Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

In case you missed it, this past Wednesday was International Pronouns Day. Yes, from the ideology that brought you Kwanzaa, we just had a holiday to celebrate our pronouns. Of course, the US Postal Service didn’t take it off, so I’m not sure we can officially consider it a holiday.

And what exactly are our pronouns? That depends. The Left has created the idea that the masculine and feminine pronouns are just too darn restrictive. After all, if there are 3,568,108,125,156,038 genders (as of this minute, but by the end of this sentence that number may have gone higher than Michael Moore’s blood pressure), there needs to be more pronouns. Now, thanks to those bastions of higher-level thought the ACLU, Dictionary.com, and the Human Rights Campaign, we have a day to try to figure out what in the hell Leftists want to be called.

In celebration of International Pronouns Day, let’s make fun of preferred pronouns and have cake! And I’m all out of cake.

preferred pronouns

What the Left thinks it means –  a way for people to be called what they prefer to be called in the name of diversity and inclusion

What it really means – Leftists mucking up the language with garbage

Leftists will do almost anything to appear diverse, including creating a list of pronouns that look like an alphabet soup factory exploded. And they’re even willing to punish you for not using them! Earlier this year, the University of Minnesota considered making it an offense worthy of expulsion or firing if someone didn’t use a person’s preferred pronouns after he or she made said pronouns known. Think about that for a moment. Not calling someone by preferred pronouns could get you thrown off campus in one fashion or another.

And what’s the likelihood that student or faculty member would wind up on an informal blacklist preventing him or her from future endeavors? I’d say about as likely as Snoop Dogg getting high on a day ending in, well, day.

This reminds me a lot of the political correctness movement of the early 1990s because it too focused on language and control. If you didn’t use the right hyphenated and overwrought term on any given week, you were ostracized and shamed, even if you were more PC than IBM the week before. Now, we’re dealing with people who apply the same draconian logic to pronouns.

At least the Left is committed to recycling, even if it’s bad ideas.

There are a number of problems with the whole preferred pronouns idea. First and foremost, it defies biology. A vast majority of people fall into one of two genders, male or female. No matter how you self-identify, chances are you’re one or the other. In those rare occasions when there is a question as to what gender a person is, then we should extend our courtesy and ask how he or she would like to be referred. (Personally, I prefer using his or her name as a means to circumvent the entire issue, but I’m just a weirdo.)

If you’re a rainbow-hued college coed who thinks she is a lesbian dragonkin who self-identifies as Rob Lowe…not so much.

This brings me to my second problem with preferred pronouns: it’s based on solely one person’s feelings. If a man or woman wants me to use the preferred pronoun zer (which is real, by the way), I think of two things. First, I want to add “and the Kodan Armada” after saying zyr because I happen to love “The Last Starfighter.” And second, what about my wants? What if I don’t want to call you zyr or zee or any other pronouns you could get by overturning a box of Scrabble tiles? To comply with the wishes of those who use preferred pronouns, the submission of other people’s wills becomes a necessity.

Ah, there’s the core of the issue for me: forced or coerced compliance. When the Left cannot persuade society to change by coming up with an actual argument, they resort to force, whether it be physical (I’m looking at you Antifa), metaphorical, peer pressure, or emotional manipulation. It’s these last two that are particularly nasty because of our psychological needs to be part of a group and to be seen as good people. By preying on these needs, the Left has created a no-win game. Either you accept the preferred pronouns, or you get called a racist/bigot/homophobe/misogynist/Trump Support/conservative hatemonger/the “other” name popular this week for people who disagree with a Leftist.

The best way to avoid the no-win game…is not to play. Treat everyone with the respect you would like to receive, and if it doesn’t come back to you, so be it. Look at it this way. There are people convinced they are something they aren’t. Succumbing to their demands makes you an enabler of their delusions and makes it harder for them to find their way back to reality. As with drug abusers, eventually there is a “coming to Jesus” moment when the preferred pronoun crowd needs to decide between the life they’re living and a life without the perceived safety of their current lives. Most may continue their zyring ways because Leftist ideology is a powerful drug, but some may turn away and find the world loves them more than they realize.

That is the central questions the preferred pronoun crowd needs to answer for themselves: do I want to be known by my pronouns or by me? The former may give you a temporary boost, but it will ultimately leave you feeling empty. The latter is the harder road, but it is the more fulfilling journey because you get to find out what you’re made of. Show me a pronoun that can change the world like a strong human being can. You can’t because pronouns are just words made up of letters that mean nothing in the grand scheme of the cosmos. It’s people who give words power, not the other way around.

Mental Illness

We have an epidemic of mental illness in the United States. It runs rampant through our communities an one is truly safe from it. Every walk of life is impacted. You probably know someone who is mentally ill.

This devastating mental illness destroys life and causes the afflicted to behave in a very irrational manner. Causing harm to themselves, to others, and to property a well.

Those afflicted cannot be reasoned with and are known to have explosive outburst in any setting or at any time. Their actions can be uncivil and sometimes quite violent.

These and more are the symptoms of the mental illness called liberalism.

Dr. Lyle Rossiter, a board-certified clinical psychologist from St. Charles IL, has diagnosed that today’s liberal ideology of the Left is a cleverly disguised form of the mental illness known as Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). He talks in detail about this in his book “The Liberal Mind” which you can find on Amazon.

The symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder and the Left are:
Expecting constant praise and admiration
Being jealous of others
Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
Setting unrealistic goals
A sense of entitlement
Trouble keeping healthy relationships

All of these can be seen in the proposed policies of the Left and the completely unhinged members of Congress, even more so after the 2016 election ended their 8 year reign of power.

This madness needs to stop. The Left needs to be stopped. Otherwise you are just promoting mental illness and those who really need professional help.

Foreign Invasion

There is a group of some 4000+ strong foreign nationals marching north through various Central American countries. And the leading edge of this force has reached the southern border of Mexico.

It has been alleged that many of these marchers have been paid in cash to do so. With the ultimate goal of reaching the United States. Who is paying them? Why are they paying them?

To move such a force of thousands takes a lot of logistics. They must eat and drink. They need rest and and provisioning. Who is providing these services? This is not an easy undertaking. Why are they being provisioned? These are all very serious questions. A task like this is not spontaneous. This is a planned movement.

The United Nations has rules for those seeking asylum. Which I doubt strongly is the reason for this march, despite the Leftist media’s reports to the contrary. It seems that the rules are ignored for Islamists and Latin American nationals. But the rule is simple. You may only seek asylum in a bordering state. Not travel across multiple nations. This rule of law should be enforced by all nations for all people who claim to be seeking asylum.

President Trump is doing the right thing. It is a good call to bring our military to our southern border to confront this force which is violating international law. Especially if these marchers reach our border and are not stopped before hand.

There is only one name to give a movement of foreign nationals who march upon an other country’s sovereign border.

This is an invasion force. It should be treated as such if it reaches our southern border. This is the perfect place to hide a massive force of Islamic or Leftist terrorists and invaders disguised as asylum seekers.

Mid-Terms

The 2018 mid-term elections are just around the corner. And a lot is at stake here. The future of our Republic and it’s communities. The future of the Presidency also hangs in the balance. And your future. My future. And the future of coming generations.

Across Social Media and news sites there is a solid theme by both of our 2 major political parties.

The Republican party talks about the future. Not just for themselves but for everyone. While the Democratic party talks about regaining power for themselves. And doing so at any cost, including violence against any opposition.

This is not your grandparents Democratic party. This is not the Democratic party of President John F. Kennedy. Today President Kennedy would be a Republican. Every time I hear his old speeches he sounds like a moderate, but very conservative leaning, Republican.

The Democratic party is a bait and switch party. Don’t fall for it. You are baited with emotions which should not be confused with facts. Emotions should not determine your voting choices.

President Trump has proven that a Republican can promise and deliver. Promises were made and those promises are being kept. This is the mark of a true leader and statesman. A politician just speaks where the wind blows. President Trump is changing the status quo for good.

So when you go to the polls. Remember who do you want to represent you?
Are you for power and violence against all opposition?
Or are you wanting the best for the future?

Keep the Electoral College

I posted this on my personal Facebook page due to the responses I got from the following picture that I shared:

The replies attacked the Republic thinking in the terrible error of our day that the US is a democracy and it is not. And that the Electoral Collage was created because of lack of technology to count the popular vote. Here is what I wrote and you can always check my personal Facebook page for the replies and other details.

—————–

The replies to this post just go to show how much the Left has taken over the education system in the country. The Electoral College had nothing to do with technology at the time or in the future from now. It all has to do with States Rights because the United States is a REPUBLIC and not a Democracy.

Even in the 18th Century there were urban centers which were far more populated that the rural areas of what would become the United States. The Electoral College was created, in part, to prevent urban centers from dictating to the rural areas of the country.

To say that the government couldn’t do a popular vote count back in the 18th century is totally false. It is a lie and one you need to stop believing. Voting is always counted at the precinct level. In my home county of Polk county Iowa we have at least 171 precincts with the current election maps. And there are 99 counties in the State of Iowa. That is a lot of precincts. The 18th century would only be counted slower than the 20th and 21st centuries. Everything else is exactly the same as it was then.

The popular votes are counted at the precincts who then give those numbers to the county who in turn give those numbers to the state talleys. And local to Federal level elections are decided by the vote count. Even after the 17th amendment removed the Senate from the various State legislatures appointment to a popular vote. I for one would like to see that amendment repealed and have that given back to the States.

Our founding fathers were perfectly capable of counting the popular vote for the presidency just as it was counted for the House and other statewide and local elections. They could probably count it better than we can today, especially if we were forced not to use computers.

For the Electoral College, each state gets several votes equal to the total number of Senators (representing the State) and Congressmen (representing the people). Remember, we have a REPUBLIC and this is how they work so it is a level playing field for everyone.

I can’t say how the Electoral College in primary only states are chosen. I don’t live in one and have never been part of that process. I live in a caucus state and generally participate in every 2 year caucus cycle. In the 2016 election I was nominated and ran to be a delegate at the Republican national convention. I also was nominated and ran to be a member of the Electoral College. I didn’t win either of those elections but I put my name out there for it. I have usually been a delegate to the county, district, and state conventions a number of times.

Most states have who ever wins the popular vote, that party gets to choose who is on the Electoral College to represent the state. Both parties (and even 3rd parties) choose their electors ahead of time at their conventions. Iowa has 6 Electoral College votes. 2 for our Senators, and 4 for the 4 Congressional districts. And since current Iowa law is that winner takes all. Donald Trump won the popular vote in Iowa so the Republican party had their Electoral College electors vote.

Here is the map of the 2016 election results, it is a clear Republican victory far more red and than blue.

Within the Electoral College there are 538 possible votes, only 270 are needed to win. Which is a very slim majority. In 2016 Trump got 306 and Clinton got 232. Clearly the winner was rightfully Donald Trump. But if we look go with the silly notion of dividing the electoral votes by the popular vote then no one would have been elected and there would have been an unprecedented 2nd election done.
As Clinton would have had 268 votes, Trump would have had 257 votes, Johnston would have gotten 12 votes, and McMullin 1 vote.

The New Doctor

I’ve started watching the newest season of Doctor Who. The BBC’s long running science-fiction program. And I have been a fan of this show for many decades.

Each time there is a new lead actor taking over the role started by the late William Hartnell I get a little nervous. Will I like this new Doctor and the personality the actor brings to this iconic role? Does the new actor make a convincing Time Lord? Are they the Doctor?

Throughout the program’s run since it started in 1963 there have been 13 actors, including John Hurt who was the “war Doctor”, and we are now starting with the 14th actor in the lead role. But since John Hurt’s incarnation didn’t go by the name “The Doctor” the newest actor is considered to be the 13th Doctor. There are a few little tid bits in you want to get technical about the Time Lord’s regenerations but we’ll just go with the 13th Doctor for the sake of this article.

But this 13th Doctor is special. We know from previous incarnations that the Time Lords gave the Doctor additional regenerations so that isn’t what makes this one special. That was the previous Doctor’s special call. What makes this incarnation unique is that the Doctor’s regeneration made him a her. The lead role has been passed on to a woman instead of the traditional male actor playing the enigmatic Time Lord.

It was previously established that regeneration of Time Lords could result in a change in gender. This happened to the Doctor’s Time Lord nemesis, The Master, who regenerated into Missy. It is not common but it is possible.

I am not against this idea. From what I have seen so far of Jodie Whittaker, the 13th Doctor, is The Doctor. She is everything I expect to see in the Doctor. Her run in the title role will be a good one. Time will tell if she makes it into the Top 3 joining the ranks of Tom Baker and David Tennant who are the two greatest actors to ever wear the mantel of Time Lord.

I look forward to following the adventure of Jodi Whittaker as she further embarks on this season and more of Doctor Who.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Back when I was growing up, things were a lot simpler. Men were men, women were men, and everybody was really confused. We understood the difference between truth and lies and learned honesty. Today, thanks to our friends on the Left, we no longer have a sense of truth…and it may even have a gender!

One of the favorite lines Leftists used to defend Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is that she told “her truth.” First off, how do we know the truth is female? And what if the truth self-identifies as male? Beyond the simple absurdity I’ve outlined, there is a more complex absurdity at work, one that will shake the foundation of the concept of truth.

her truth

What the Left thinks it means – when a woman includes her personal experiences and perceptions when recounting facts

What it really means – the Left’s attempt to make the truth subject to personal opinion

Imagine going through life knowing you could shape reality just by believing in a certain set of variables that you alone control and no one can ever question. Wouldn’t that be cool? Thanks to the Left, you can have that ability! All you have to do is…be a Leftist!

Yeah, still too high a price for that power.

The Left isn’t on speaking terms with the truth, as can be seen by reviewing their economic policies. But when it comes to matters like allegations of sexual assault, this disdain for the truth is no joking matter. When you bring in the concept of “her truth” in lieu of the truth, you’re creating an environment where men are guilty until proven guilty. I know Lady Justice is blindfolded, but damn!

But this, like many other Leftist schemes, is by design. By establishing the idea men and women have different concepts of truth, it creates a duality that coincides with…the Left’s belief there are two different types of justice: one for the powerful (in this case men) and one for the weak (in this case women). Which comes in direct conflict with the Left’s idea women are as strong and capable as men, but hey…

Where this duality becomes truly dangerous is in situations where young men are still developing and, thus, vulnerable to pressure. I’m looking at you, high schools and college campuses. While the former is not immune to sexual assault allegations, the latter has become Ground Zero in the gender wars, due in part to President Barack Obama’s interpretation of Title IX. If you thought the Star Chamber was unfair, college inquiries into sexual assault and rape allegations have more kangaroos than Australia. Imagine being 20 years old and having the prospect of your academic and occupational futures stripped from you without a chance to defend yourself, with or without an attorney. Compounding that is an institution that has no interest in what you have to say and believes every word your accuser says, regardless of whether is resembles the truth, and has pretty much convicted you before you can respond. Only the brave or the foolish would fight back.

And that’s what the Left is counting on.

For the Left to win, they need their opponents to put themselves into a no-win situation. With “her truth,” it combines the emotional appeal of wanting to protect women and the insistence not to judge others. If you doubt a woman’s account of a sexual assault, you are automatically assumed to hate women and/or pass judgment, which in turn makes you defensive most likely. So, either you accept “her truth” as the truth or you stay silent, which to the Left is no different than consent.

That’s why it’s important we don’t succumb to the concept of her truth. Last time I checked, women were human, too. And that comes with all of the baggage men have, including the ability and motivation to lie under certain circumstances. In other words, there is always a possibility her truth may be a lie.

That brings us back to the concept of the truth. No matter how we try to justify ourselves and our actions, the truth isn’t subject to our fee-fees. It is always grounded in facts and reality, as painful or uncomfortable as it may be. Pretending reality isn’t so doesn’t change it, and giving it a gender component doesn’t make it any less deceitful.

If it’s all the same, I’ll stick with the truth. Not her truth, not his truth, not his/her truth, not my truth. The truth.

Obama Family Revelations

I recently ran across a snippet of a CNN street interview of the late Joan Rivers. She was of course known for comedic style from the Tonight Show.

Joan was very outspoken in her Liberal Leftist political agenda, a huge backer of Obama’s bid to become President. And a friend of the LGBT communities.

In case there are any doubts to the content. I have linked the video below. And in case the Leftist controlled social media sites ever take it down. I have it downloaded and preserved.

Joan Rivers had become a minister in the Universal Life Church. She had recently conducted a same-sex “marriage” at a Barnes and Noble while promoting her last book. This is when the CNN reporter caught up with her and began to ask her questions.

One was if Ms Rivers was going to become a celebrity wedding minister as a carrier move. To which she replied that she doesn’t charge to do weddings. Another question was if Ms Rivers ever thought that the country would have a gay president.

Joan Rivers promptly answered that we already had a gay president in Obama. And further stated that his wife, Michelle, was actually a transgender. Born a man, but reassigned to be a female.

The media and other places that talk about this at all state that it’s just Joan Rivers comedic style to say something outlandish. But there are other sites and sources that state the same thing if one goes digging around for them. Especially during the height of 2012 re-election bid.

At the time they were dismissed as right-wing conspiracy theory nut jobs. But they should be revisited. And Michelle Obama should submit to an independent blood test.

A simple chromosomal pairing will prove or disprove the theory in an instant. She will either have an XX pair and be female or she wont.

Of course if this is true and if it was known, Barack Obama would have never been elected president in 2008 to begin with and never would have had a re-election in 2012.

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice

Lets look at abortion, this is going to be a big topic in the coming months as new pro-life laws are challenged in the Supreme Court. Especially since Justice Kavanaugh will be on the court to hear these cases.

I’m not going to go into the fact that the Court doesn’t Constitutionally have this power of review, since that is a topic for another post. And they think they do and We the People do nothing and let them have it.

The pro-choice side states that life begins when a baby is born. That a developing fetus is part of the mother and is just a mass of cells. No different from any others of her body. And that a woman can do anything with her own body and we, meaning the legislature I presume, cannot make any laws against what a woman can do with her own body.

If I don’t have that correct please let me know, politely, in the comments. As a reminder personal attacks in the comments will not be approved. And the user may be banned from this site in the future. Thank you.

The pro-life side states that life begins at conception. We do not equate the egg and sperm as a baby. They must unite in the spark of light for a baby to be conceived. Only the resulting union is a new life. The developing fetus in the mother’s womb is a separate individual. It is not a mass of cells any more than the mother herself is a mass of cells. Just the fetus cannot exist outside of the womb until it is fully developed.

It is a false argument to state that the legislature cannot make laws against what a woman, or a man for that matter, cannot do with their bodies. There are a multitude of such laws already in existence. It is illegal to be a prostitute. It is illegal to use the services of a prostitute. It is illegal to consume certain drugs before a specific age. It is illegal to consume certain drugs for any reason or condition. These are just the easy ones. Each of these restrict what a woman can do with her body. Where is the outrage?

Additionally we already have common law examples that a developing fetus is a separate human life. This is proven time and time again when a pregnant woman is murdered. The perpetrator is charged with TWO counts of murder. One for the mother. And one for the unborn child developing in her womb. If that developing fetus was just a mass of cells and part of the mother, there wouldn’t be two counts of murder, there would be only one charge and not two.

So here is where the pro-choice argument fails and shows that it is a matter of convenience and not a matter of truth. Because truth would show that either a developing fetus is either a mass of cells or it another human life. It cannot be both. Either the murderer is charged with 2 counts and abortion is a murder. Or the murderer is only charged with 1 count and abortion is just the removal of an unwanted cellular tissue mass, like cancer.

To be pro-choice is either grossly neive and confused. Or one is mentally ill or just purely wicked and evil.

An Unpopular Opinion

Now that the drama from the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh has died down (except on the Left), it’s time for me to finally weigh in.

I didn’t believe him completely. And I didn’t believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford completely.

Instead of following the circus…I mean hearing on television, I listened to it online, and it was an enlightening experience. For one, Senate egos translate quite well with just sound. And for another, you catch more. Little turns of a phrase, white lies, and other verbal cues you might not notice if you’re paying attention to the visual elements. What I found was Kavanaugh and Ford both avoided questions that were central to the other side’s case. To me, that signals they both had something to hide, which raised more red flags than the most violent soccer match ever.

When faced with a situation where there is no clear truth, I like to focus on other factors. What do the parties have to gain by being dishonest? Who seems to be hiding more? What kind of tree would they be if they had a choice? You know, the hard-hitting stuff! In the Kavanaugh-Ford situation, I saw a clear motivation from both sides to be dishonest. For Kavanaugh, it was the possibility of being a Supreme Court Justice. For Ford, it was what I call the “Anita Hill Package.” To date, Ford received over $1 million on a GoFundMe, the adoration of modern feminists, a rejuvenation of the failing #MeToo movement, and the most important thing: an automatic pass on any lies she told because she did it for the right cause. Both sides had something to gain and a lot to lose, so they hid or distorted details as needed.

What ultimately turned the tide for me wasn’t who benefited more, but what both sides were willing to let slide to win. For the Right, they risked losing the female vote for decades by throwing in their lot with Kavanaugh. This was a political risk, and one that had to be executed without much room for error. Secondary to this was the risk of appearing to be anti-woman (even moreso than the Left makes Republicans look like now) right before the midterm elections. A disheartened base would spell disaster for the GOP at a time when President Donald Trump needs as much support as he can get congressionally.

On the other hand, the Left was (and still is) willing to overlook the presumption of innocence, the rules of evidence, privacy, and even basic decency to win. Yes, yes, I know it wasn’t a trial but a “job interview”, but presumption of innocence extends beyond the court of law, and it needed to be considered here given the severity of the charges and the implications of the decision of who to believe. The Left (and the Right, to a lesser extent) hasn’t shown a desire to ensure both parties in this matter were held to the same standard. For people like me, that’s inexcusable.

So, let me apply that consistent standard here. Kavanaugh and Ford both distorted the truth and hid key details more times than I like, meaning there were no white hats yet again. I’m not willing to overlook this for the sake of a Supreme Court Justice, nor am I willing to overlook the implications. Regardless of where you come down, Brett Kavanaugh will have the stench of corruption, valid or otherwise, all over him for the rest of his life because the Left can’t let it go. To them, he will always be in the same category as Brock Turner. Meanwhile, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is getting out of this matter relatively unscathed (and a great deal richer), but her reputation has been sullied by everyone not in the Leftist bubble, and the potential damage to rape and sexual assault victims and to women in general has yet to be determined

This remains a no-win situation with only potential short term gains considered. We deserve better.