Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

176 Views

With all the discussion of tolerance and the number of genders (Spoiler Alert: still 2), there is a relatively new phenomenon: preferred pronouns. Thanks to Chief Running Mouth, Elizabeth Warren, putting her preferred pronouns on her Twitter profile, the Left had a collective joygasm. Finally, the Democrats were talking about a subject that matters to approximately 0.0000000325% of the population!

What started out as a way for people online to describe what they consider themselves (while at the same time increasing the number of times lesser used letters like X, Y, and Z appear in words) has turned into a social and judicial issue due in no small part to the Left’s use of identity politics. As a result, we now have yet another way to enter the twisted, mixed-up world of Leftist thought.

preferred pronouns

What the Left thinks it means – a way for people to express their sexual preferences and identity, an important statement about one’s self

What it really means – creating more division using stupid means

I’ve often said the Left uses language to control the narrative, but in this case, they’ve invented their own language reminiscent of feminists of the 1990s purposely misspelling words so they didn’t have to use the word “man.” Thanks to websites like Reddit, though, the preferred pronoun movement took off like a rocket. At first, it was pretty harmless, but now it’s gotten downright litigious.

In some states and countries, it is now illegal to use the wrong pronouns if a person tells you what he/she/it prefers you use. And people are okay with this? Unfortunately, the answer is yes because in their minds “misgendering” someone by not using preferred pronouns should be illegal. Even if it’s a 6’4” 280 pound linebacker born Hunk Slabchest whose preferred pronouns are zee/zyr (and, yes, these are actual preferred pronouns, ladies and gentlemen), if Hunk asks you to use them and you fail to, there are now legal punishments. Granted, the people who feel this way tend to overlap with the “words are violence” crowd, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they managed to find a way to make pronouns punishable by the Pronoun Police.

Yeah, maybe I’d take this personal pronoun business a little more seriously if their advocates could spell. And, yes, I’ve seen how you spell in your Tweets. Maybe work on mastering actual pronouns before you tackle the preferred ones, okay?

At the heart of the personal pronoun issue is a need for sexual individuality, which isn’t bad in and of itself. When it gets to the level we’ve reached, though, it goes into the land of delusion and scientific illiteracy. Biology, physiology, anatomy, and other life sciences have shown time and time again there are two genders, male and female. It doesn’t matter what you think or how you feel, that’s pretty much a done deal. You are either male or female at the genetic level. Period. Just because you don’t identify as a member of one of the two genders doesn’t mean you’re not one of them.

This is where preferred pronouns undercut science. By allowing the idea of multiple genders outside of the male/female dynamic, any variation on a theme can be seen as a legitimate gender, thus increasing the number of possible preferred pronouns and creating more potential for misunderstandings, division, and even legal penalties. On the plus side, it also creates the potential for a lot of mockery, but overall it’s not a great idea.

There’s also the potential for psychological damage. Just because you want to be called zyr doesn’t require the world to cater to your will, and those who think it should aren’t helping. They are creating an environment where your feelings trump fact, and that isn’t healthy for anyone, especially not the little zyr they’re coddling. Once you allow yourself to define your own reality irrespective of the reality around you, you have bought into the delusion, and it becomes harder to ween yourself off of it.

The main problem I have with preferred pronouns is one of respect. The people who want us to use them expect us to respect their wishes, but they don’t offer respect in return. If you tell me your personal pronouns and I slip up, forget, or just don’t care to use them, it shouldn’t result in legal action against me. That’s more heavy-handed than Iron Man giving you a high five while holding onto a bar of gold, and probably a lot less painful. I live by a simple philosophy: I will show you the respect you show me until something happens to change that dynamic. If you insist I use your pronouns but you don’t give me time for a learning curve, that’s not respect; that’s dominance in search of deferential coercion. Put in Leftist terms, it’s your privilege and agency attempting to subdue mine.

Guess how likely I will be to use your preferred pronouns in that scenario.

Look, if your entire identity is wrapped up in whether people use the right two or three letter combination to describe you, there is a lot more wrong with you than the whole preferred pronoun thing. If you want to be unique and stand out, focus on what makes you special and share that. Don’t create a weird combination of letters that won’t get counted when used in Words With Friends because it’s a false sense of identity. You are actively self-segregating, which means fewer and fewer people may want to try to get to know you. Eventually, you will become the individual you always wanted to be and you will be lonelier for it.

And A Child Shall Lead. Be Afraid.

128 Views

Every so often, an idea will come to a person and it shapes his or her life forever. This is how great inventions, philosophies, and new types of porn get developed. But sometimes the idea leads to darker discoveries, such as cults, violent revolution, and new types of porn.

I had one of these ideas recently, and it doesn’t bode well for the world. The current political landscape is more tattered than pair of cutoffs in a CAT 5 hurricane near a knife factory. People are sniping at each other online and attacking each other in public over differences of opinion. Any middle ground is most likely found at the bottom of a deep chasm between the two sides of an argument.

I got into an online discussion (and by discussion I mean one-sided shouting match with yours truly being the recipient) about Megan Rapinoe and her letting the American flag fall to the ground. I stated my objection to Ms. Rapinoe on this basis and Leftists on the thread thought I was advocating kicking a puppy for fun and profit. Through use of logical fallacies, projecting what they thought I was saying and what my ideological bent was, and a combination of public shaming, vulgarity, and insults, I eventually gave up trying to use reason because it didn’t work the first few times I tried it while correcting and pointing out their logical and factual errors.

Then, it occurred to me the chasm between the Leftists on the thread and me had nothing to do with Left vs. Right, Democrat vs. Republican, Liberals vs. Conservatives, or even Right vs. Wrong. It’s turned into children vs. adults.

The news is full of stories that bear out this observation. Take the recent controversy over Erica Thomas, a Georgia State representative who got chewed out at a Publix grocery store for taking 15 items into the 10 Items or Less lane. (Yes, grammar fans, I know it should be 10 Items or Fewer, but work with me here.) Afterwards, Thomas went to Twitter (the home of online twits) and accused the man who called her out on her lack of grocery etiquette of being racist. She would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn’t been for those pesky kids…or the guy who Thomas called a racist appearing at a press conference Thomas called to talk about the incident. Since then, Thomas has backtracked, doubled down on her original statements, got the police involved, and watched as her public status took a nosedive faster than a Eric Swalwell’s Presidential hopes.

Now, we can debate the importance of what prompted the verbal altercation until the cows come home, but the larger point is Thomas felt she could get away with it because of who she is. And hopefully soon who she was after she resigns by choice or by demand.

What does this have to do with children vs. adults exactly? Maturity. As immature as it is to verbally accost someone in a supermarket over the number of items in a cart or basket, it’s just as immature to assume you have the authority to do it because you want to do it. Children are some of the most ego-centric people in society (second only to Congresscritters). Everything they do is designed to advance their own self-interest, and when they are denied what they want, their natural instinct is to get emotional and/or make excuses for their behavior.

Remind you of anyone you know, Ms. Thomas?

If this were an isolated incident, we might be okay, but it’s not. If you look around at the stories big and small, I’ll bet you can find more than a few instances of the adults vs. children mindset. Prepubescent drag queens, the Fight for $15 movement, Antifa and its media supporters, Megan Rapinoe and the American flag, Colin Kaepernick and the Betsy Ross Nikes, boycotts of conservative (or seemingly conservative) businesses for not towing the Leftist line, deplatforming speakers, doxing known opponents to Leftist causes, people confronting conservative members of Congress and the Trump Administration, and many, many more, all of which boils down to adults vs. children.

So, how do we fix this? I’m not sure we can anymore. We may have passed the point of no return, thus guaranteeing this is a one-way trip. The best advice I can give is to act like adults, regardless of where you fall on the ideological spectrum, because the appeal of being free from responsibility while maintaining an unwavering belief that our word and feelings are law is very strong. Like the Leftists in the online discussion about Megan Rapinoe, the children need to gang up on you so you relent, but that doesn’t mean you have to, especially when it’s something that is clearly wrong. No matter how often they badger you or tell you that you’re wrong, know that they are trying to appeal to your need to be part of a group, to be accepted. Trust me, being accepted into some groups is worse than being alone.

In the meantime, we have to be careful because we’re not dealing with rational, mature people most of the time. We are dealing with people whose entire worldviews are predicated on the notion that all men and women are created equally inferior to them, and they will get nasty. They need you to take the bait so they can drag you down to their level where they have the home field advantage. But not every battle needs to be waged online, in public, or in private. Just know the children are running the asylum right now, so we need to be careful. There is a reason so many Leftists were shocked at the 2016 Presidential election, and it’s because there were a lot of Trump supporters who silently listened to the rhetoric and decided to pull the lever for Donald Trump. And with the Left acting more and more childish by the day, 2020 is starting to shape up to be another pity party for the Left.

Robert Mueller, Redefined

127 Views

Today, the House Judiciary Committee had former Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller up to Capitol Hill to testify about his investigation into whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice. At least, that’s what it was billed as, but in actuality it was closer to a live action recreation of the Hindenburg, but without the humor.

During the testimony, we saw a different side of Mueller. What was once the beacon of truth, justice, and the American Way was seen as weak, incompetent, and otherwise spent after 2-plus years of investigating the same issue and coming up as close to empty as you can get without delving into Rep. Ted Lieu’s self-awareness territory. Although both sides are doing their best to spin the testimony in a way that exonerates/condemns the President, I saw something else.

I saw someone used by the Left for their own benefit without concern about the implications.

For those of you jumping to the conclusion I’m about to go off on a long diatribe about Mueller’s honor and service to this country as a means to defend him, relax for a minute. My internal jury is still out on whether he’s as honorable as advertised or if he was in on the Trump-Russia delusion from the jump. What I do know is he isn’t the confident man we saw early on in this bad political telenovela. Today, we saw him, human and flawed.

Leftists are notorious for latching onto a personality that can be used for partisan purposes, using said personality, and then dropping him or her when the political benefits have run their course. Remember Cindy Sheehan? She was the David Hogg of the first George W. Bush term. You couldn’t swing a dead cat (and, really, why would you) without hearing about her. Then, as soon as she challenged Nancy Pelosi for her House seat, Sheehan became persona non grata. The same can be said of Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson (husband of the aforementioned CIA Barbie), James and Susan MacDougal, Walter Mondale, and countless others.

And I get the feeling Mueller is the latest addition to that list.

The Left used him in a two-fold manner. First, they relied on his military career and past to try to diffuse any criticisms about his duties as Special Prosecutor. They also pointed out he was a Republican, which means as much to me as what color hair he had as a boy. Through these tactics, the Left set up what they consider to be a perfect shield against criticism. However, it’s not. It’s actually a logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority, which, in short, is when someone tries to refute a point by pointing at someone’s stature, regardless of whether it has any bearing on the subject at hand. (See global climate change for a great example of this.) It’s great that Mueller served in the Marine Corps and spent years serving the country, but neither one disqualifies him from criticism when he did a bad job. Judging from his performance on Capitol Hill today, Mueller should be ready to get an earful.

Through the Appeal to Authority, Leftists elevated Mueller to god level and knew he would find something on which to charge President Trump. When the Mueller Report was about to come out and it didn’t appear as though it was going to net anything juicy, the Left downgraded their expectations to retain their adoration, which lead to today’s disastrous hearing that did more damage to the Left and Mueller than it did to the Trump Administration.

Soon, the Left will use Mueller in a second manner, that of a scapegoat. In a Leftist’s mind, nothing is ever his or her fault. It’s always the work of some devious forces working against him/her. The focus of the seemingly failed Trump impeachment is bound to switch from Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats to Mueller, if for no other reason than because he failed to get Trump impeached. And that’s a failure the Left cannot let stand under any circumstances.

If you’re reading this, Mr. Mueller, know the long knives may be coming out for you very soon from people who held you in high esteem until you couldn’t deliver on their partisan fantasies. It’s nothing personal against you…okay, they’ll make it personal because you hurt their feelings by not finding anything for which to charge their Public Enemy #1. And the sad part is you were either an unwitting dupe or a willing participant, neither of which will help you escape this trap of your own making, at least in part.

And that may be the most puzzling part of all this. If you were an unwitting dupe, how can we trust your judgment and findings in light of this? (And from where I sit, your testimony today did you no favors in trying to dissuade people from seeing you as a dupe.) And if you were a willing participant, you lied or let others lie on your behalf by omission, which taints the results of your investigation and ruins your credibility even worse than your testimony today did. In either case, you might want to lie low as soon as you can and hope someone else ruins his or her credibility with all the grace of a belly flop into a hotel pool at spring break.

But don’t worry. With all the clowns in Washington DC who ran this Impeachment-Palooza dud, I’m sure someone will supplant you in no time!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

104 Views

Sometimes politics make for strange bedfellows, and other times it makes for “no duh” bedfellows. The Left’s Congressional Freshman phenoms fall into the latter group. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley and their supporters are calling themselves “The Squad.” Although they came from different backgrounds, they are united by their politics, positions, and drive to make the country more progressive.

What makes these four women and their followers so special? I’ve been trying to figure that out since the Left made them their de facto leaders/golden children/rock stars. Are they the next generation of leaders or the political equivalent of Pogs? Let’s find out!

The Squad

What the Left thinks it means – four strong female Congresswomen who represent the future and care about the important issues of the day

What it really means – the personification of identity politics

I have a confession to make. I actually do know why The Squad is being held up as the Great Not-White-At-All Hope, and it has nothing to do with what they do or have done. Their appeal to the Left is literally skin deep. The fact they’re women and progressive only adds to their appeal to many. And the fact they’re all vocal opponents to President Donald Trump makes them the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Which begs the question of how great an invention sliced bread is, but that’s the blog post for another time.

As someone who looks for results rather than hype, I did some digging to see what The Squad has accomplished. In terms of legislative accomplishments, let’s just say I tied them and I wasn’t even trying. Outside of the political realm, they’ve created a great brand that people can identify with, especially on social media. Of course, social media isn’t the real world, so their accomplishments are pretty much the same as mine: being opinionated in cyberspace. The differences, though, are I don’t try to pass stupid legislation while I do it and I’m not wasting taxpayer money to do it. Taxpayer time, yes, but not taxpayer money.

The Squad has also been thorns in the side of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (which makes me laugh because of what her party has done to bring about The Squad and how they repay her with openly suggesting she’s a racist). The same Leftists who propped up Pelosi are now ready to throw her under The Squad bus because…she’s not as progressive as The Squad is! (Quick investment tip: buy a LOT of shares in Orville Redenbacher.) Although this kind of behavior is red meat…sorry, white tofu to the Left, it isn’t working very well with the rest of the population. I can’t account for all of them, but from what I’ve read at least half of The Squad are seeing approval ratings lower than the President’s. Not nationally, mind you. In their own districts.

Granted, The Squad may be in districts safely in Leftist hands, so there may not be reason to worry…except if people decide to challenge them from the Right and the Left. So far, there is at least one known challenger to The Squad’s most vocal leader, the aforementioned Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (a.k.a. the Socialist Socialite), and there is enough time before the 2020 elections for more to join the fray. This has the potential to open a wider rift between The Squad and the Not-Leftist-Enough Democrats, who have watched The Squad go from back-benchers to unintended spokespeople for the Democrats. The impending Leftist civil war is going to be interesting to watch, if only because it underscores the pyrrhic nature of the victory they achieved in 2018 in part because of The Squad.

Congratulations, Leftists. You’ve created the means of your own destruction. But unlike in the original (and vastly funnier) “Ghostbusters,” it’s not a giant marshmallow man coming to destroy you; it’s identity politics which you helped to make mainstream.

Of course, anyone who decides The Squad isn’t all that great will get showered with allegations of racism, sexism, Islamophobia, fascism, white supremacy, patriarchy, Nazism, and other invectives that have become the new slang for the Left (along with copious amounts of vulgarity). The issue is none of the legitimate criticisms raised about The Squad have anything to do with any of that. Sure, there are people out there giving as good as they’re getting, but most of us between the Left and the Right see The Squad not as a powerful force for good, but as a group whose watched their expectations drop lower than a snake’s belt buckle because it’s hip to hate President Trump yet manage to limbo underneath these expectations all while standing upright.

I don’t have an issue with Rep. Ilhan’s faith. I have an issue with her possibly breaking the law repeatedly prior to becoming a Representative.

I don’t have an issue with Rep. Tlaib’s faith, either. I have an issue with her ties to Hamas, a known terrorist organization.

I don’t have an issue with Rep. Pressley’s race. I have an issue with her suggesting there are blacks that should be silent on racial issues because they may not agree with her.

I don’t have an issue with Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s gender. I have an issue with her being intellectually and emotionally unsuited to represent herself, let alone her Congressional district.

And collectively, I don’t have an issue with any boxes the members of The Squad can mark off on a checklist. I have an issue with them criticizing others for doing what they do instead of finding a way to bring people together. As the old Spider-Man comics say, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Maybe The Squad prefers DC to Marvel, but the point is they still haven’t grasped the concept of leadership, all while putting themselves out there as leaders. The longer The Squad goes unchecked in the political and communication arenas, the harder it will be to topple them.

And, no, I do not condone violence or threats against these women. Beat them with better arguments, not with your fists. And given some of the stupefying things The Squad has said since taking office, you won’t even have to work that hard!

“What is Ilhan Omar’s endgame”? – Guest piece by Ari Kaufman

316 Views
Coincidentally, my flight landed at Minneapolis-St. Paul airport just as Thursday’s now-infamous and sycophantic Ilhan Omar rally concluded.

The predominantly white and elderly crowd (retired teachers and assorted radicals) of activists I saw held signs with straw man  clichés (“Racism is not patriotic”), accompanied by the usual anti-Trump and anti-GOP rhetoric. There were maybe three dozen people in attendance, not “about 100 supporters mobbing Ms. Omar for a hero’s welcome” as a New York Times story noted. Some folks have jobs, you know. Perhaps even more media was present than attendees.

What exactly were they celebrating, though?

Rep. Omar’s views of the country that fought to save people like her in Somalia, allowed her family to settle here in freedom and, just a few years after graduating from a mediocre state college, jumpstart her national political career, remain ignorant and repugnant. Month after month of divisive and disingenuous venom from the first-term congresswoman deserves all the criticism and opprobrium we can muster.

This week, Omar transitions from making anti-Semitic comments to crafting anti-Semitic policy, when she introduces an offensive resolution supporting the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement—a rogue anti-Israel organization, supported by Hamas and other execrable global groups, whose actions embody historical examples of Jew-hatred, while inexplicably equating the Jewish State to Nazi Germany in the process.

The invidious resolution is symbolic anti-semitic propaganda that won’t garner public support in a wise nation that, unlike much of the world, overwhelmingly believes the Jewish people have right to exist in their homeland.

Aside from seeking attention and more fundraising opportunities (“follow the Benjamins,” indeed), Omar likely wants to get her fellow Democrats, including 2020 Presidential hopefuls, on the record. This should infuriate those candidates, including fellow Minnesota Democrat, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, currently among the crop of aspirants. Klobuchar happens to be openly pro-Israel, unlike many candidates including purported frontrunners Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Democrats, who already struggled mightily to condemn Omar’s numerous past abhorrent comments on Israel, Judaism, AIPAC and its “Benjamins” dominating U.S. policy on Israel, hope to delay the legislation amid fears of continued intra-party clashes. Not a bad idea, but sad too. Though Omar is safe in her provincial urban district, it should undoubtedly only alienate more Jews and Minnesotans from what her ilk believes is a “revolution.”

Tellingly, less than a year ago and before her election to Minnesota’s far left 5th Congressional district — ironically the most Jewish district in the state and nearly all the Midwest —  Omar told a crowd of Democrats at Beth El Synagogue that she opposes BDS, a group so bigoted that nearly 30 states have passed legislation banning organizations that support BDS from receiving state funds. The House Foreign Affairs Committee also passed a July 17 resolution accusing BDS of promoting “principles of collective guilt, mass punishment and group isolation.” What changed, Ilhan, or did you lie to placate gullible liberal Jews?

Lee Zeldin, a Jewish Iraq War veteran and congressman of Omar’s age, who has destroyed her since January on social media, tweeted, “Israel is our best ally in the Mid East; a beacon of hope, freedom and liberty, surrounded by existential threats. Shame on Rep Omar for bringing her hateful twist on that reality to House Foreign today, propping up the BDS movement and blaming Israel for all of its challenges.”

So Omar is hurting her party by augmenting the internecine war between liberals and the hard Left, dividing her district, ruining her brand, and giving a president she loathes more foil to expose her. What is her overarching goal?

Perhaps, as debated on Fox News, talk radio and occasionally the legacy media, the power within today’s Democratic Party is not with Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Steny Hoyer and party elders, but with inane “activists” like Omar and her vacuous media allies.

If President Trump wanted to call out the anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism of Omar’s so-called “squad,” there are more effective ways than to say, “go back where you came from”; but absent any check on their instincts, radicals like Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib and other brainwashed young leftists will continue their commitment to, as one writer recently put it, “a special brand of ethnic and sectarian antagonism.”

And that hatred has troubling aspects for Democrats, Republicans, and the United States.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

134 Views

Once again, the US Women’s Soccer Team has won the World Cup. With this win comes the usual fanfare: wall-to-wall coverage of the tournament, puff pieces about the players, parades, media appearances, and the inevitable answer/question on “Jeopardy” in 2+ years before fading away into obscurity. This year is a little bit different, thanks to one of the players, Megan Rapinoe. Even before the team won the World Cup, she came out and said she wouldn’t go to the White House to visit President Donald Trump in part because she doesn’t feel he’s been inclusive to people like her.

Meaning white female soccer players with purple hair? Oh, wait, I forgot Rapinoe is a lesbian because I really don’t care what or who she does when she’s off the field. What she’s doing in refusing a trip to the White House over inclusion is taking a stand Leftists are applauding (because…Orange Man Bad?). But she’s also giving us a topic for a Leftist Lexicon blog!

inclusion

What the Left thinks it means – making sure everyone feels welcomed and comfortable in a social/political environment

What it really means – agreeing with and condoning Leftist behavior under any and all circumstances

Leftists talk the talk when it comes to inclusion. They invent multiple genders (most of them variations on a theme), insist you call people by their preferred pronouns (even if they’re harder to pronounce than Klingon), and talk about “safe spaces” where people can go to be validated for being the way they are. They tell their followers how powerful these differences are and nurture the idea these differences are core to who they are.

Until someone comes along who doesn’t follow Leftist dogma. Then, the Left’s inclusion talk goes the way of Eric Swalwell’s Presidential campaign. Now, I’m not saying the Right doesn’t do this, but it’s been my experience the Left is faster to the banhammer than the Right is over what amounts to a miniscule deviation from the ideological playbook. The purpose of this hardline approach is simple: the Left needs to keep its talking points straight, and any difference of opinion endangers that.

The funny (and by funny I mean weird) part is how willing the Left is to embrace inclusion the further left you skew. Today, the Left celebrates prepubescent drag queens who aren’t even old enough to get pimples, let alone wear pumps and feather boas. Tomorrow, the line will get shifted further leftward, and the Left will rally for more inclusion. But it’s not just inclusion they’re looking for; it’s normalization. Once something is seen as normal to average Americans, the controversy that preceded it falls away. Then, people can frame those who still see the controversy as backwards…with the help of our Leftist friends in the media. After all, if our neighbors think an 11 year old drag queen is fine, why shouldn’t we?

This is what is known in logical fallacy circles as an appeal to popularity, with a little appeal to authority mixed in for good measure. The Left has a stake in creating what they consider an inclusive environment because it helps solidify their political power and coerces people into agreeing with their ideas out of fear of ridicule, or in the case of Antifa, physical violence.

Not an inclusive position, don’t you think?

The funny (and by funny I mean funny, yet fitting) part is the Right already does what the Left claims they want. With only a handful of exceptions, most conservatives are easy-going and are willing to accept anyone into their groups, even if these folks disagree with them. They enjoy discussing issues and ideas with passion and purpose and they typically don’t end friendships or cut ties with family members over political disagreements. I probably shouldn’t do this, but I happen to have the super secret Conservative Inclusivity Plan which I will share with you now.

1) Be friendly
2) Find common ground with each other
3) Don’t let the differences spoil the commonalities
4) Grill meat of some fashion

Okay, so I added that last part under direction from some friends of mine in Texas, but the point remains clear. Inclusion isn’t and should never be about indoctrination or conforming to an idea or cause. Inclusion requires, well, including people. If you follow the #WalkAway movement online, you will see account after account, testimony after testimony, of people who have been welcomed, even if they don’t plan to vote for Donald Trump because it’s not about Trump. It’s about finding that place where you feel like you belong without fear of running afoul of the unwritten codes of a particular group.

Although Rapinoe’s message is the right one, she was the wrong person to be the messenger for it because she has shown her notion of inclusion is rather exclusive to those who agree with her. And here’s the kicker, if you’ll pardon the pun. On the whole, Donald Trump has been more inclusive with his Cabinet picks and staff than people realize. After all, Trump is the first President in our history to have been in favor of gay marriage from the outset of his Presidency.

And who was the candidate who said repeatedly marriage was between a man and a woman? Hillary Clinton.

Sorry, Megan. Looks like you just scored an ideological own-goal here. Or two.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

149 Views

The recent Antifa attack on Andy Ngo has opened up a number of interesting questions. Is violence necessary to bring about political and societal change? What responsibility do the police have to protect people? How many Antifa members still live at home with Mommy and Daddy?

One of the more intriguing questions is what constitutes a journalist. Leftists can’t seem to define what a journalist is in this case, but they know for sure Ngo isn’t one of them. According to them, he’s a hack, little more than a provocateur for a radical alt-right website who defends Nazis and President Donald Trump. Instead, they think people like Jim Acosta are “real journalists” when he’s little more than a provocateur with a CNN press pass. (Actually, I take that back. It’s far too insulting to compare Ngo to Acosta, so I apologize…to Andy Ngo.)

So, let’s take a moment to delve into what a journalist is…and isn’t.

journalist

What the Left thinks it means – a hard working person charged with the task of revealing the truth

What it really means – an overworked individual charged with the task of revealing the truth, even if his or her colleagues don’t agree with it

As a former/recovering journalism student, I have my own perspective on what constitutes a journalist today, but I will save my thoughts on the term for later. Right now, I want to get at the Left’s concept of journalists and journalism in general. And it starts with a favorite phrase of theirs: “Facts have a liberal bias.” The Left believes they always have the high ground when it comes to factual discussions, so naturally they treat any reporting that supports their ideology or personal biases as the truth. Granted, we all do that to some extent, but this is confirmation bias on steroids.

Remember that old chestnut that 97% of climate scientists agree with the hypothesis of manmade climate change? The Left throws that out like candy at a parade run by the National Tooth Decay Association. Yet, when you dig a little deeper, you find the 97% is just a little overinflated by…oh, I don’t know…a factor of two. Going from almost certainty to a coin flip should take the steam out of the argument, but it doesn’t to the Left. They repeat the debunked 97% claim as though they get paid by George Soros to do it. Then again…

Anyway, the point is the Left is perfectly willing to ignore, cherry-pick, or out and out deny facts if they clash with their ideology and talking points. Apply that same logic to the news, and you have the Left’s approach to journalists and journalism. That’s why you’ll hear Leftists continue to bow at the altar of Dan Rather as a credible reporter/commentator in spite of the fact he and some of his CBS cohorts got fired for…making up a news story out of whole cloth in an attempt to discredit and possibly defeat George W. Bush in 2004. It’s also why the Left champions the cause of people like Jim Acosta, who is little more than a pimple on the late Edward R. Murrow’s ass.

By now, you might have noticed a trend. Leftists’ positive examples of journalists tend to be…Leftists themselves! Why, that’s…completely expected! In reality, Leftist news sources merely reinforce what Leftists already believe because they never take off their ideological blinders to see else is going on out there. They still can’t figure out how Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton even though the facts are right in front of them.

Ahhhhhh! I think we’re onto something here! To borrow a line from Ben Shapiro, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” The Left thrives on emotions, and their truths are deeply rooted in what they feel to be true. Hmmm…I swear I’ve heard that articulated by a Leftist darling of recent memory, but I can’t remember exactly who…oh well. Good thing she’s not a Congresswoman who represents a district in New York City or anything because that would be really embarrassing, right?

Speaking of embarrassing, the modern journalist falls into one of two categories: Leftist stenographer, or relatively unknown person who has a nose for digging up truths, no matter where they are. While the former get awards and recognition for merely repeating the tired refrain Orange Man Bad, the latter rarely get noticed until they find themselves within the stories they cover, as Andy Ngo did. Then, the “real journalists” come out in droves to mock and/or discredit the real journalists for daring to do what they do (at least in their opinion). In truth, the latter group is doing what the former group used to do and fail to do now.

It’s been said there is more real journalism going on in cyberspace than there is in editorial boardrooms across the country, and I tend to agree. What passes for journalism today wouldn’t have gotten past my Journalism 101 professor’s desk without being returned with a failing grade and a request to rethink journalism as a profession. Regardless of who is putting in the legwork and where their work is getting published, the derided reporters are the ones carrying the torch for the profession, not the perfectly quaffed talking airhead who makes Ron Burgundy look like a MENSA candidate. For the Jim Acostas of the world, hitting a beat means having to walk to get to the open bar at a party. And for those of the current journalism field offended that I am taking their jobs less seriously than a paper on atomic energy written by Cardi B, suck it up because you have been doing the journalism profession a grave disservice for decades, and to claim you’re on par with firefighters and are in danger because President Trump says mean things about you is the height of narcissistic cluelessness. Andy Ngo had to go to the hospital because he dared do what you Brooks Brothers-clad bores wouldn’t do: report on actual news as it was happening at risk to his own life to cover Antifa after they targeted him.

You know, I really need to learn how to open up a bit more on certain subjects. I hold back too much.

Seriously, I don’t envy those who hold true to the principles of good journalism. Not only do you have the usual grind of fleshing out stories, building trust in sources, and finding good leads and story ideas, but you have people who wouldn’t last 10 minutes on a beat telling you that your work isn’t journalism because they say so. And those of you who are out there in the field risking life and limb on top of all that? Nothing but respect.

The sign of a real journalist is not what they report and how it’s reported, but what they don’t report or deem as newsworthy. The fact the “real journalists” haven’t bothered to do even a little research on Antifa being violent Leftist thugs should tell you loads about how disconnected they are to reality.

And that should tell you everything you need to know about their judgment on what real journalism is and who is doing it.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

136 Views

There is a crisis at our Southern border. Or not. It’s so hard to determine by listening to Leftists over the past few months. It was waaaaaaaaay back…a month ago, that Leftists said the immigration crisis we’ve been seeing since, oh, forever, was a manufactured crisis. Now, when the visuals are in their favor, it’s a humanitarian crisis.

Don’t try to figure it out, folks. It’s not meant to make sense.

But it does raise the question of what a manufactured crisis is. If only I had a means to explore this in greater detail…oh, wait!

manufactured crisis

What the Left thinks it means – a bad situation created by Republicans designed to assist them in some way

What it really means – pretty much anything Leftists say is an actual crisis

Say what you will about President Donald Trump, he did call out the current immigration crisis well before the Left decided to make a hypocritical political spectacle out of it. The problem was the Left was too busy trying to cultivate the notion President Trump was a racist to bother with actual human lives. Hence, they went with the “manufactured crisis” talking point.

Today, that talking point has blown up worse than the Hindenburg, only less flammable.

The key to the Left’s approach to any crisis, real or more fictional than a Joe Biden anecdote, is primarily political. Can the situation be used to further a cause, shame the GOP, or make money that can be funneled to like-minded politicians? Ideally, they try to check all three boxes, but any combination of the three will do.

Let’s take a look at a “real crisis” the Left was championing at the same time the immigration crisis was brewing, gun violence. Whenever there is a shooting of any kind, the Left seems to have Tweets, talking points, and videos ready to go asking the GOP and the NRA about the blood on their hands. The visuals they put forth are compelling, which makes it easier for them to insert their solutions, which always seem to fall back on taking steps towards restricting gun rights. And it almost always works because it plays on the visceral emotions we have after a tragedy while hiding the real motives behind the proposed solutions.

And what was accomplished after all of that falderal? A few of the survivors got media attention more favorable than Il Duce in his prime, some feel-good legislation was demanded, and nothing got done. Sure, the Left blames Republicans and the NRA for that, but there’s another element to consider: Leftists need crises to justify their actions (or inaction) while creating an environment where they can simultaneously be white knights for the cause and cursory victims. In other words, they want to be heroes and martyrs at the same time without understanding the irony behind it.
The thing to watch for when Leftists talk about a real or manufactured crisis is the kernel of truth within the rhetoric. The best liars are those who can take an insignificant amount of truth and turn it into a well-crafted lie, and the Left does this like maestros. Yet, even the best liars occasionally slip up or give up what is known in poker parlance as a “tell,” a little something that gives away the illusion. With the border crisis, the Left’s tell is trying to rewrite recent history when a previous President was caging children in substandard conditions. If only I could remember that guy’s name…he had a funny sounding name, like…Barack Obama. Once the lie is discovered, the Left will tell another one to make it seem like the first lie was no big deal and the current lie is the important truth you need to know. That’s why when the Left got called out for saying nothing when President Obama started the program to separate children at the border they moved to “But Trump’s doing it now.”

Kinda puts a bit of a damper on the Leftist talking point about Obama not having any scandals in his 8 years of being President. (Brian Terry and Christopher Stephens were unavailable to comment on Obama’s lack of scandals.) By moving the goalposts, Leftists are trying to protect Obama at the expense of people they claim to care about, or in this case didn’t care about until the optics were right.

Whenever the Left talks about crises, it’s important to walk it back using a simple question: Who benefits? Who benefits if the border crisis gets worse? The Left, because it can be placed at President Trump’s feet when they are the ones trying to milk every last drop of political gain they can out of it. Who benefits if gun violence isn’t curtailed? It’s the Left again because they can continue to fundraise off painting the NRA and President Trump as prohibiting sensible gun control laws. With every crisis, see who benefits from it to figure out what the truth of the matter is.

The same principle applies when the Left doesn’t make something into a crisis. Who benefits by calling the border issue a manufactured crisis? The Left, because once you start digging into the reasons behind the crisis, their fingerprints are all over the place. Once you figure out the set-up, you can unravel the lies pretty simply with a little deductive reasoning and just enough political disdain like your humble correspondent.

The border crisis isn’t manufactured by any stretch of the imagination. It’s real, and calling it manufactured does a disservice to those who have to deal with the consequences of inaction. On the other side of the coin, giving attention to crises that actually are manufactured makes it harder for people to trust and react compassionately to real crises, a little something the kids like to call empathy burnout. With a little discernment, you can pick out the charitable wheat from the political chaff consistently and can act accordingly.

A Lack of Concentration

139 Views

Our favorite freshman Representative, the Socialist Socialite, recently compared the detention centers for illegal immigrants along our Southern border as “concentration camps.” Since then, she’s explained, re-explained, spun, lied, and continued to double down on her comments, no matter how silly and insane the initial comment was.

The situation at our shared border with Mexico is as inconsistent as Joe Biden’s campaign strategy. The ones calling the detention centers “concentration camps” show photos, news reports, and eyewitness accounts, all of which make people think it’s Auschwitz on the Rio Grande. Those defending the detention centers point out how bad things were, show photos of current centers, and downplay what’s going on by saying President Donald Trump is trying to address the problem with a wall and more money for better conditions.

And somewhere in between is the truth, provided people commenting on the border issue still care about it.

The hyperbole flying around on the border issue makes Mothra look like a gnat, and much of it comes from the side that has the most to gain politically, the Left. To give you the Reader’s Digest condensed version, Leftists use illegal immigration to pump up their voter base, using an intricate system of bribery, rhetoric, and, oh yeah, lying. In order to keep that influx of voters flowing, the Left needs America to have borders more porous than a giant sponge dropped in the middle of a gang shoot-out.

This is where things get weird. The “concentration camps” are horrible places, according to Leftists, so it begs the question of why so many people would try to cross the border illegally to get here if they know they’re heading into a nightmare (as the Leftists claim). After all, wouldn’t that knowledge be a deterrent? It makes no sense in the context of Leftist policy on border security…until you realize it’s part of a larger plan. Remember, the same folks who are getting up in arms over the detention centers now are the same ones who a) looked the other way when former President Barack Obama took similar if not the same actions, b) want to treat illegal immigrants like citizens, and c) want to abolish ICE. Leftists like the Socialist Socialite have a plan to make the illegal immigration issue into a hot button issue in 2020.

And they do it through misinformation, like calling the detention centers “concentration camps.”

The Left has chosen this phrase carefully because it invokes the specter of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. The phrasing is intended to reinforce the rhetoric of the past 2+ years that President Trump is Hitler, ICE is Trump’s Gestapo, and we are living in a fascist society under Trump. (Just ignore the fact fascist leaders tend to kill off the opposition instead of letting them make fools of themselves on the daily. Thanks, Twitter!) If enough people believe Trump is a fascist, it creates a problem for Trump’s reelection efforts, which is exactly what the Left is banking on right now.

So, are the detention centers as horrible as the Left makes them out to be? Some of them are, and some of them aren’t. Granted, the detention centers could be Club Med and the Left would still complain, but let’s be honest here. We can and should do better than we are.

The best way to overcome Leftist propaganda is to think ahead and offer actual solutions. If a detention center makes New York City in “Escape From New York” look like a church picnic, fix the damn thing! It won’t stop Leftists from shrieking and lying, but at least it will be a step in the right direction. If a detention center is providing basics to illegal immigrants, make sure those are the model for all the others. Root out the bad apples and bring in people who care about helping instead of impeding the progress we need to make.

That means Leftists like the Socialist Socialite should shut their pieholes unless they want to get their hands dirty and fix the situation. Of course, they won’t because reasons, but it might be a way for them to come to the table with solutions.

And, no, building a wall isn’t a solution. Building on a commitment to America being the Land of Opportunity while also being the Land That Doesn’t Just Let Anybody Come In Without A Reservation is.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

126 Views

It wasn’t that long ago that your humble correspondent was applying to college for the first time. Although I didn’t get accepted everywhere I wanted to go (who knew women’s colleges had such strict enrollment guidelines), I did manage to get into a college I liked.

Such was the case for Second Amendment fan and Stoneman High School shooting survivor Kyle Kashuv. He applied to Harvard, got accepted, and then had that acceptance taken away from him after it came out he used racist language in a social media post. Kashuv and his supporters questioned the decision while Leftists mocked him, all the while saying “actions have consequences.”

Which brings up an interesting question: what are consequences to Leftists? I’m glad I asked! Oh, and I’m glad you asked, too.

consequences

What Leftists think it means – when bad people, usually Republicans and conservatives, get their comeuppance for bad behavior

What it really means – Karma giving you a Shiva-style bitchslap

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. Kashuv exercised poor judgment and a lack of maturity. Racism, even in jest, isn’t cool. It doesn’t matter if you’re 5, 50, or 500, you just don’t throw around racial slurs, especially not on social media. I won’t defend him for what he said.

Yet, our fiends…I mean friends on the Left don’t have the same set of standards. If a Leftist says something stupid and racist, they are allowed to apologize in a fashion, the matter is dropped, and anyone who brings it up in the future, even if the Leftist in question makes the same or similar statements after the apology, is considered a meanie-head. A great example of this is the late Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat from West Virginia. For those of you unfamiliar with the Senator’s history, he was an actual member of the Ku Klux Klan and used racist language every so often (a certain interview where he talked about “white n-words” comes to mind). Yet, Leftists a) don’t see the problem with their side being literally linked to the Klan, and b) say it’s water under the bridge because he apologized, essentially saying it was a youthful indiscretion that he felt bad to be a part of.

If only Kashuv had apologi…I see here he did, and shortly after his racist posts came to light. As a result, the Left should forgive him and drop the issue, right?

Nope. When it comes to Kashuv and other Republicans/conservatives, once you’re a racist, you’re always a racist.

The Leftist double standard on consequences hits at the core of its ideology. They truly believe they are morally and intellectually superior to everyone who isn’t them. That’s why they look the other way when someone with the moral instincts of an alley cat in heat while supporting the Leftist agenda gets caught acting true to his or her nature. To them, Leftists can’t be held accountable by anyone but themselves because anyone else isn’t a peer.

Not only that, but Leftists are allowed to “evolve” on an issue, no matter what. It wasn’t that long ago President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were vocal supporters of traditional marriage, while during that same time President Donald Trump was a vocal supporter of same sex marriages and gay rights in general. Yet, the former two can flip-flop like John Kerry working the griddle at IHOP without so much as a sideways glance while painting the latter as a homophobic bigot who secretly wants to kill or convert all gays.

That’s not to say the Left doesn’t believe in no consequences. If you are a Leftist or a recovering Leftist like yours truly, the greatest sin you can commit is to walk away with no intention of returning to the fold. Once you do that, the consequences of your betrayal are you become a non-person, which opens you up to all the hatred, vitriol, and scorn the Left can heap upon you. But, if you are a Republican/conservative who embraces Leftist ideology, any past sins against the Left are wiped clean. Think of it as Social Justice Warrior Jesus (and, believe me, there are plenty of Leftists who think Jesus was one of them).

The problem with this approach is it doesn’t remove the hypocrisy. Just because you choose not to acknowledge the double standard doesn’t mean there aren’t two standards right in front of your face. If you think your ideology gives you the moral authority to pick and choose what consequences for bad behavior are allowed, you are missing the point about consequences. They aren’t handed out like pieces of candy to good girls and boys; they affect everyone. Oddly enough, the Church used to have a similar approach to salvation called indulgences, where people who wanted to make sure their departed loved ones got into Heaven by filling the Church’s coffers.

Actually, I take that back. Indulgences were far less scummy than the Left’s hypocrisy here.

No matter how much the Left wants to ignore bad behavior on their side and hype bad behavior on the other side, it is up to us to call out the double standard. And it is also up to us to call out bad behavior on our side. If a Trump supporter does something reprehensible, it is our responsibility to hold him or her accountable and not rely on the Left’s hypocrisy as justification. That way, we can claim the moral high ground while at the same time exposing the Left’s double standard. Hold them up to the standards they want to hold us to and watch them squirm.

Then again, any side that had a literal Klan member in their midst who they ignore and/or justify might not have a leg to stand on when it comes to Kyle Kashuv.