theories the Left has devised to explain the movement away. They’re connected to Russia. They’re not really Democrats. They’re Republican plants. They’re angry Bernie Sanders didn’t win. They’re turning frogs gay. (Sorry, that last one was from Alex Jones, but I was on a roll.)

Many people put in that situation crack under the pressure, but some use that hardship to stiffen their backbones and stand up. Granted, everyone has a different “trigger” as it were, but a lot of accounts I’ve watched and read come down to one central event: the #WalkAway folks got turned off by the current crop of Leftists running the Democratic Party. When your party’s freshest face is a 28 year old former bartender turned fully avowed “democratic socialist”, you know your party’s taken the bullet train to What Can We Advocate That Will Guarantee We Will Lose Elections-ville.

But that’s the beauty of the #WalkAway movement. It’s not about politics as much as it is about wanting a better America. Many have become Trump supporters, while others are still deciding what their next ideological step might be. But their stories have a similar ring of truth to them. They all got turned off by the direction of the party they supported and decided to stop chasing broken promises of Leftist utopia and start chasing their version of the American Dream.

Time will tell if #WalkAway becomes a driving force in politics or if they fizzle out like Err America. But one thing is for certain: the Left is scared. That means they’ll throw everything they can at them to make the #WalkAway movement submit or be so discredited as to become pariahs. Ask Alan Dershowitz about his last trip to Martha’s Vineyard. Eye-opening stuff.

While the Left seeks to consolidate its power before the midterm elections, it is starting to look like an exclusive party where only some people are let in and given power. And although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 by around three million votes (just ask her), that number is starting to contract at the worst possible time for the Left. They need every single vote (even the posthumous ones) to try to check President Trump legislatively and seek revenge for the ultimate sin: making Leftists look like the unhinged asshats they truly are.

As much as I disagree with the President, it cannot be understated how his election to the Presidency created the environment that gave us Maxine Waters becoming a national figurehead for the Democrats and the #WalkAway movement becoming a real threat to the Party of Aunt Maxine. The road ahead will be dangerous for both sides of that equation, but moreso for those who have chosen to walk away. Coming out as a recovering Leftist can be more harrowing than coming out as gay or letting Anthony Weiner use your laptop, and with the kinds of things Leftists are known to do and justify doing to Trump supporters, that danger is real.

But, I urge the #WalkAway movement to be fearless, for the greatest weapon the Left has against you is your emotions. They will make you out to be only slightly more popular than jock itch as a means to bring you back in line. Threats of violence, doxing, or other modern tortures await you if you choose this path.

But you won’t travel alone. As long as I have breath in my body, I will #WalkAway with you. J

ust not so fast. I’m not as young as I used to be and I have missed my cardio workouts for, oh, the past 3 decades.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

As we gear up for another Independence Day, many people take time to reflect on America and what makes it great. When you think about it, we do have a pretty neat country. In spite of all of our flaws, we typically try to do the right thing. It may take us a while to get there, but we get there eventually. What drives Americans? What spark fires our imaginations and makes us take chances in the hopes of finding a better way?

Porn.

Actually, it’s the American Dream. Depending on who you ask, the American Dream is either alive and well, dead and dying, or never existed in the first place because of the aforementioned flaws. The first two conditions are often politically-motivated, but that last one tends to be a foundational concept of the Left. Instead of accentuating the positive, they obsess over the negative and paint a picture of our country so bleak even Sylvia Plath painting a still life in a dark basement would seem like Up With People.

So, let’s dip our patriotic tootsies into the waters of the American Dream.

the American Dream

What Leftists think it means – an impossible-to-achieve ideal that seeks to whitewash America’s multiple flaws while giving people false hope

What it really means – an ideal that inspires people to dare to be great

In spite of the Left trying to make America look like the Bizarro World version of the Emerald City, people from all over the world still want to come here, as millions of others before them did.  Whether they were coming to start a new life, get experience, escape oppression, or just because their calendars were free, those immigrants wanted to be here. That’s not by accident, folks. That was because of, for lack of a better term, the American Dream.

Trying to nail down what the American Dream means is trickier than arm wrestling an octopus because it’s different for everyone and linked to the times in which we live. In the 1950s, the American Dream was a house, white picket fence, two cars in the garage, and kids and a dog. In the 1960s, the American Dream was a reduction in racial discrimination. The 1970s gave us an American Dream that included first wave feminism and a focus on the self. (Oh, and a lot of cocaine.) The 1980s showed us an American Dream of patriotism, success in the business world, and family values. (Oh, and a lot more cocaine.)

When we got to the 1990s, the American Dream shifted away from what we experienced in the 1980s. At that time, it went from thinking long term to living in the moment. We needed stuff and we needed it now! And it hasn’t gotten much better since then. Today’s American Dream might be getting a brand new iPhone when they become available in, oh, 3 minutes, or maybe it’s to become a YouTube star, or maybe it’s just having the Starbucks barista get your triple shot low fat soy milk caramel macchiato at just the right temperature. Dream big, I always say!

Even though the American Dream has changed, the heart of it remains. Whether we strive for the house and family or the perfect cup of coffee, we know it’s out there. All we need to do is believe we can find it and put in the work to make it happen. That’s what makes it such an attractive concept to so many, including your humble correspondent. At the turn of the 20th Century, America became home to people who had similar aspirations and drive. We were (and still are) a nation built on exploration and pushing ourselves to our limits, all for the shot of making it. From Plymouth Rock to New York City, if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.

You know, that would be a great idea for a song! Let’s get someone on that right away!

Until the money starts rolling in from that totally original idea, I will continue to look for ways to live my concept of the American Dream, and I encourage all of you reading this to do the same. And don’t forget to appreciate the freedom we have to live our dreams.

Happy Independence Day!

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” – “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus

“Especially if we can get them to vote Democrat.” – the DNC corollary

Just like a Tyler Perry movie, it seems impossible to get away from the topic of illegal immigration. (Editor’s Note: As Tom was writing this, three more Tyler Perry movies have been shot and will be released in the next 9 hours.) However, a new twist to the discussion came out recently, thanks to Leftists. In an attempt to remove the stigma of people illegally coming into America, Leftists have claimed these people were seeking asylum, which makes the alleged separation of children from parents even worse Naziesque. (Editor’s Note: As Tom was writing this, Leftists make 9,348,178,399,298,804,367,316 Trump/Hitler comparisons.)

Maybe it’s time we educate ourselves (and hopefully Leftists) on what asylum actually means.

asylum

What the Left thinks it means – extending America’s protection to the less fortunate, regardless of circumstances

What it really means – extending America’s protection to the less fortunate with certain conditions

Contrary to popular Leftist belief, asylum is a bit more complicated than just showing up with a suitcase and an expectation to be let in. There are forms that have to be completed (because…government) and a process to be followed (also, because…government). Although this tends to go against my inclination to want a smaller government, this is one area I can understand. Abuse of the asylum option means any Juan, Ricardo, and Jorge can claim it even if the real reason they’re fleeing their home country is because they have overdue library books. Then again, being married to a librarian, that might be a federal offense.

And it’s abuse of the asylum option the Left is advocating right now. By turning every illegal immigrant as an asylum seeker, it waters down the spirit of why we have it in the first place. When someone seeks asylum, it’s because he or she are seeking protection from his or her home country. In other words, we are sticking our necks out for these people and allowing them to come here and be protected. That’s one of the reasons we take the steps we do. If we take in a mass murderer because he or she requests asylum, it makes a mockery of asylum and makes us look worse than David Duke on…well, any day.

As bad as the photos from the detention centers are (which seem to be at least faked more than a Stormy Daniels…”performance”), imagine the damage that could be done to us by making asylum as easy to get as the aforementioned Ms. Daniels. Yet, that’s what Leftists want to do because it suits their needs, politically and financially. And when you add money and power to a situation, the Left will do everything in its power to guarantee a result in their favor.

Case in point, the efforts to malign President Donald Trump for what amounts to inheriting a problem previous Administrations left for him. Trump hasn’t been flawless in his approach, but he has made more strides in two weeks than the Presidents from Reagan to Obama did in years. You can argue about the specifics (and believe me I have), but at least we are moving forward instead of just moving a can down the road.

Asylum should be granted to those who can show they have a legitimate concern with retaliation from their home countries, but those who request it have to do it the right way. It shouldn’t be granted to anyone who wants it. Much like citizenship for those who emigrate here, it has to be earned. Leftists want it to be given like water at a marathon.

But I’m willing to meet the Left halfway on this. They can get their expanded asylum on one condition: they have to take responsibility for those granted asylum on everything from providing basics to ensuring they get American citizenship to guaranteeing their new charges don’t break the law.

So, what do you say, Leftists? Do it…for the children.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

Senator Elizabeth Warren is scared. Of what? Aside from taking a free DNA test to establish her Native American history, she is scared of what judicial nominees proposed by President Donald Trump might do! They might actually…rule in a particular ideological manner. (You know, like what many of Barack Obama’s judicial nominees did? I’m looking right at you, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.)

Fortunately, there is a term Chief Running Mouth’s concerns: judicial activism. And it’s especially fortunate for me, since I can write this week’s Leftist Lexicon!

judicial activism

What the Left thinks it means – judges ruling against common sense and the will of the people for purely conservative goals

What the Right thinks it means – judges ruling against common sense and the will of the people for purely liberal/Leftist goals

What it really means – judges ruling against common sense and the will of the people for purely ideological goals that have no basis in logic or existing law

Although I’m primarily focusing on the Left’s concept of judicial activism, I have to look at the Right’s concept of it briefly. Conservatives tend to look at the law as sacrosanct and rigid, so when a judge forces the law to bend a bit, it can be disconcerting to say the least, especially if the change doesn’t seem to make sense. Take the recent court rulings related to Christian bakers being sued by gay couples. Conservatives and libertarians, such as your humble correspondent, saw the change made by judicial fiat as shaky and illogical while limiting the freedoms of others. Even if we agreed with the end goal, the way we got to that goal can be an example when the bench made law.

And the Left is perfectly fine with it, as long as they agree with the decision.

The Left sees the law as more flexible than Plastic Man doing yoga. If there is a law stating “No Dogs Allowed”, the Left will find a way to turn it into “Only Dogs That Self-Identify As Dogs Not Allowed, and Even Then It’s Okay.” Why is this? Because the more gray a law is, the more flexible it becomes and the more exceptions that can be turned into law by finding a judge that agrees with the Left’s ideology. Given enough time, the Left would find a way to make it illegal to miss “The View”.

This dichotomy between the Left and the Right as it pertains to the law shows us two of the purposes of the law. One is to protect the public (which is what the Right tends to favor), and the other is to punish those who violate it (which is what the Left tends to favor). Put another way, the law is like a gun: it depends on how you use it that determines the result.

Now watch my email box overflow with Leftists complaining about “gun culture” or some such.

The point is a single judge’s decision in a court case may not be limited to that one situation thanks to a little thing the kids like to call precedent. Whenever there is a court decision, it can be used again and again like the Russia excuse for why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election. And when you have Leftists involved, those court decisions can and will be used in all sorts of bizarre and unrelated ways. Need to justify shutting down a Christian baker who refuses to decorate a cake for a gay wedding for dogs? Well, according to Schmedlapp vs. Throckmorton (a case that had to do with two neighbors fighting over who owned the crabgrass on a particular parcel of land), the baker has to do it because the judge said something about dogs being gay over crabgrass. Never mind the fact the judge was using the term “gay” to mean “happy”! Words matter!

Ah, but there’s another element of the law the Left doesn’t like to discuss: the spirit of the law. As much as they say they see nuance, the Left completely ignores it when it comes to the law because more often than not it ruins what they want to achieve through judicial activism. You can muddy the waters with language, but it’s a lot harder to do with the spirit of the law because it tends to be contextual and specific. Once you start bringing facts and context into the equation, judicial activism becomes more transparent and less justifiable.

To Chief Running Mouth’s point, it’s not that Trump is appointing judges who aren’t impartial. It’s that he’s appointing judges that aren’t partial to the Left, and that can only mean disaster for them. But if the judges Trump appoints are equally as loose with the law as the Left’s appointments tend to be, we will have the same problem, just with a different colored team jersey. Any judge who lets ideology trump the law should be removed from the bench because he or she is putting a thumb on the scales of justice and creating more headaches down the road. And when you consider the current jurisprudence cholesterol that clogs up our legal system (just watch any judge show for a week for proof), we don’t need to add judicial activism making the problem worse!

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

To be honest, the Internet is as safe as a meth lab housed in a nitroglycerin factory on the San Andreas Fault. Although I’m exaggerating for (hopefully) humorous effect, you don’t want to be too careless with your personal information online because there are unethical slimeballs out there who will use that information against you in any way they can. Although, I hear that Nigerian prince is a real cool guy.

When the war of ideologies goes online, political operatives have a number of tools at their disposal, one of which is a called doxing. We’ll get into the definition of it here in a bit, but the reason it’s become a hot topic recently is because of a Huffington Post writer named Luke O’Brien. O’Brien did a story about a Twitter user named Amy Mekelburg who has tweeted some anti-Muslim sentiments and has been retweeted by President Donald Trump. O’Brien’s story exposed Mekelburg, but also opened up her family to additional harassment. And this occurred because Mekelburg left identifying information online for people to follow.

Leftists cheered this, stating racists have no right to privacy and should be exposed. Others expressed outrage at those who took it upon themselves to bring Mekelburg’s private actions into the public square and expose her family to various punishments for actions they didn’t directly take.

In order to understand the Leftist mindset on doxing, let’s start by defining the term, shall we?

doxing

What the Left thinks it means – exposing conservatives for saying and doing things that should be called out and discouraged

What it actually means – invading someone’s privacy for purely ideological reasons

One of the key elements of Leftist ideology is the ends justify the means. If they can find a way to destroy an enemy, even if it goes against their public platform, they will do it. It’s just a matter of how and when. And when it comes to doxing, Leftists have no qualms doing it to conservatives because of another key element of Leftist ideology: those who do not conform are the enemy.

Nice folks, those Leftists.

In the Mekelburg situation, the Left has argued she doxed herself, which is entirely plausible and most likely happened. If O’Brien wrote a piece limited solely to her, we can debate the merits and flaws of the approach. However, that didn’t happen. O’Brien went to her husband’s employer for a comment, which caused her husband to get fired and a business owned by members of her family (who have openly said they don’t agree with her, by the way) to get harassed. Collateral damage because Mekelburg said something the Left didn’t agree with.

And while we’re here, what did Mekelburg say? Among other things, she made disparaging comments about Muslim prophet Mohammed, linked to people like Sean Hannity, and told people to follow noted white supremacists. The first two are enough for Leftists to get their collectivist panties in a wad, but the third gave them all the excuse they needed to target her…and her family. Obviously, they must agree with her. After all, they have the same last name!

And, as with most things Leftists believe, their position is hypocritical on a number of fronts, the most glaring one being the Left’s professed love of privacy. This may smack of “whataboutism”, but I have to say it: the Left has more problem with a woman expressing an opposite and Constitutionally protected opinion than it has with a woman killing an unborn baby in the womb. Call me crazy (because, trust me, plenty have), but isn’t that a bit…well…stupid?

I don’t condone what Mekelburg says, but she has a right to say it, thanks to the First Amendment. Which brings us to another area of Leftist hypocrisy, by the way. The Left will cry about freedom of speech being threatened whenever Donald Trump calls CNN fake news (I have another name for them that’s far harsher), but they also want to limit the speech of conservatives and libertarians because they’re afraid those groups will tell the truth.

And to round out this trifecta of trickery, the Left engages in guilt by association when it suits them, as it did in this case. Yet, who are the first ones to scold us for assuming terrorists are Muslims because “not all Muslims are terrorists”? Leftists, who by a complete coincidence always assume mass shooters are white men. (And, unlike them, the people who assume terrorists are Muslim tend to be right more often than wrong.)

And let me make myself perfectly clear here. Doxing done by anyone is morally wrong and, in my humble opinion, is a form of terrorism designed to control targets into either hiding or conforming to the ”right” opinion. And, to take it a step further, anyone who is responsible for circulating a person’s information online and/or uses it to harass innocent people is just as bad as the doxers themselves. No gray area, no letting it slide, no mulligans. If you dox or help spread the information, you are scum. Thank you for playing.

That brings us back to O’Brien. I’m sure he thought he was doing the right thing, but he should have taken more than a nanosecond to think about the implications of and fallout from taking the actions he did before submitting even a pitch to his editors. The fact it doesn’t appear he took that step is a stain on his integrity and yet another blot on an already-Mount Everest-sized mountain covering the media today. As the saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right, and O’Brien and Mekelburg are as wrong as they can be.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

Our favorite socialist, Bernie Sanders, is back in the news. Recently, he held a town hall meeting in California where he called for employees of a major global company to get paid more. That company? Disney. The location of the town hall? Disneyland.

For one day, Disneyland went from the happiest place on Earth to the most economically illiterate place on Earth.

Sanders and his followers (whom I call Bern Outs) advocate raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour and have a catchy little hashtag to go along with it, #FightFor15. And judging from the number of times it’s been trending on Twitter, it seems to be a popular idea.

Which is exactly why I relish the opportunity to mock it.

#FightFor15

What the Left thinks it means – a movement to raise workers’ wages by increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour

What it really means – more proof Leftists don’t know the first thing about economics

Throughout my working years, I have been paid less than, more than, and exactly minimum wage with each doing everything from mowing lawns to telling mortgage customers “no” when they wanted late fees waived because, and I quote, “we were only late several times.” And people wonder why I have gray hair…

My pay at each of these positions depended on a series of factors, not the least of which being work experience. I didn’t demand top dollar for my work because I didn’t have the body of work to back it up and I worked hard to build up my value to the employer. That way I knew I earned every cent.

Thanks to Sanders and the Bern Outs, people think they should be guaranteed a starting wage higher than the hourly wage many lower-level professionals make who have started building up their skills. And they don’t see a problem with this because they feel the working class doesn’t make enough to live in modern America, so they think raising the minimum wage will help.

Yeah…I’m gonna have to disagree with that because…how can I put this…it’s bullshit.

Although #FightFor15 is a nice idea on paper (or Twitter for that matter), it runs aground fairly quickly when you consider the impact it would have on labor costs. If Joe High School Dropout gets $15 an hour for running the fry machine on the night shift at the local Uncle Slappy’s It Kinda Looks Like Hamburger Emporium, that creates a business expense for Uncle Slappy, no matter how good or poor of a job he does. Throw in perks like health and dental insurance and before you know it, Joe’s doing all right for himself…until Uncle Slappy looks at his ledger sheet.

See, Uncle Slappy would not be the only employer having to pay increased labor costs due to the Fight for 15 crowd. Everything from the cost of what the Slapster swears is hamburger to buns to condiments will go up for the same reason. That creates a dilemma: raise prices or cut costs. At some point, raising prices destroys the consumer’s incentive to buy a product or service, which leaves cutting costs as the only option.

Guess what, Joe? You could find yourself on the unemployment line, and you know how much that pays? Zero.

Then, Joe will find himself in the same boat as other high-cost, low-skilled labor: competing for whatever work is available where only the most promising of employees will get a callback.

Even if Uncle Slappy is as liberal with his employee retention as he is with his “Buy One, Get a Stomach Pump Free” campaign, without cutting costs his Burger Emporium will close its doors, thus leaving Joe back in the same position he was in the other scenario. And, surprise surprise, make exactly the same pay as if he had been fired: zero!

Leftists will probably say I’m wrong about that, but there is a city that recently passed a law making a $15 per hour minimum wage a reality. And within a few months, their unemployment shot up, and companies started closing their doors because they couldn’t make ends meet. That city, by the way, is…Seattle, Washington.

Yep, a bastion of Leftist ideology got exactly what it wanted and saw it fail more spectacularly than Michelle Wolf’s jokes at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. And they still want to make $15 per hour the minimum wage.

Say what you will about the Bern Outs, but they’re committed. Or should be.

In the meantime, don’t be swayed by the arguments in favor of #FightFor15. If you want to make more than minimum wage, work harder, learn more, show up, and be responsible. It’s all about hustle. If you show it, eventually someone will take notice…and most likely give you more work. But at least you’ll be earning your paycheck, which is more rewarding in the long run than being given a wage you haven’t earned for work you can’t do because Bernie Sanders and the Bern Outs think you should.

Remember, Sanders has spent a great deal of his adult life making his money off taxpayers. Let’s just say I put more faith in my dog’s fiscal acumen than I do Bernie, and my dog licks himself on a regular basis.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

Since he announced his candidacy, President Donald Trump has made illegal immigration a cornerstone of his rhetoric. Whether it’s his promise to build a wall between the US and Mexico or calling MS13 animals, Trump has been consistent and vocal about this issue.

So, naturally, the Left wants him to shut up about it, or if they can’t shut him up, they will try to make him look like a racist. Just like a port-a-potty teetering on top of a hill, the crap rolls downhill and affects ICE, or Immigration and Customers Enforcement for those of you playing along at home. The Left has called ICE “Trump’s Gestapo” because so much of what it does involves illegal immigration.

But are they as bad as the Left makes them out to be? Glad you asked!

ICE

What the Left thinks it means – a group of unaccountable racists who seek to destroy families of people coming to America to start a new life

What it really means – a law enforcement agency that does more good than harm

One of the things to remember about Leftists is they are experts at hiding their true intentions. (That, and they suck at staying on a budget.) When Leftists try to paint ICE as “Trump’s Gestapo”, it serves four purposes. One, it reinforces their idea Trump is acting just like Adolf Hitler did. Two, it creates a negative image of ICE, which creates fear and distrust of law enforcement in general. Third, it creates a need for Leftists to swoop in and be white knights for the poor oppressed people (that they helped to be poor and oppressed in the first place). Finally, it gives Leftists a steady stream of potential voters who will vote for anyone who will protect them. And, yes, there are illegal immigrants who vote, thanks in part to Leftist initiatives like California’s “Motor Voter” law which makes it possible for people to register to vote when they get drivers licenses. Because when you want to rig elections, you want to make it as convenient as possible, amirite?

Leftists may say they love law enforcement officers, but don’t let them fool you. They hate law enforcement at every level, and ICE is no exception. By doing their jobs, ICE disrupts the Left’s ultimate goal of turning illegal immigrants into a reliable voting bloc. Why, it’s almost as though ICE…wants our immigration laws enforced. Those bastards!

But are they really as bad as the Left makes them out to be? You might be surprised, but the answer is no, and this is coming from a guy who isn’t that keen on the Department of Homeland Security in the first place. ICE performs an important function for this country: trying to keep our immigration laws from becoming as meaningless as the current wall between the US and Mexico. That requires the grit of a soldier with the heart of a saint because every situation ICE gets involved in can go sideways in so many ways and affects entire families. Do I think ICE agents enjoy arresting mothers and fathers for being here illegally? Absolutely not. One would have to be a heartless, soulless monster to derive joy at that kind of pain. But they do have a hard, thankless job, no thanks to Leftists trying to paint them as the aforementioned monsters.

Here’s where things get a bit more complicated for the Left. ICE is actively seeking out and arresting people involved in human trafficking…a cause some Leftists have taken up. And when you consider many of the victims of human trafficking are women, it puts the Left’s hatred of ICE and their effectiveness as women’s advocates into perspective. While self-styled feminists march wearing knitted vagina, ICE is helping vulnerable women out of a horrible situation.

And that’s not all. ICE helps with other functions of law enforcement, including fighting illegal drug smuggling, international gangs, and cybercrime, just to name three. The more you look into ICE, the more you realize these men and women are doing their bests to keep the threads of society together as best they can.

As with all law enforcement agencies, there will be bad actors, but more often than not the good cops outnumber the bad ones, and I have no reason to believe ICE is any different. And I have no reason to believe the Left’s poisonous rhetoric. ICE isn’t the Gestapo for President Trump or anyone else. On a related note, I don’t seem to remember the Left getting their collectivist panties in a bunch when ICE did their jobs under President Obama. Coincidence? I think not! I guess when the “Gestapo” is working for a President you like, it’s perfectly fine to Leftists.

As with the Left’s recent love affair with the FBI (which is about as believable as Bill Cosby offering a woman a pudding pop), the Left’s hatred of ICE is politically motivated. When politics get injected into law enforcement, the results aren’t usually pretty and may actually hurt the latter in the short and long run.

That’s what makes the “ICE is Trump’s Gestapo” rhetoric so dangerous. The Left doesn’t care whether the world goes to Hell faster than Keith Olbermann can get fired from a job as long as their political needs are met. What they don’t realize is the type of criminals ICE is trying to catch don’t care about Leftists as long as their personal needs are met. And, given what we’ve seen from MS13 in recent years, Leftists had better be hitting their knees and praying to whatever deity they believe in that ICE is doing their jobs in spite of Leftists’ best efforts to destroy them.

Share This:

My 2018 Commencement Address

 
image_pdfimage_print

It’s that time of year again. High school and college students are graduating from their various institutions of public or higher learning, and that means they get to sit through another commencement speaker. Some are great (Michael Keaton’s will be hard to top), some are okay, and most are…well, predictable. All inspiring and “reach for your dreams”. Who wants to hear that?

In what is turning into at least a semi-annual tradition, I present the commencement speech I would want to give to graduating seniors.

To the Class of 2018, I have two words for you.

Now, what are you thinking those two words are? If you’re a WWE fan, you might think those two words are “Suck it!” That would be appropriate if I were former President Bill Clinton, but no. If you’re a comic book fan, you might think those words are “I’m Batman.” Considering Michael Keaton beat me to it, it’s not that. If you’re polite, you might think those words are “Thank you.” Not quite. Is it “I’m sorry”? No, that doesn’t come until after my speech.

Give up yet? Well, I won’t keep you in suspense any longer. The two words I have for you are…

Lighten up.

I know there are some of you out there who are thinking of two more words to say to me, but this is a family commencement speech. And, I want you to hear me out.

When I was your age, which was…far too long ago, I took myself way too seriously. I mean, I liked to have fun, but I thought I was the smartest thing since sliced bread. (Which, if you really think about it, isn’t that smart.) That ended after my very first class my freshman year of college. I walked in thinking I was brighter than everyone else and walked out knowing I wasn’t.

I offer you the same advice I learned the hard way: lighten up.

Listen, I know you have a lot on your plates. Global climate change which may or may not be considered weather, potential school shootings, online bullying, and any number of other threats that never could have been conceived when I was in your shoes. You may think you have to grow up faster just to keep up with the issues that pop up on a regular basis. I used to think that way, too. But here’s a little secret: this crap has been going on for decades. You’re just the latest group to find out about it.

You have a few options on the table, though. Some of you will choose to try to fix the world’s problems. Others will try to deny the problems exist. Still others will decide the world’s problems don’t have to be yours. After almost 50 years on this planet, I can assure you those of you in that last group are going to be a lot happier. Maybe not as happy as the people who deny the problems exist, but hey, you’re close enough for government work.

That just leaves the fixers out to address. I’m one of you. I love digging into issues and trying to figure out how to resolve them, so I get why you want to change the world. The problem is most of the change you’ll see is of the pocket variety, and most of your best efforts to fix the world will end in failure.

Brought the room down a bit, didn’t I?

This is why it’s important to lighten up. If you shoot for the moon and get frustrated you keep missing, you will get discouraged, depressed, or, worst of all, the urge to run for Congress. This is why it’s important to lighten up: it helps us calibrate our expectations to our abilities while making sure we’re not too hard on ourselves in the process.

And that goes for the lot of you! Have we forgotten how to have fun and laugh? I have seen so many situations where we have assumed the worst from people merely for telling a joke that we didn’t like. Except for you, Michelle Wolfe. You’re just not that funny. We have reached a point where jokes are the source of more outrage than people and actions that deserve outrage.

Lighten up already! Not every joke is an example of the Patriarchy oppressing people or whites oppressing minorities or whatever the outrage du jour is on any given day. To paraphrase Sigmund Freud, sometimes a joke is just a joke. And it’s only when we lighten up that we can recognize the jokes from the actual issues that need to be addressed.

And before the length of this speech becomes an issue, I’d better wrap it up. There’s a big world waiting for you out there, and it’s best experienced with a sense of humor and a smile on your face, if for nothing else than to confuse the people who don’t have either.

Congratulations! Now, go out there and lighten up!

Share This: