Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Out of the tragedy of the Parkland, Florida, school shootings has come a hashtag (#NeverAgain) and renewed calls for gun control. However, it has also created potential leaders in members of the student body. On the pro-gun control side, students David Hogg, Cameron Kasky, and Emma Gonzalez have been treated to media interviews, town hall meetings, and other high profile events where their voices have been amplified.

Then, on the pro-Second Amendment side, there’s Kyle Kashuv. He’s visited the White House, spoken to numbers members of Congress, and engaged people of all stripes on Twitter.

But this week’s edition of the Leftist Lexicon isn’t about gun control; it’s about public education. The same school produced Hogg, Kasky, Gonzalez, and Kashuv, but they have radically different viewpoints, and it may be because of the current state of public education.

public education

What the Left thinks it means – a system that teaches children the fundamentals necessary to become informed citizens

What it really means – a Leftist indoctrination factory where the fundamentals are barely taught

By way of full disclosure, I am a public school graduate, as are the members of my family. However, even back when I was roaming the hallways of my high school wondering why cute girls thought I was a nerd (maybe cause, well, I was one), I noticed standards were slipping a bit. Sure, I had some of the same teachers my older brothers did, but it was still noticeable.

Seeing some of the high school students today, I’m pretty sure standards have slipped more than a con artist who makes a living filing bodily injury claims. And it’s not because the students today are lacking access to technology or Internet coverage. You’d be hard-pressed to find a student without a smartphone attached to their bodies in some fashion, and they use hashtags, emojis, and other online forms of communication better than they can speak or write their native language.

Some would say the teachers are to blame, and to some extent, they’ve earned it. Outside of your parents and family, teachers represent most of the adults kids get to know. That’s a pretty big responsibility. You are shaping the minds of young people who will lead this country in the future.

And many of the people with that responsibility seem to think it’s vital to indoctrinate the next generation. After all, we don’t want them growing up thinking government isn’t the greatest thing since sliced bread, right? Now, imagine year after year of being told the Left is right and the Right is wrong. By the time students graduate high school today, they may have been exposed to somewhere in the neighborhood of 13-14 years of Leftist propaganda. And that indoctrination will continue into college where you’re more likely to find a unicorn that farts rainbows than you are a conservative teacher in a prominent position.

A large part of this has to do with teachers unions. Like with most other labor unions, teachers unions tend to be Leftist politically, which means it becomes another way for Leftists to launder federal tax dollars (i.e. our money) through public education, which go right back to the politicians who gave them the money in the first place. Combine that with the number of tenure jockeys out there who lost the passion to teach a long time ago, how schools are desperate enough to hire any teacher who can breathe, and how it practically takes an act of God to get a teacher fired and you have yourself a situation that screams “perfect job for a Leftist.”

Of course, if you’re a Leftist parent, you see nothing wrong with this. But for some of us who would like to get a fast food order filled right the third time, let alone the first, it’s not ideal. That’s why homeschooling, private schools, and school vouchers have gotten so popular in the past couple of decades. And this is why public school advocates and teachers unions like the National Education Association have been working so hard to derail the exodus away from their gravy train. Fewer public school students means less money going to public schools and less power in the political realm.

Look at how the Left has demonized Betsy DeVos, the current Secretary of Education. They say she bought her way into the position (more than likely true), hasn’t set foot in a public school so she isn’t qualified to be Secretary of Education (actually, that sounds more like a selling point than a point of criticism), and she wants to promote homeschooling over public schooling (again, more of a selling point). Having seen DeVos in action, you can make an argument that she isn’t the best person for the job, but to say she’s the spawn of Satan for wanting to improve public education is a bit much. For all we know, she might only be a second cousin to Satan.

Just kidding, Secretary DeVos.

With public education, anyone wanting to make a difference or to improve the overall quality is fighting an uphill battle, one that discourages more people than encourages them. But all is not lost. It is possible to educate a child caught in the public school system, but it takes work. If you can’t afford to send your child to a public school or to homeschool, you need to be  attentive to what your children are learning and show an active interest in it. If you see something you’re not comfortable with what your child is learning, ask questions and balance the lessons with information you’re more comfortable with. Don’t forget education isn’t about spouting what a teacher says; it’s about exposing your children to multiple sources of information so they can learn and grow. An educated student is the bane of public education because he or she will have the tools to make up his or her mind on his or her own. (If I say his or her one more time in this piece, I get a free sandwich. And there it is!)

Not every public school teacher is horrible, but enough are that we need to take a serious look at the public school system to make sure we are getting the best results we with the money being spent. Although I may not agree with the David Hoggs of the world, the fact he is speaking up is admirable and shows his teachers did a good job. The same can be said of the Kyle Kashuvs of the world. If we had more students like these and fewer students who can name more Kardashians than Supreme Court Justices, the world might wind up a better place.

Of course, you realize this means we’re doomed.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


It’s been close to a month since a gunman shot students and teachers at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, but you wouldn’t know it by following the media coverage in the aftermath. Students, such as David Hogg, have taken center stage with a push for stricter gun control laws (to replace the multiple laws that failed to stop the shooter, I guess) and the Left have been eager to give them that stage.

This is a formula the Left has mastered: bring out children to help them make political advances they couldn’t get on their own. Although this is close to child exploitation, it works. And, it speaks to how the Left regards children.

And by “regards,” I mean “uses.”


What the Left thinks it means – the smartest and wisest of humanity

What it really means – the future we create today

The Left has it in their heads children are merely adults washed in hot water, but without the cynicism that comes with getting older. That cynicism doesn’t come until those children get told by Leftists that everything sucks. Usually around, oh, Kindergarten.

The problem with this approach is it’s not realistic. Children aren’t mini-adults; they’re children with all the problems and issues of not being adults. Granted, some children these days are more mature than their parents, but they are exceptions and not the rule. To put children at the forefront of any political issue, let alone one as complex as gun control, is morally questionable.

Yet, it’s effective because children play to our emotions, which is what the Left loves to do. Why argue the pros and cons of any issue when you can get people to act and feel the way you want by playing to your emotions? Well, aside from being intellectually dishonest and more cowardly than a French soldier in Berlin during World War II…or Tuesday. But that’s the way the Left wants to handle their business, so we’d better understand why.

For that, we need to go back a few decades. In the 1950s, children were seen as influential and deserving of all the best their parents could give them. Although this can be a good thing, some parents took it a little too far. This bore fruit for the Left in the 1960s when the children who were told they were the best and brightest went to college, where they took lots of drugs, listened to professors who may have also been on drugs, and decided they were the ones who could change the world by taking up Leftist policies and fighting against “The Man.”

At least until they became “The Man.” Then, they went to work to create as many ideological Mini Mes as possible and then utilize them to further Leftist causes. Now, after a few decades, we get David Hogg telling us we need to pass more gun control laws. And when there’s another crisis, expect there will be another child to take up the banner. And then another.

But it’s not just politics that is affected by the Left’s attitudes towards children. They have also affected how parents parent. By treating children like smaller versions of themselves, parents set unrealistic goals and fill their lives with more and more activities. Although their intentions may be good, it puts incredible amounts of pressure on those who may not be able to handle it.

This is the problem I have with the way children are being treated today. We have lost the idea these children are children. Giving them an iPhone or an iPad and sending them on their way isn’t really parenting. (iParenting, maybe, but not parenting.) Neither is pushing children to the extremes of their abilities. There has to be a balance between setting up your children to succeed and giving them the opportunity to explore life while their sense of wonder is still intact. Let them explore, nurture their interests, and support them in their efforts. Then, be prepared to repeat the process until they find something they love to do.

When looking at David Hogg, I don’t see a young man who is passionate about gun control so much as indoctrinated to support it. And that’s the sad part. Childhood and young adulthood should be more about finding one’s self, not being a cookie cutter version of a political operative. In either case, I hope David finds his passion and has the courage to follow through on it.

But if you’re not convinced children are the best and brightest of humanity, remember just a few weeks ago we had to tell them not to eat Tide Pods.

And people wonder why I think humanity is doomed.

Share This:

It’s been a year


A year ago I lost my dad. And when I heard the news that he has passed I was devastated. He died on the morning of my 50th birthday.

My plans instantly changed and I made several trips to Fort Dodge and back. Working out the details of his obituary and planning a wake with the rest of my family in the area.

We had a great time at the wake. A lot of friends and family turned out for it. Stories circled around the room about many things dad had done in his 80+ years of life on this globe.

Dad would have loved the venue for his wake. The entire place was decorated with taxidermy mounts of all shapes and kinds. Taxidermy was one of the careers and hobbies dad had over the years of his life.

Dad was loved by many, and it showed. Siblings, children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, nieces, nephews, friends, and others. He had touched their heart with his own.

He had his quirks, but then who doesn’t. Some came from his generation of course. He grew up in a very different time and place from today. But overall he was a good man. He loved his wife Kathy as if they were two teenagers. He had a great sense of humor. He knew how to show love and forgiveness.

Now we are at the one year anniversary since dad passed. We have the heart-felt loss tugging at us from time to time. We have the memories of our times together. We have the shared memories from friends and family.

He is missed. But he is also just around the corner from us. Just a moment of time is all that separates us from him. Talk to him like you always did, use your familiar name for him.

Carry his memory with a smile.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


With all the oddball things that have gone on this year alone, this has to be the oddest. Snopes, the well-known fact checker website, did a fact check on an article published in the Babylon Bee. At first blush, there’s nothing odd about it…until you do a bit of research. The Babylon Bee is a Christian parody website.

While some have proclaimed satire is dead because it’s getting harder to tell who is serious and who is joking, it’s getting even harder to tell who is serious and who is joking about fact checking. (Granted, you have to be pretty desperate for work, dumber than a bag of hammers, or bored to fact check a satire website, but who am I to judge?) And who appointed these fact checkers to be fact checkers? The answers may surprise you. But what shouldn’t surprise you is that fact checkers are this week’s Leftist Lexicon installment.

fact checkers

What the Left thinks it means – people who look for dishonesty in public policy and media and expose it

What it really means – Leftists trying to mask their biases by hiding behind a false commitment to the truth

The Left has an interesting relationship with the truth. Sometimes, they say the truth is subjective (usually when they’re on the wrong side of an issue that even a 3 year old can figure out). Other times, they say the truth is clearly defined (usually when they’re on what they think is the winning side of an issue and there are no 3 year olds present to tell them off). On the issue of fact checking, they rely on the latter approach.

When you think about fact checking, the first place you may think of is Snopes. That’s because they’ve been around the longest and have been referenced by everyone from CNN to Forbes. Although it started out busting urban legends, it has moved into the realm of fact checking political statements. And, let’s just say they’re not quite as balanced as some would lead us to believe. It seems their political fact checker is…drumroll please…a Leftist.

But wait. Didn’t Snopes get investigated by FactCheck and found not to be biased? They were. However, FactCheck’s judgment is as flawed as Hillary Clinton’s after a vodka bender with Chelsea Handler. For one, FactCheck cleared Snopes back in 2009, which was before the aforementioned political fact checker at Snopes was hired. Second, FactCheck has taken a leftward turn in recent years, as evidenced by what they chose to check and how frequently.

Then, there’s PolitiFact, the entity that gave us the Truth-O-Meter. To call them the National Enquirer of fact checking would be an insult to the National Enquirer. While Snopes and FactCheck take great pains to at least appear non-partisan (more on that later), PolitiFact doesn’t bother with that. Here’s an example.

At a Republican Presidential candidate debate, Ron Paul said the federal income tax rate was 0% until 1913. This is correct, as the 16th Amendment creating a federal income tax was not ratified until that year. PolitiFact rated that as Half True. The facts prove Paul right, but it’s only Half True?

But wait! There’s more! Democrat Presidential candidate Jim Webb said in 2015 the US didn’t have a federal income tax until 1913, which as noted above is true. PolitiFact rated that as Mostly True…until December 20, 2016, when they revised their rating to Half True. But by that point, the damage had been done. They rated a Republican and a Democrat differently for saying the same thing, just with different wording.

And let’s not forget Media Matters, a wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros run by admitted liar and observed coke fiend David Brock, was created and still maintains itself as a fact checking organization devoted to calling out the lies of the GOP, conservatives, and anyone to the right of Karl Marx.

The thing to remember about fact checking is it should be factual, not factual with asterisks. This is where a lot of fact checking sources the Left uses fall flat because they don’t see the problem with biased phrasing. Heck, the mainstream media do it all the time and the Left treats it like gospel! But for those of us looking for the truth, sifting through mounds of doublespeak to find a sliver of honesty can be tiring and somewhat fruitless.

Meanwhile, fact checking sites become the default soothsayers without so much as a second opinion from outside their own circles. After all, if one of them falls, they all take a hit. So, to keep up appearances, they will occasionally throw a Leftist under the bus in the hopes you won’t notice the tires are covered with Republicans they’ve run over in a rush to prove they lied, even when they didn’t.

But here’s the thing. Volume of alleged truths or lies doesn’t make one side more or less honest than the other when the ones controlling the volume have a bias going into the process. A person with an axe to grind or to hide will see the same statements differently if said by people they disagree with, as we saw with the Paul/Webb example. That should put everybody concerned with the truth on high alert with any fact checkers.

Whenever I try to think through a political, social, or criminal (but I repeat myself since I already mentioned political) situation, I ask a simple question: Who benefits? The same approach can and should be taken with fact checkers. Who benefits from their checking or lack thereof? Who benefits when they use biased reasoning to determine who is telling the truth and who is lying? Who benefits by keeping people guessing about what the truth really is?

I can tell you none of us benefit when we let political hacks tell us what should believe.

Read everything you can on a subject with a critical eye. Don’t just take one perspective on it; find multiple sources and compare what you find. Don’t be afraid to check your own biases at the door and open your mind to other possibilities. And above all else, watch out for the language used. The more emotionally charged the language, the less truthful it is.

Good luck on your quest to find truth. We’re gonna need it.

Share This:

I’m Ready to Talk


After any mass shooting, gun control advocates say they want to start a dialogue about gun control. Second Amendment advocates say the time isn’t right because people are dying or are dead (mainly because gun control advocates wait, oh, a whole nanosecond before wanting to talk about gun control). Well, I’m ready to start the conversation.

Gun control doesn’t work, has never worked effectively, and will continue to lead to mass shootings because the laws you propose will only serve to disarm the innocent.

Weren’t expecting that, were you? Well, you should. It’s much easier to count the successes of gun control than the failures because the former list is shorter than an earthworm’s inseam. You may not believe it, but think about it for a second. What gun control measure has worked in America? Let me save you some time and give you the answer. None of them have worked. Not the Clinton assault weapons ban, not the mandatory background checks, not the “cooling off” period, none. Zip. Zero. The Big Goose Egg.

I’m sure you’re shocked to hear this because of what you’ve been lead to believe by people like Shannon Watts and Michael Bloomberg, both of whom make a decent living telling you about the evils of the NRA, buying off politicians as clueless as they are, and taking the rest of the donations for…armed security. Hmmm…why would gun control advocates need armed security?

They (and most likely you) will say it’s because of the gun culture. But what is the “gun culture” exactly? Whatever you think it might be, let me tell you you’re wrong. The gun culture is average Americans who share an affinity for guns. Not stereotypical rednecks, not militia types spouting paranoid delusions about black helicopters and UN camps, not Rambo wannabes who think they need every gun ever made in a basement arsenal. Average Americans, with the same desire for protection you claim to want. Do yourselves a favor and go to a gun show with an open mind. Talk to the people there and get a sense of who they are as people. Then, come talk to me about the “gun culture.”

And that hits to the heart of my main beef with the gun control movement: blatant dishonesty. You say you don’t want to ban guns, but then you say certain guns shouldn’t be in the hands of average citizens. You quote statistics that are easily debunked while ignoring statistics that reject your end goal. You talk at length about needing stricter gun laws in this country while turning a blind eye to cities where there are strict gun laws and gun-related killings are plentiful. You try to come up with clever ideas like taxing bullets or requiring gun owners carry liability insurance without considering the idea the lawless won’t obey those laws anyway. And, most egregious of all, you use women and children to advance your position when they are the ones who would be better protected by having a gun in the home during a break-in than by calling 911.

As much flak as Dana Loesch got recently at CPAC for saying the media love mass shootings, she’s exactly right, but she didn’t go far enough. Gun control advocates need mass shootings to perpetuate the idea guns are a problem in this country. Guns aren’t the problem; they are merely tools that mask the real problems. Mental health, lack of parental guidance, a culture where no one ever has to take responsibility for his or her actions and behaviors, failures of law enforcement at every level, and plenty more problems exist that bear more of a direct effect on gun violence in America than the fact someone decides to use a gun.

And let’s face another uncomfortable fact. The measures you’ve put in place have failed repeatedly. As much as you like to blame the NRA for the shootings, not one NRA member has taken up arms and shot up a school or a church or even a nightclub. You know who has? Individuals who have had a background check done and passed without so much as a red flag. In other words, these mass shooters you blame on the NRA are beating the system you said would make things safer.

We’ve done it your way for a long time and I’m tired of seeing your failures being propped up as answers to mass shootings in America. It’s time we try a new approach. Here’s what I’ve come up with.

1) A thorough review of all gun laws to find and eliminate redundancies and ensure Constitutionality. With over 20,000 gun laws on the books at every level of government, there is bound to be overlap because, let’s face it, bureaucrats aren’t creative types. On top of that, there may be laws that are no longer needed or legal given Supreme Court decisions, but just haven’t been removed yet. Which leads to…

2) A moratorium on passing more gun laws until the review is completed. Until we get a handle on the laws already on the books and make enforcing said laws easier, we shouldn’t add to the volume. The review suggested in point 1 will reveal holes in current laws that can be addressed, and the moratorium aspect will guarantee Leftists get behind it to make sure it gets done as quickly as possible.

3) Improved and expanded background checks. This is going to be controversial, but I actually see the value in expanding the background check process. For personal reasons I won’t get into here, I do not want a gun in my house. And with the current background check process being more flawed than the facts in a Michael Moore movie, we need to fix it. Mental health, violent crimes, domestic abuse, and other red flags need to be caught before a problem arises and should be considered before allowing anyone access to a gun. And these can’t be addressed until we overhaul the process.

4) Get rid of “Gun Free Zones.” Leftists say an idea like this will turn America into the Wild West. Well, if you do a bit of research, you’ll find stories of the Wild West being violent are just that: stories. And if you do a bit more research, you’ll find many of the recent mass shootings have occurred where guns aren’t allowed. Putting up a sign saying you’re a gun free zone may make you feel pretty good, but it also puts a target on you as a helpless victim. Believe it or not, bad guys don’t like potential victims who can fight back, and that’s doubly so if those potential victims can shoot back. Dump the idea of gun free zones and let the bad guys wonder if someone who can fight back is on the premises.

5) Nationwide conceal and carry. To back up point #4, we are going to need to make criminals scared of crossing the presumed weak. Guns are the great equalizer. Young or old, male or female, straight or gay, a firearm in the hands of a responsible and trained individual can level the playing field and turn a potential victim into a survivor. The federal government’s own research states there are at least 800,000 defensive gun uses per year, and that’s with most of them occurring without a single shot being fired.

6) Gun safety classes as part of public and private schooling. This one comes up against my more libertarian thinking because I’m not one to make things mandatory, but there is some logic behind it. One of the biggest problems with gun ownership today is the fact there are so many people who don’t know the first thing about guns. I’m looking right at you Leftists. To take the mystery out of guns and to build a healthy respect for what they can do, start teaching gun safety in schools. The “evil NRA” already offers such programs for children and adults. And if you gun control folks don’t like it, you can substitute your own…oh, wait, you guys don’t offer any gun safety courses. A part of this training can also be devoted to what to do in the case of an active shooter. If protecting our children is paramount, we must be willing to teach them gun safety. Even if they grow up and never own a gun, the information may still be useful at some point. I mean, it’s not like algebra or anything like that, right?

I know these six points lack the panache of a hashtag, but at this point, we don’t need a catchy slogan; we need action and a new direction. We’ve done it your way, so it’s time we try it mine.

Any takers?

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


After the recent mass shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School, people were outraged and looking for answers. How could someone get and use an AR-15 on a group of unsuspecting teenagers? If you answered “mental health issues” or “failure of the local and federal authorities to act before the shooter could commit murder”, you’d be wrong.

It’s gun culture.

Did I mention the people who were getting the most attention with their answers were Leftists?

With every mass shooting, the phrase “gun culture” gets brought out as an explanation/scapegoat for every death. If you do it right, you can even sing “Blame gun culture” to the tune of “Blame Canada” from the South Park movie. But what is it? Glad you asked because otherwise this would be a very short Leftist Lexicon entry.

gun culture

What the Left thinks it means – an environment where anyone is allowed to have guns without responsibility and a regard for human life

What it really means – more proof the Left doesn’t understand people outside of their bubble

Whenever I hear a Leftist talk about gun culture, one question always seems to come to mind: have you been around gun owners aside from your armed security detail? I’ll bet most, if not all, of them haven’t. On the other hand, I have, and let me tell you it was some of the scariest times of my life. And by “scariest” I mean “awesomest.” (I know it’s not a word, but the point is the same.)

I’m not a gun guy by any stretch of the imagination, but hanging out with the average gun owner is eye-opening. They aren’t the weekend militia types or the paranoid guy with an arsenal ranting about black helicopters. They’re men and women just like you and me. Most are polite, law-abiding citizens who would never dream of pulling a gun on another person unless their lives or the lives of others were in danger. In other words, the opposite of the Broward County Sheriff’s Department.

And, I’m sure some of them might even vote Democrat.

But, since they’re gun owners, they’re all lumped together with the aforementioned militia and paranoid folks because it’s easier to paint all gun owners with the same broad brush than it is to paint with a finer brush and paint an honest picture. Remember, the Left thinks its members are smarter, more moral, and all in all better than everyone else. For them to admit they could be wrong about gun owners, even ones who might agree with every other issue the Left advocates, would be like Bill Clinton giving up extramarital sex: it just isn’t going to happen. So, the Left will continue to use a souped-up Wagner Power Painter to give a false picture of gun owners.

And that’s where people like us come in. Even if you don’t own a gun (like yours truly), you can still respect gun ownership and realize the Left’s game. If they can make gun owners less popular than NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch at a gun control rally, then they can control the debate on guns and gun culture without even having to fire a shot, if you’ll pardon the metaphor. That only works, however, if people like us hold our tongues. Granted, coming out as pro-gun today isn’t going to be easy. There are voices, young and old, screaming for us to get rid of assault weapons, restrict gun rights even more, and even taxing bullets to the point guns become restrictive to own.

But that doesn’t frighten me. I’ve had more unpopular opinions in my life than Michael Bloomberg has gun control mouthpieces. Yet, as unpopular as they may have been, they have been honest. And that’s not something the gun control side can claim. If you speak honestly, you need not fear the barbs of others.

This is why the Left needs to discourage and disparage what they call the gun culture. If the truth gets out, their arguments go out the window. If people find out gun owners aren’t dangerous and might actually be safe to be around, there is no Plan B for the Left. You don’t have to own a gun to be part of the gun culture. You just need to respect the Second Amendment and recognize the responsibility that comes with owning a firearm, from a Glock to an AR-15. This is a fight we can, and must, win because if the Left gets what it wants, it will be impossible to put the genie back into the bottle and there will continue to be mass shootings. And there will be more calls for stricter gun control that will also fail to stop mass shootings.

Maybe it’s not the gun culture that’s dangerous, but rather the anti-gun culture.

Share This:

Why we can’t be like the others


There is always the question after a gun related tragedy on why can’t the United States have gun laws similar to fill in the blank. Generally, some nation in Europe, or all of Europe collectively. And of course now due to the Olympics, it is South Korea as the example.

The answer to this question is very simple. The United States isn’t any of these other locations. We do not share a common culture or heritage with any of these other nations.

We are far removed from our colonial roots. Our culture and heritage is unique to the United States. And the right to keep and bear arms is part of that culture and heritage. The United States is a free Republic unlike any other in the world before or sense.

That is why we cannot have gun laws that are like some other country’s. There solutions just do not work in the United States. Unless of course your goal is to transform America into some other kind of government. Otherwise the American solution will have to be uniquely American.

Share This:

Modern English 2nd Amendment


The 2nd amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This was the language used by our 18th Century Founding Fathers. So let us update the language a bit into the modern era so it can be undertood even by a 5th grader. Since apparently the majority of people are ignorant of the meaning of the Constitution.

The 2nd amendment rewritten in Moderen English:

Since we are not creating a standing army with the Constitution, we must rely on every able bodied person to insure that our nation remains free and secure against all who would attempt to take those freedoms and rights away from us, including ourselves. Therefore everyone must be able to have and keep any weapon necessary to protect such freedoms and rights. We are also preventing Congress, and the States, from makings laws against having weapons.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


It’s been a bad week for the Left, although you’ll never get them to admit it. Not only are the DNC’s coffers drier than a Mormon keg party, but their one hope to undo the 2016 election is coming to a close with no actual connection between President Donald Trump and Russia’s alleged attempts to rig the election in Trump’s favor. Yep, Mueller Time may be ending soon, and the Left are already pushing the denial meter to 11 because, well, it’s one higher.

As the end of this farce of a snipe hunt comes to a close, it’s time we add the term to the Leftist Lexicon for further review.


What the Left believes it means – criminal collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign to win Trump the Presidency and subvert our democracy

What it really means – a scandal cooked up by Leftists to avoid admitting Hillary Clinton sucked as a candidate

We’ve talked about various aspects of Russiagate, but I’ve shied away from tackling it head-on for two reasons. One, I can’t fit my head in my old football helmet, and, two, I wanted to wait for more facts to come in. The Left and the Right ran with every piece of information they could to condemn or exonerate President Trump. Robert Mueller had an overdue library book in the fourth grade? Why, that’s proof his investigation is a witch hunt! Donald Trump’s brother’s cousin’s college roommate’s hairdresser’s little brother’s accordion teacher loves Russian dressing? Collusion!

Meanwhile outside of Bizarro World, people like me got tired of all the allegations being tossed about without any basis in evidence. Sure, Mueller got indictments of four members of Trump’s campaign, but a grand total of zero of them had anything to do with the campaign itself. Now, with the recent report saying Mueller found no collusion between the Trump team and Russia to disrupt the 2016 Presidential election, this fairy tale is coming to a close, and the Left has no answers left.

So, they do what they always do: pretend the truth doesn’t exist.

Within the past three or four days, I have seen several attempts by Leftists to downplay Mueller’s findings (or lack thereof). Some say the investigation isn’t over yet (which, technically, it isn’t), but let’s just say the fat lady’s on in five. Others say we’re misinterpreting Mueller’s findings when people say he’s exonerated Trump. Still others insist Russiagate is real, dammit! Just like white privilege, the Loch Ness Monster, and Jennifer Lopez’s talent, I just haven’t seen enough to believe.

That leads us to the most obvious conclusion: Hillary Clinton lost because she’s a bad candidate. I mean, it’s possible the Russians hacked her campaign so she didn’t campaign in three vital states that typically vote Democrat, but I wouldn’t put any money on it.

Although we haven’t seen any proof of collusion between Trump and Russia, there have been more than a few Democrats who have been caught red-handed (see what I did there?) dealing with the Russians. Under the Left’s own logic, that’s proof they colluded with a hostile foreign government, which is a threat to our country. But, of course, the Left exempts themselves from their own logic. Only Trump can be guilty of undermining democracy because they say so. And we know they never lie, right?

Say, I seem to have misplaced my $2500 savings from Obamacare. Has anyone else seen it?

Unfortunately for them, I don’t play by their rules. If you advance a particular argument, you had better be ready to defend it even at the expense of your own self interests. It’s that little thing called consistency that I try to live by and has done me well in my near 50 years of walking on this floating ball of rock we call planet Earth. The minute you start making exceptions for your arguments, especially self-serving exceptions, your argument goes the way of Kathy Griffin’s career options today.

And right now, the Left’s Russiagate argument is dying the death of a thousand goose chases, as it should. However, the investigation has opened up another avenue that should be explored, that being Democrats’ possible collusion with Russia. Let’s launch a full scale investigation, complete with Independent Counsel, and see where the threads take us.

After all, only those who would want to undermine our country would object to that, right?

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


With everything going on in Washington right now, it’s enough to make people shake their heads in disbelief. The FBI scandal (complete with dueling memos), continued and escalating partisan strife (complete with dueling Tweets), Robert Mueller’s investigation (complete with dueling dumbassery), and many more pain points have left people asking one question.

Is it too late to move to Canada?

But there’s another question that needs to be asked: do we need a large government? Maybe we should downsize our government just a bit (and by “a bit” I mean a lot). Those are words the Left hates worse than President Donald Trump, so it makes for a perfect entry to the Leftist Lexicon.

limited government

What the Left believes it means – a dangerous idea that will leave people dying, poisoned, and enslaved by unaccountable corporations

What it really means – a benign idea that will leave people freer, more secure, and free from being enslaved by unaccountable politicans

When the concept of limited government comes up, the Left spins all sorts of nightmare scenarios to argue against it. Food, air, and water would be poisoned. Airplanes and cars would be unsafe. There would be bodies piling up in the streets. They would bring back “Roseanne.” (Okay, so that last one was made up…or was it?) And, they’re all wrong.

In fact, big government has been at least partially to blame for bringing those nightmare scenarios to life. Remember Olestra? Approved by the Food and Drug Administration…and lead to a lot of people having to change their underwear due to what was called “anal leakage.” Dirty air? Ask Nancy Pelosi about her cross-country airplane trips as Speaker of the House. Poisonous water? Flint, Michigan, would like to have a talk with you big government fans. You know, something about poisonous water.

The Left needs to get people to reject the idea of smaller government by using fear because they can’t find a legitimate argument against it, given the multiple screw-ups created by big government. And they are afraid that people will realize smaller government makes sense and act on it by electing candidates who agree. So, the Left has a vested interest in keeping people distrustful of small government advocates.

Remember the TEA Party? The Left poisoned the well by painting them all as kooks who take from the government and want to deny everyone else. Oh, and they’re racists because reasons. Now, most people who would normally agree with the TEA Party’s message of lower taxes and smaller government shy away from the label. And those who were elected under the TEA Party mantle have either been marginalized by the GOP leadership or sucked up by them. Make no mistake, Leftists have found their way into both major parties, so it’s not a Democrat/Republican thing.

And Leftists in both parties lust after the prospect of bigger government.

One of my Undeniable Truths is the sole purpose of a bureaucracy is to grow so large as to become indispensable. Whether it’s the Department of Homeland Security (who hasn’t done all that great a job securing the homeland) or the Environmental Protection Agency (who hasn’t done all that great a job protecting the environment), Leftists in both major parties think they can run big government better than the other party. And they’re both wrong. Regardless of a Democrat or Republican President, the federal government will be filled with people who want to get paid for doing next to nothing. And the people outside of Congress are pretty bad, too!

Whenever there is a government shutdown, Leftists talk about how horrible things will become, but by and large it hasn’t affected us as a country. That should be a major red flag for anyone who believes big government is best. The fact we’re still able to function relatively well without Big Daddy Government holding our hands is a good thing and should be celebrated instead of denigrated. If you question this, answer me this. Why are we paying for non-essential government employees if they’re non-essential?

Here’s the thing that gets me the most. We are seeing multiple examples of government malfeasance in real time, but no one is putting 2 and 2 together. Maybe it’s because no one can do simple math anymore thanks to Common Core, but maybe it has more to do with the idea we need a big government when we really don’t. An easy way to cut down on the corruption in government is to give bad players fewer access points. Plus, with a smaller government, there will be fewer people willing or able to cover up the corruption.  A smaller government won’t completely eliminate the possibility of government corruption, but it will make it infinitely easier to locate and subsequently punish the guilty.

And think about how much money could be saved by cutting government! Take food safety, for example. There are multiple government agencies, departments, and sub-departments covering this one aspect of government. Why do we need more than one organization to take care of this? When a private company finds redundancies, the leadership tries to find ways to be more efficient because it saves them money in the long run. If there are 10 agencies doing the same job, that is 9 too many, and several millions of our tax dollars being wasted in the process. Let’s cut the fat and put that money back in the hands of the people or into infrastructure. You know, that thing the Left always says is worse than Harvey Weinstein’s dating habits, but never seems to spend money on?

The larger the government, the more it will find ways to work its way into our lives and deprive us of freedom. Yet, people are afraid to push for limited government out of fear of being seen as heartless or selfish. Yet, the people who try to make you believe you’re being heartless or selfish are the ones who want to take your money and spend it without any consideration of whether the spending is needed. Not that you need it, but you have my permission to be selfish and demand government be as small as possible to ensure it can be as effective as possible.

And let me know if any Leftists can come up with an answer to my question about non-essential government employees.

Share This: