Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

If you’ve been living under a rock over the past week, you might have run into Minnesota Senator Al Franken, who found himself in the midst of a sexual misconduct scandal. During a USO tour, Franken was photographed apparently attempting to grope the breasts of former Playboy, Maxim, and FHM model Leeann Tweeden while she appeared to be asleep.

Yeah, not a good look.

As news of this photo went public, people started discussing the situation, usually through a partisan lens. Some Leftists went so far as to suggest (or outright say) Tweeden was to blame for the situation because of her past, her present connections to Roger Stone and Sean Hannity, and other unrelated factors. There is a term for this, one the Left has used multiple times before: victim shaming. Of course, the Leftists attempting to undermine Tweeden deny they’re doing it, so you know they’re not…exactly credible.

So, let’s delve into the weird world of victim shaming.

victim shaming

What the Left believes it means – bringing up a victim’s past as a means to discredit him or her

What it really means – scumbags looking for a way out of taking responsibility for being scumbags

Sexual assault is a touchy enough subject when it comes to the victims. Anything at call could trigger memories of the assault, which can lead to psychological issues. Now, imagine remembering those events and having people not believe you because others have started throwing more mud at you than if you were standing behind a monster truck during a rally.

That’s victim shaming in a nutshell.

Normally, the Left is against victim shaming, mainly because it runs counter to their ideological beliefs. After all, the Left claims to be pro-woman, and any attempts to question a woman who is claiming to be a victim of sexual assault or sexual harassment are considered to be sexist. Even if the accusations themselves are flimsier than a balsa wood couch at Michael Moore’s house. Normally, that’s enough to turn back anybody who questions the word of the victim.

Then, there are the victims that don’t fit the Left’s ideological box. To them, the Left has zero sympathy. They might as well be nymphomaniacs wearing clothes from the Nikki Minaj Collection. These are the people who must be shamed by the Left as a means to protect the ideology and/or those who subscribe to it.

Like Leeann Tweeden.

As horrible as her victim shaming is, she’s not the only one. Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, Gennifer Flowers, and many, many more women have been on the receiving end of Leftist victim shaming, and no one within Leftist ranks dared to stand up for them for 20 or more years. Now, some are starting to reconsider their previous positions (at least in Broderick’s case) and voicing their displeasure at Bill Clinton for his sexual assaults.

But Tweeden? Not so much.

There are a couple of lines of thought that might explain it, but the simplest is because Bill Clinton is old news and Al Franken still has some use left to the Left. In that case, Tweeden and any other woman who comes forward to accuse Franken of sexual assault or harassment will be put under the microscope for anything that could sully their reputations and make them non-believable.

Now, some of you may be asking where the feminists are in this situation. After all, aren’t they the ones who scream the loudest whenever a woman is victim shamed? Well, their defense is as spotty as Wifi in Amish country because it is also based on ideology over consistency. As we saw with Bill Clinton, feminists place “women’s rights” (i.e. abortion) above anything else, so anyone who threatens it, male or female, gets heaped with scorn.

Of course, this lead to feminists being distrusted by women because they saw the blatant hypocrisy, but hey. Let’s just say Tweeden et al shouldn’t be waiting by the phone for modern feminists to call them because…reasons.

With friends like these, women don’t need enemies.

The whole concept of victim shaming revolves around intent. If someone is being questioned because a story doesn’t add up, that’s not victim shaming. If it’s being done for anything other reason, it most likely is. Guess what, Leftists? You are victim shaming Leeann Tweeden, either directly with your words, or indirectly with your silence. And all to protect Al Franken.

If that doesn’t prove the Left is dumber than a bag of hammers, nothing does.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

The news out of Hollywood these days reads like an Anthony Weiner fanfic. Celebrities, producers, and directors are being slapped with accusations of sexual misconduct at a rate that boggles the mind, but keeps tabloids and their online contemporaries very happy.

Now, what does any of this have to do with politics, you might ask. The answer can be found in three little words: listen and believe. The judges would have also accepted “bat shit crazy.” To give a bit of context, modern feminists developed the concept of listen and believe as a means to help women come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against men. With the current situation in Hollywood, however, it may not be a good time for feminists to mention it.

Which means it’s the perfect time for us to talk about it.

listen and believe

What the Left believes it means – taking a woman’s allegations of rape, sexual assault, and sexual misconduct seriously by paying attention and accepting what she says as true

What it really means – Screw due process! The allegation is more important than the facts!

As serious as allegations of sexual assault/misconduct and rape are, it should be common sense to take our time and sift through the evidence to verify the validity of the allegations. Unfortunately, the Left isn’t on speaking terms with common sense these days. Hence, listen and believe.

On the surface, it’s easy to grasp the need to listen to sexual assault victims. These men and women are fragile and may be frightened out of their minds at the prospect of having to open up to anyone about what amounts to the worst possible violation of one’s self. It’s important we do listen. But believing them without a second thought? That’s a little dangerous in today’s society where lying is acceptable to more and more people and narcissism is at an all time high.

And there is no better way to get positive attention for yourself than to be a victim, or pretend to be one.

That’s where listen and believe comes into play. It feeds into a person’s ego to not just be heard, but to automatically be seen as credible without having to go through the efforts to build credibility. After all, there’s Tweeting about celebrities to do, and that’s soooooo much more important than the truth!

That brings us back around to Hollyweird. The Left has it on lockdown, and it is safe to say they would agree with the concept of listen and believe as a means to fight the patriarchy or some such. Ah, but now…well, let’s just say there might be a few more Leftists who are rethinking whether it’s a good idea to be believed merely by making an allegation. It might lead to the need for a SuperMax prison in Beverly Hills otherwise.

Wait. If accusations would be enough to get someone thrown in jail, I could prevent Michael Bay from ever making another movie! And wouldn’t that be a win-win for everyone?

Seriously, the current situation in Hollywood reveals the main problem with listen and believe: it seems to be ideologically driven. The end goal of modern feminists isn’t equality, as they claim ad nauseum. Their end goal is the marginalization of men, even men who support modern feminism, and listen and believe helps bring about that end goal. If all you need to do to make men look like Bill Clinton on Spanish Fly and Viagra is to get enough people to believe it by playing on their emotions, modern feminists will jump at that chance every single time.

Except when it comes to powerful allies like…oh, I don’t know…Hollywood big wigs. Modern feminists beat the drum of an epidemic of campus rape more than Neil Peart during a solo, but not many have come forward to denounce the Hollywood Left when there’s more actual evidence of sexual misconduct there than there is on college campuses today.

Waiting for modern feminists to be vocal and consistent on a matter like this is like waiting for Hillary Clinton to blame herself for her 2016 Presidential loss. It may happen, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

In the meantime, we can put our time to good use by insisting on following the rule of law instead of the rule of an emotional mob. Once anyone is accused of sexual assault/misconduct, there is often irreparable damage to that person’s reputation, so it’s vital we get the facts right the first time. When we deviate from that standard, it doesn’t end well.

Just ask Rolling Stone.

Share This:

A Star Trek Discovery Review

 
image_pdfimage_print

I have been watching the latest Star Trek series. Star Trek: Discovery. The storytelling and plot are fantastic thus far. But like the reboot movies it has a lot of continuity issues.

The Discovery takes place some 10 years before Captain James T. Kirk conducts his famous 5 year mission on the Enterprise. So I watch for things that should not be in that time period of known Star Trek history.

First off there is the use of the arrow head emblem for all of Star Fleet. This is incorrect. The arrow head emblem did not become the symbol of Star Fleet until after Captain Kirk returned from his historic 5 year mission. Prior to that event every ship in Star Fleet had it’s own symbol. The arrow head was the symbol of the U.S.S. Enterprise only.

The technology seems to improve by going back in time of Star Trek’s history. They have holographic displays and consoles. This tech is even better that the tech of the Enterprise in The Next Generation under the command of Captain Jean-Luc Picard.

The Discovery even has a small holodeck for combat training. Something that wasn’t invented until the 24th century in The Next Generation, and then it was rather new and a questionable technology. It is flawless on the Discovery.

Everyone seems to use holographic communications as well. The Federation aboard Star Fleet vessels and even the Klingons themselves. No more putting the incoming communication “on screen”. There is a 3 dimensional person to walk around and interact with while communicating, although not a physical interaction like a holodeck. This is a technology never before demonstrated in the history of Star Trek. However it is a direct rip-off (or flattery) of the HoloNet communications from Star Wars used by the Republic, the Empire, and Rebels alike for 1,000’s of years.

I do like the new look of the Imperial Kingons. However in proper Star Trek canon the very existence of these Klingons from deep within the Klingon Empire were not known to the Federation until the V’ger incident. The Klingons were well versed in the science of genetic engineering, something that the Federation banned, and they created the Klingon/Human fusions that we saw in the original series.

We also have the Discovery’s spore drive. This is basically a kind of hyperdrive or jumpdrive. Ripped-off (or more flattery) from Star Wars and/or the reimaged Battlestar Galactica. Apparently this technology was either lost in the war against the Klingons or banned afterwards due to the biological component needed to make it work properly.

At the time of this writing we have yet to see the Romulans in this incarnation of Star Trek. But we shouldn’t see them either. Star Trek history tells us that Earth and the Romulans had a war about 90 to 100 years prior to the Discovery time period. As it had been 100 years since the Romulan war when Kirk and crew encounter them in the “Balance of Terror” episode of the original series. And at that point no one knew what a Romulan looked like either. Time will tell if this canon of Star Trek gets violated by the Discovery as it was already violated by the movie reboot.

It does seem to me that there is a continuity between the Star Trek Enterprise series, the movie reboots, and the Discovery series. However this continuity breaks down greatly when compared to the original series, the Next Generation, DS9, and Voyager series.

Within the Star Trek universe this can be explained easily as an alternate timestream or a parallel universe. If it is an alternative timestream, we have yet to see the Federation Time Fleet of the future come in and correct the errors that have been made. If is just a parallel universe then there is nothing to correct and it can be accepted as such.

But overall Star Trek Discovery is a good show and worth watching despite the multiple continuity errors as seen from the eyes of an old generation Trekker. Looking forward to the season finale and next season.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

Last week, the Left were giddy with anticipation with the news special counsel Robert Mueller was going to announce indictments in relation to his investigation into whether Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians. And with the indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, the Left were happier than Bill Clinton at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch while Hillary is on her book tour. They even have a term for Mueller’s investigation: Mueller Time. They’ve even printed t-shirts with the slogan, so you know they’re serious.

Of course, the enthusiasm has dulled somewhat now that it’s come out the scope of the investigation into Manafort’s involvement with Russia was when he was working…with the Democratic National Committee. But just you wait! Mueller is going to reveal the collusion between Trump and Russia just like Scooby and the Mystery Machine gang!

Meanwhile, let’s talk about “Mueller Time” for a bit.

Mueller Time

What the Left believes it means – a federal investigation into whether Donald Trump conspired with Russia to win the 2016 election

What it really means – spending federal money on an investigation that has zero basis in fact

I know it’s shocking to think a federal government that spent money on a bridge to nowhere, a money pit in Boston, and stealth bombers that don’t exist would waste money on an investigation that would make Don Quixote tell you to cool it with the cray-cray, but it’s true. The whole basis of the Mueller investigation is a poorly-sourced assumption driven by fever-pitch partisanship in the hopes of finding something, anything that can be tied back to the President in the hopes the 2016 election can be nullified and Hillary Clinton can be installed as President.

Meanwhile in the real world, some of us are shaking our heads and/or laughing said heads off at the sight of Leftists clinging to their anti-Trump fantasies in light of factual information.

Let me be perfectly clear here. I believe Russia may have had an impact on the 2016 election, but as of this writing, the credible impact appears on the Left not the Right. Of the two major party candidates, only Hillary Clinton received direct money from Russia in the form of a donation to the Clinton Global Initiative from Ukraine. Although it wasn’t a direct donation to her campaign, it is still a financial contribution to Hillary Clinton through a layer of plausible deniability via bureaucracy.

Of course, there are other ways Russia could have impacted our election, such as through Facebook ads and other propaganda purchased by Russians. One tiny problem: Mueller Time isn’t going into that depth, at least not yet. Even if they paid for agitprop, so what? It’s not like every voter is spoon-fed information from partisan sources. That’s strictly a Leftist thing. Besides, if we really want to go down that rabbit hole, we would have to go after just about every major media outlet for colluding with Hillary’s campaign by giving her mostly softball questions no tougher than “Where would you like us to kiss your butt today, Madame President?”

Which brings us back to Mueller Time. The investigation may open up far more than the Left wants us to know, such as…oh, I don’t know…the Clinton campaign having more actual hands-on contact with the Russians than the Trump campaign. That would explain why the Left’s argument regarding the Trump dossier went from “We need to find out everything in the dossier” to “We don’t need to know who paid for it, just whether it’s accurate.” And even that doesn’t get the Left out of the woods. If Mueller’s investigation proves the Left was in Vladimir Putin’s back pocket so much Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has permanent stitch marks on her butt, the narrative will switch to “This subject is boring. Let’s focus on Trump’s connections to Russia!”

In any case, the Mueller investigation will continue on with or without my support (but will continue with my money) and we will be in for…well, something that will be more disappointing than a striptease from Lena Dunham. Whatever happens, the Left will try to put on a brave face and spin every little indiscretion into a major scandal, but for those of us on the outside of the Leftist bubble, it will be like opening the biggest package under the Christmas tree and finding it full of the ugliest sweaters, socks, and underwear.

But for you Leftists out there hoping Mueller Time will get you into the White House, you’d be better off joining a tour group.

Share This:

Endangered Swamp RINOs

 
image_pdfimage_print

I for one am very thankful that Donald Trump won the election of 2016. And it’s not because I voted for him since the Iowa Caucus or that I am some sort of Trump fanatic or “cultist” either.

The President isn’t a regular politician. And like any man he does have his faults. I do not agree with everything he had done as President either. And I know he isn’t a Conservative.

But President Donald Trump does have common sense and many Conservative values are rooted in common sense. His Presidency shines a light into the heart of the dark swamp that is Washington D.C. and Establishment politics of both Republicans and the Democrats.

Had Hillary Clinton won in November of 2016, even with a Republican win in the US House and US Senate, we would have seen more of the same that we saw in the previous 8 years under President Obama.

The House and Senate would have passed the complete repeal of ObamaCare only to have it vetoed by President Clinton. Likewise they would have passed immigration reform and all the other changes they are now dragging their feet on. However, they would have approved President Clinton’s cabinet and appointees in record time.

We the People, would have cheered the actions of Congress. For moving swiftly with the change of power in the White House and for passing the legislation that would benefit the majority of the nation. And we would be duped into thinking and believing that Congress was the vanguard protecting us from Liberalism. That would be the world if Hillary Clinton had won.

Without President Donald Trump, those so-called “neverTrump Conservatives” would have fooled us into believing that they are Conservatives. But thanks to the light being shown on them from the President. We see that they are only RINOs (Republicans In Name Only.) And a year from now in the mid-term elections. We will send the majority of them packing their bags.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

Remember when the Left was obsessed with President Donald Trump’s connections to Russia waaaaaay back a whole week or so ago? Well, this past week has blunted that enthusiasm now that there are alleged connections between Russia and the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Now, they want us to ignore their possible crimes to focus on the crimes they’ve alleged President committed.

What is at the core of both of these situations? Leftist double standards, for one, but I’m referring to Russia. The Left’s relationship with Russia makes Sybil look well-adjusted. One day, they’re our ally and we can trust them when they have information that hurts Donald Trump. The next day, they’re our enemy and we can’t trust them to tell the truth when they have information that hurts them. Complicate is hardly the word for this kind of Jeckyl and Hyde relationship.

Let’s take a closer look at the elephant, or bear in this case, in the room.

Russia

What the Left thinks it means – a country that has aided Donald Trump in stealing the 2016 election and is, therefore, our enemy. Also, a country that wasn’t our enemy when Barack Obama was President.

What it really means – our worst frienemy

There was a time when the Left looked up to the Russians. Usually, it was when the Russians were communists, but that admiration never quite went away. Now, the Left tries to relive the wonder years of the former Soviet Union while making tons of money in the pursuit of it.

Let that sink in for a moment.

On the other side of the aisle, the Right adopted Ronald Reagan’s approach of “trust, but verify.” For a while in the mid 80s and early 90s, the US and Russia had a burgeoning relationship, but that changed when hardcore communists hung around and kept just enough power to remain relevant. Then came the rise of Vladimir “Rudy” Putin. A former KGB member, Putin didn’t want the former Soviet Union to die out completely and adopted many of the same draconian ideas that were popular in the Soviet Union. (Oddly enough, college Leftists are adopting those same ideas today.) As a result, the Right went back to not trusting Russia.

This conflict of approaches came to a head during a 2012 Presidential debate between Republican Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama. While Romney warned people of the threat Russia posed, Obama brushed it off with a comment about the 80s wanting their foreign policy back. Good times. Of course, that was before the Left lost the 2016 election while collaborating with the Russians, so naturally the Russians are bad guys now, right?

Well, actually, they are, but unlike the Left, my distrust of Russia isn’t situational nor political. Call it my Cold War Spidey Sense, but whenever you have a former member of the KGB heading up a former enemy turned fairweather friend, it tends not to end well. And unfortunately our foreign policy has been slow to pick up on this. Then again, when you’ve had Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, two of the most ineffective and unintelligent Secretaries of State in recent memory, heading up foreign policy, I’m amazed Russia hasn’t already taken over the country. (Note to the Leftists who think this has already happened, respond to this column so I can send you money to buy a clue.)

Meanwhile, we still have the Russian threat to address, and they have friends. I’m speaking of China, another geopolitical thorn in our side. China and Russia haven’t always gotten along, but in recent years they’ve found a common enemy in America. Let’s just say these two countries wouldn’t be too heartbroken if we got knocked down a peg or 20, and both countries have a means to do just that with enough provocation. China owns a lot of our debt, and Russia has a significant oil reserve. Combine those two, and you have the makings of an America economic disaster that would make the mortgage crisis of 2008 look like you lost a nickel down a sewer grate.

And it’s not like this is a new phenomenon, either. Russia and China have been getting chummy for a few years now, including when a certain President mocked Mitt Romney’s prescient warning as being an outdated concept. Yeah, now the party of that President now thinks Russia is a bad guy because they believe (falsely) Russia cost their 2016 candidate the Presidency. (Yeah, it totally has nothing to do with the fact she was unlikable, inept, and couldn’t seem to find Wisconsin on a map…of Wisconsin.) Now that their own connections to Russia are coming to light, the Left isn’t so keen on digging into the situation further, but they are totally on board with continuing the investigation into the Trump-Russia connection to the point Don Quixote is telling them to seek help.

And while all of this political theater is going on, Russia is biding its time, waiting for the moment when they can drop the hammer. And possibly the sickle, too.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

Did you know you’re oppressed? Oh, you may not think you are, but you totally are! At least, that’s what the Left wants you to believe. Yep, in one of the most affluent and relatively freest countries in the world, you are literally under the thumb of The Man.

Meanwhile in the real world, we live in a world where the most oppression most of us face is having to wait for the microwave to reheat our food. Maybe the Left has a very liberal (pardon the pun) definition of oppression.

So, let’s take a look at it.

oppression

What the Left thinks it means – a systematic attack on minorities and people without power by people with power, usually white men

What it really means – something we here in America really don’t experience as often as the Left wants us to believe

In the grand scheme of things, everyone goes through hardships, ranging from family issues to being seen in a Justin Bieber shirt during Sturgis. What separates hardships from oppression is who is causing the hardships. If you can point to an actual person who is devoting his/her life to making your life crap, you might be oppressed. If you can’t, you might be overstating your problems and creating a Boogeyman with less substance than a Paris Hilton novel. Or a Paris Hilton Post-It-Note, for that matter.

One of the cornerstones of Leftist ideology is everyone is a victim, except if you’re a straight white male. And if you don’t see it, it’s because you’ve “internalized” the oppression and, thus, are used to it. In other words, if you don’t see what oppression the Left says you’re experiencing, you’re dumb.

And the Left wonders why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 Presidential election using that same line of thinking…

The key to this approach is getting potential victims to believe they’re being oppressed. For most people, that’s hard to do, but for those who lean Left or who have been filled with Leftist dogma for years (thanks, public education system), it’s much easier. I can speak directly to this, being a recovering Leftist.

When you’re a Leftist, you are lead to believe everything sucks, but it’s not your fault. In order to maintain both illusions, Leftists create faceless villains, dark conspiracies, and more enabling than a bad AA sponsor. It’s easy to believe in the existence of a smoke-filled room where the richest 1% plot to screw over the 99% as much as possible so they can make as much money and maintain as much power as possible. If you don’t think I’m right, just listen to any Bernie Sanders supporter discussing economics.

An additional factor that makes the oppression game so successful is youth. When you’re young, your mindset can be molded by those who you trust. That’s why it’s important to understand who is influencing your children. When you pump a young person’s mind from an early age to value fairness (at least as the Left defines it), tell them the world isn’t fair, and offer a solution in the form of a Leftist squawking point, you have a ready-made believer in oppression. (And to think these folks are going to be tomorrow’s leaders. Yay?)

Of course, there’s one big problem with the oppression mindset: we aren’t being oppressed in any real way. What the Left calls oppression, most people call First World Problems. Two gay people can’t get married? That’s not oppression; that’s a missed opportunity for folks in the wedding industry. The gap between the rich and poor too wide for your tastes? That’s not oppression, either. That’s an opportunity to look further into economic trends to see whether the gap is because of people going up or down financially. You know what is oppression? Being female and/or gay in Islamic fundamentalist countries, being intellectually curious in China, and being poor in North Korea, just to name three examples off the top of my heads. Compared to these three examples, the “oppression” the Left sees everywhere is waiting in line at Starbucks behind one other person who knows exactly what he/she wants.

As pervasive as the Left’s approach is, it’s not unbeatable. It’s important to remember we can simultaneously believe we aren’t oppressed and we can still make things better for everyone. Oh, and that Leftist solutions are as useful as IT security advice from Debbie Wasserman Schultz. When you really think about it, we are living in a pretty free country that is also surprisingly free from oppression. Of course, the ones who tend to find oppression under every rock also tend to be the ones who want to add more government regulations, which tend to make things more…oppressive.

Funny how that works out, isn’t it?

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

Once upon a time, Americans could be counted upon to be knowledgeable about our system of government and all the ins and outs of it. Today, you’re more likely to find someone who knows all of the winners of “American Idol” than who can name at least 3 Supreme Court Justices, living or otherwise.

What happened? I blame disco.

Actually, I blame the loss of attention to civics (although I’m not convinced disco didn’t have a hand in it, what with its boogie oogie oogieing and such). Sometime in my lifetime, people stopped caring about our government, which has given rise to a lot of misinformation about the way the government works, or doesn’t work as the case may be. And, as you might guess, the Left benefits from this ignorance in many ways.

So, let’s take a look at the c-word, shall we?

civics

What the Left believes it means – knowledge of our government and its role in our society

What it really means – knowledge of our government and what it’s allowed to do

To see a real-life example of the problem I’m talking about, check out this tweet from Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut.

Important: if Trump stops paying insurers, rates for EVERYBODY go up – not just for people on ACA exchange plans. Get ready, America!

To hear the good…ish Senator tell it, President Donald Trump is going to be kicking old ladies, invalids, and children off their health insurance in the middle of Siberia during the coldest winter season ever. One tiny problem there, Chris: The President doesn’t allocate money. That’s Congress’ job. You know, Congress, that legislative body of which you are a member? And let’s not forget the fact Congress didn’t approve appropriations for these insurance plans, thus they might have been going away faster than the audience at a Yoko Ono concert. Fortunately, some people who understand civics tweeted the truth to him. Unfortunately, too many people bought into the Senator’s tweet without question.

Oh, and did I mention Senator Murphy is a Democrat?

I’m not saying all Democrats are clueless about civics, but let’s just say there are more Democrats who wouldn’t pass a citizenship test than there are who would, even if they were allowed to cheat off the papers of foreigners wanting to become US citizens. Therein lies the crux of the problem: caring enough about America to learn about its system of government. The Left loves America so much it wants to reform it into a more perfect union…under Leftist ideology. And with Leftists like Senator Murphy at the helm, there’s no way it could wind up badly, right?

Yeah. The captains of the Titanic, the Hindenburg, and the Exxon Valdez would like a word with you, Senator.

The Left has a healthy disdain for civics because it establishes we are a nation of laws, meaning American citizens have recourse against individuals and/or the government should there be a beach of law. These laws also establish a process that needs to be followed to address situations, change existing laws, or generally get things done. In other words, civics teaches us the rules of the game. As we’ve seen within the past, oh, year or so, the Left isn’t big on the rules. They think if a rule is unfair (even one agreed upon before the game/election started), it should immediately be nullified and their preferred result be accepted. Put another way, the Left believes we should be a nation of whims instead of law. That would be like letting a seven-year-old have a no-limit credit card and releasing him or her in a toy store.

Or, like Congress right now.

The thing to remember when dealing with Leftists and their ignorance of civics is they will make up any reasoning they need to in order to advance their ideas. Take the nonsense with the 25th Amendment, for example. The Left keeps bringing it up as an option to remove President Trump and demanding Republicans and the Trump Cabinet act on it to put the country before the GOP. Although the Left sounds intelligent on this subject, they aren’t. In order for their whims to be made real, it would require a majority of Trump’s Cabinet to send something to Congress in writing stating President Trump was unfit to serve. That would mean the Left would be using the rule of law to force the rule of whims, all under the guise of loving the country and the process.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Left’s push for the 25th Amendment being invoked is the definition of putting party above country, not the reverse, and it shows their contempt for civics as a whole. Whether it’s their support of Black Lives Matter (especially the ones who want to kill police officers) or their belief impeaching Donald Trump would automatically install Hillary Clinton as President, I can’t believe it’s ignorance at this point. They simply do not care about the way things are done, nor are they interested in the process to change the way things are done. The Left prefers to undermine the country and the rule of law through open contempt and subtle propaganda than to play by the rules as written. And let’s not forget, it wasn’t that long ago that Democrats had control of Congress and the White House, but they didn’t bother to try to change the rules. They decided to act on their whims, which gave us Obamacare, and I think we know how poorly that worked out, right?

The way to combat this is to bone up on your civics and share your knowledge. You won’t be able to convince the Senator Murphys of the world, but you may be able to convince people who are on the fence. These are the people who are key to making civics cool again, or at least cooler than it is now. Then, it will be harder for the Senate Murphys of the world to pretend they know what they’re doing because there will more and more people calling them out on their distortions.

Share This:

The Producer Has No Clothes

 
image_pdfimage_print

To say Harvey Weinstein has had a bad week would be an understatement of epic proportions. For those of you with lives outside of Hollyweird, Weinstein has been accused of the sexual assault of several women over the past 20-30 years, some of those women being high profile Hollywood heavy hitters. At first, these celebrities were hesitant to say anything, but once Weinstein came forward to confirm the allegations, the floodgates opened.

If this were just a Hollywood story, I would be ignoring it like, well, most of what Hollywood puts out these days, but as you might expect, there is a political element. Seems Mr. Weinstein was a big donor in Democrat circles, including a certain 2016 candidate who said women were to be believed. Wonder what happened to her…

And if you thought Hollywood acted slowly to condemn Weinstein, the Left makes Hollywood look like The Flash on a million triple espressos. Or three million single espressos. Either way, the Left finds itself in an odd situation: denounce a major donor, or let the self-professed “Party of Women” look like hypocrites. Granted, the Left has no problem with looking like hypocrites, but this one might be a bridge too far for them.

I have been keeping track of the Twitterverse, because I have no real life, and the Left seems to be content circling the wagons and attacking anyone who dares to speak out against Weinstein and the Left’s inertia on dealing with the political fallout. Their favorite response seems to be “But Trump.” Well, I hate to break it to you, but the two situations aren’t comparable. Trump’s statements on tape were just that: statements. It has not been established he has acted upon those sentiments. Weinstein, on the other hand, did act, which nullifies any comparisons to Trump, no matter how much you wish Trump had committed sexual assault.

Okay, I have to admit something. I lied. I totally loved breaking it to you.

This is an opportunity for Democrats to reassess their position on women and sexual assault. It’s fine to say victims should be believed, but when you know someone in your ranks treats women like Ike treated Tina, your silence doesn’t help the situation. And if what I’ve seen and heard is to be believed, there are a lot of Democrats and Leftists who knew about Weinstein and did nothing until it was “safe” to do so. Great moral courage there, kids. Tell us again how Donald Trump is a bad guy because he said something sexist.

When you put your ideals aside in favor of campaign cash, you’re a sell out. And when you decide money is more important than protecting victims of sexual assault, you are enabling the abusers with your silence.

Let’s get one thing crystal clear here, folks. A “Party of Women”, self-professed or otherwise, has an obligation to talk the talk and walk the walk. Right now, Lt. Dan is doing more walking than you on the Left is. It is inexcusable you Leftists even have to question the right thing to do in this situation, especially considering you let another sexual predator, Bill Clinton, off the hook. And Slick Willie isn’t the only one. Remember Ted Kennedy? Eliot Spitzer? Anthony Weiner? Yeah, you might want to hold off on the “Party of Women” talk until you figure out how to condemn the deviants on your side of the aisle.

As far as Weinstein is concerned, he is a scumbag and deserves far more than he’s bound to get, either from the courts, his peers in Hollywood, or his pals in Washington, DC. This isn’t a time when we can pick a partisan side and defend it. If we don’t condemn predators on the Left and the Right, the cycle of sexual victimhood will continue, grinding even more unfortunate women and men under its weight.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

 
image_pdfimage_print

This past week we saw another mass shooting, this one in Las Vegas. As of the date of this writing, 59 people died and over 500 people were injured. As a result, the Left in its infinite opportunism has renewed a push for stronger gun control laws because, let’s face it, the laws we already have on the books have been so effective.

For any Leftists reading this, that was sarcasm.

What has stopped Leftists from enacting more (and most likely ineffective and/or duplicate) gun laws? Why, it’s the gun lobby, that secret cabal that includes the National Rifle Association, Congressional Republicans, gun manufacturers, and the New England Patriots. (Actually, I’m not sure about that last one, but I figured I’d throw it in there since people seem to hate the Patriots.) If you believe the Left, the gun lobby makes it impossible to pass common sense gun laws like…well, they haven’t told us yet, but they totally know! Let’s peer behind the curtain and see just how evil the gun lobby is.

gun lobby

What the Left believes it means – an organized group of politicians, lobbyists, gun manufacturers, and other conservatives who put profit above human life

What it actually means – people who think the Second Amendment is worth preserving

The Second Amendment is one of the most misinterpreted concepts in the Constitution, but it doesn’t have to be. The short version is this: people who want them can have guns. That’s it.

Of course, if you believe that, you’re part of the evil gun lobby. Then again, just about anything short of being to the left of Nancy Pelosi could make you a part of the gun lobby because it’s not about whether you’re John Wayne or Wayne Newton when it comes to guns. It’s more about finding a way to demonize opponents as a means to make the Left look sensible by comparison. As a matter of fact, “sensible” is one of their favorite buzzwords along with “common sense.” After all, when you paint your opponents as Yosemite Sam on crack, anything you suggest is going to look better by comparison.

Of course, it’s all for show.

Just like with the Left’s attacks on Wall Street, the mortgage banks, pharmaceutical companies, and any number of Boogeymen-du-joirs, they need to dehumanize their opposition by making them generic and, thus, indistinguishable from one another. Dana Loesch and I both support gun ownership, but we’re vastly different people. For example, she’s attractive, well-known, well-off, and a TV and radio show host, while I’m…none of those things, but I do have a good set of gams. Yet, the Left considers Mrs. Loesch and me to be indistinguishable. (And she would really get the short end of the stick on that deal.) But, by making us uniform, the Left makes it easier to dismiss a wider swath of Second Amendment supporters.

Of course, it doesn’t make their arguments any better.

By creating the myth of an all-powerful gun lobby, the Left seeks to cover up its own incompetence. After all, what better way to explain the Left’s failure to enact gun control laws they want (and actually had the ability to pass under President Barack Obama) than to suggest there’s a conspiracy that is preventing them from doing it? It may keep money coming into their coffers, but it speaks volumes about how ineffective their pushes have been. Or, perhaps, it speaks volumes about how far they’re willing to go to hamstring actual reform to keep the money coming in. After all, Leftists aren’t really in the problem solving business because once a problem is solved, the money and power that can be derived from the problem go away faster than Colin Kaepernick’s employment opportunities in the NFL. So, to cover up their agenda, the Left make emotional appeals combined with poll numbers sketchier than a book of doodles by Steve Buschemi.

Compare that to the people lumped together as the “gun lobby.” Some are shady players because we’re dealing with politics here, but most are average Americans like you and me whose only goal is to preserve the Second Amendment. We really have nothing to gain by advancing false narratives or giving silent or vocal support for the bad players on our side. We’re not paid by the NRA or Smith and Wesson or the Koch Brothers for taking the stand we do…although I wouldn’t object to a little bit of scratch for my support of the Second Amendment. Just sayin’.

Now, here’s a little tidbit of information the Left doesn’t want you to know. With the recent mass shootings being blamed on the “gun lobby,” how many were actually committed by people the Left considers to be part of it? Ten? Twenty? Thirty? The correct answer is a grand total of a whopping…zero. Zilch. Nada. Goose egg. The big bagel. The number of times Hillary Clinton has accepted responsibility for her 2016 campaign disaster.

Now, what do the mass shooters have in common, aside from using firearms to cause chaos? Most, if not all, of them either passed the background checks or, in the case of those like Adam Lanza, circumvented the background check process by stealing the guns used. Now, who keeps pushing background checks as a good first step towards gun control? Who could it possibly be?

Hint: It’s the people who want you to believe the gun lobby wants kids to die because guns.

When you boil it down, the Left needs to create a negative image of Second Amendment supporters as part of an evil cabal so they can present themselves as knights in shining armor. But to advance that idea requires them to lie, distort, and play on people’s emotions rather than, you know, actually living up to their self-branding, which puts them in a bind when someone or a group of someones stands up to the knights and reveals them to be bullies in whining armor. When picking sides in this debate over gun rights, remember there is one side who treats you like an adult and one side who thinks you aren’t responsible enough to own a spoon, let alone a gun. But only one side thinks you’re conspiring against them without proof of such.

If I have to be in a group of people, I’ll stand with the “gun lobby.” Not only will they respect my right to own or not own a gun, but they’re armed.

Share This: