How She Did It


With the release of the House report on Benghazi, it became clear Hillary Clinton got away with it. From lying about the reason the Benghazi attacks occurred to lying about her private email server to lying about being competent enough to be Secretary of State, the levels of deceit are pretty deep and provided just enough cover to get people to get Benghazi fatigue.

Anyone who watched Bill and Hillary operate might have seen this scenario play out before. When they are faced with scandal, the Clintons have a pretty standard response: ignore it, lie about it, admit to it, give the impression they are cooperating, complain about cooperating and the partisanship behind the inquiry, letting facts dribble out here and there, claim they’ve fully cooperated, and telling people it’s time to move on.

Whitewater? Check.

Monica Lewinsky? Check.

The Clinton Foundation? Check.

Benghazi? Check.

It doesn’t hurt that the Clintons have the media and occasional fall guys/willing supporters to cushion the fall. When Ambassador Chris Steven’s sister came out after the House report and said Hillary was not to blame for Benghazi (while repeating the discredited claim Republicans cut funding to the State Department), the game was over. Hillary got away with Benghazi.

Ambassador Chris Stevens could not be reached for comment.

Adding a new layer to this matter is the fact Bill Clinton met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently in Phoenix. If Hillary hadn’t been under FBI investigation, it might be as innocuous as they want us to believe. And if the FBI hadn’t demanded no pictures and no recording of what was being talked about and if Lynch hadn’t stepped aside from the investigation into Hillary after the meeting, I might have believed them.

There is another culprit in helping Hillary beat the Benghazi rap: Republicans. A favorite talking point of the Left is Republicans had 8 (now 9) investigations into Benghazi and Hillary was found not to be responsible for what happened. And Republicans…let that be the narrative. Even Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor, held his tongue when it was clear Hillary was lying and obstructing the investigation.

Just as she did the previous 8 times.

Gowdy, to his credit, tried to be above partisanship in his comments on the report. He’s smart enough to remember what happened to Kenneth Starr when he took on the Clintons. But when you’re dealing with political animals, when your opponents are intent to win by any means necessary, Marquess of Queensberry rules simply don’t apply.

No matter how much we gnash our teeth or blog about it from this point forward, Hillary Clinton beat us over Benghazi. And unless we get our acts together she will skate on her email server.

I Ain’t ‘Fraid of No Trolls


As we are about to enter the second half of the year, there is a news story so enraging, so all-consuming, so divisive that it has split people right down the middle. Is it the 2016 election? Is it Brexit? Is it the House committee report on Benghazi? Nope.

It’s the all-female Ghostbusters film.

If you haven’t heard much about it, be thankful. Your sanity will be much better off for it. But if you have, I will spare you the misery of having to relive it any more than I have to.

Ever since it was announced there would be an all-female update to the original Ghostbusters movie, there seems to have been a backlash against. Some were bent out of shape because it was taking a beloved movie and running through the current Hollywood system, where originality is like Bigfoot: it’s rumored to exist, but no one has actually seen it.

And if the news surrounding the new movie is concerned, the same result is expected out of the movie. In their attempts to try to make it more palatable to the public and the zeitgeist of the day, the director, some of the stars, and some of their supporters are doing what any good PR machine would do: insult the potential audience.

You read that right, folks. Some of the particulars of the movie are doing their best to insult the potential audience, or more specifically, the audience who finds the film to be a steaming pile of Grade D flaming monkey crap. You see, it’s not that the film is a reheated version of the original without updated CGI. It’s not that the first trailer released on YouTube is one of the most poorly rated videos ever. Nope, it’s all because of the “trolls.”

Granted, the Internet is full of people who get their jollies out of tearing down other people at every turn. Heck, it wouldn’t be the Internet if that didn’t happen. But the law of averages states the people bashing the new Ghostbusters film can’t all be trolls. In fact, I’m willing to bet a good number of the film’s critics would be less trollish than DeRay Mckesson at a Black Lives Matter rally in Baltimore.

Crying “troll” in this case isn’t a scapegoat. It’s a full-on tribe of scapegoats. (No offense, Senator Elizabeth Warren.) Based on the trailer and footage I’ve seen of the film, it’s not going to be a summer blockbuster. The jokes are stale, the characters are mostly uninteresting, and there’s an entire Social Justice Warrior vibe to it that dominates the trailer. And there’s the funny thing. I would feel the same thing pretty much if it were all guys. It just isn’t funny and doesn’t pique even a little bit of my curiosity.

Insulting me for that opinion? Yeah, quick one way ticket to I’ll-Never-Watch-This-Movie-Even-If-You-Pay-Me-Land.

Then again, the SJWs aren’t known for their humor. To them, the message is more important than the story. As long as you get what the SJWs are saying, they could wrap it in a Yoko Ono tribute album and they would be happy. And we would be looking for any sharp objects to jab into our eardrums because we’d be listening to a Yoko Ono tribute album.

Today, though, the pro-new-Ghostbusters fans have jumped the shark, thanks to BuzzFeed. See, BuzzFeed just released a list of ways to “fight back” against the criticisms of the movie. A good number of them involve spending money in one form of another. Brilliant!

Seriously, if you need BuzzFeed to help you convince people the crap they’ve seen so far shouldn’t be used as an excuse to avoid the movie, you’re doing it wrong. Way wrong. Putting Bill Clinton in charge of the teenage girls at a summer camp wrong.

I won’t think any less of you if you want to see the new Ghostbusters film. I may wonder if you had Stockholm Syndrome, but I wouldn’t think any less of you. Go and have a good time. Just don’t insult me for not agreeing with you. Think you could do that? Thanks!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Today the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law requiring abortion clinics to have the same cleanliness standards as a hospital. As a result, abortion rights activists have been happier than Bill Clinton at a sorority of nymphomaniacs when Hillary is on the campaign trail. But what is abortion to a Leftist? Let’s find out!


What the Left thinks it means: an unfortunate medical procedure that should be legal, safe, and rare

What it really means: the unholy sacrament of the Left

A little over the top? Not really, when you consider the lengths the Left will go to in order to protect the practice as it currently stands.

Take the Texas law referenced above, for example. The Left opposed making abortion clinics as sanitary as other medical facilities. Let that sink in for a moment. The Left opposed making abortion clinics, where a medical procedure is performed, as sanitary as a hospital, where medical procedures are performed.

From the same people who claim abortion is a women’s health issue.

Don’t try to understand it, folks. You’ll only get a migraine.

At the head…err heart…ummm…at the forefront of the abortion rights fight is Planned Parenthood. On the surface, they appear to be defenders of women young and old alike. They oppose government intervention into a woman’s sexual life and want everyone to be free to make their own decisions. Seems pretty innocuous, right?

Well, that’s where things can get a little muddy. Planned Parenthood does a great job in coming up with more euphemisms than parents trying to explain sex to a three year old. Even though they won’t come out and say it, they do a lot of abortions. And by a lot, I mean 327,653 according to Planned Parenthood themselves in their 2013-2014 annual report.

Now, how much do you think it would cost to get an abortion at Planned Parenthood? For a first trimester abortion, these hardworking, honest, and well-meaning people get up to $1500 per procedure. Granted, they also say it may be much less, but they don’t come out and say how much it costs. (Good thing they take Medicaid!)

Let’s run some numbers. The Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of…Planned Parenthood) and the Centers for Disease Control estimate 89-92% of all abortions occur within the first trimester. Taking the low end of this range and assuming Planned Parenthood’s percentage matched it, that would mean PP performed 291,611 first trimester abortions. If each procedure cost $1500, that would mean a net windfall of $437,416,500.

Of course, it’s likely only a fraction of the first trimester abortions performed would be $1500. Even if only 10% of the abortions cost $1500, we’re still dealing with $43,741,650. Let’s go even further and say only 1% cost $1500. Still a decent take-home of $4,374,165.

So, why did I run these numbers? To establish a simple concept: Planned Parenthood has no fiscally responsible reason to want there to be fewer abortions. And when you consider the political fundraising arm of Planned Parenthood tends to skew more Left than NPR run by Bolsheviks (in other words, NPR), the Left has no politically responsible reason to want there to be fewer abortions.

And when the Leftists in Congress give Planned Parenthood over a half billion dollars in federal tax dollars? Let’s just say I haven’t seen this much cycling since the Tour de France.

We can (and probably will) argue about the legal, moral, and personal implications of abortion until the cows come home, sleep on the couch, promise to look for a job tomorrow, and then move out to go back to college to get that Bovine Studies degree. At the end of the day, though, the abortion rights side of the argument needs there to be more babies being aborted to sustain itself.

Taking innocent life to sustain a political and monetary agenda. If that isn’t unholy, I don’t know what is.

Swing…and a Miss….


In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, people around the world have been trying to figure out why the people of England decided to leave the European Union. (I mean, aside from the loss of sovereignty, the overbearing bureaucracy, and the general ineptitude of the “leaders” in the EU, that is.) One interesting factoid came from the Left. With the numbers they crunched, they discovered older Brits voted to leave the EU while younger Brits voted to stay.

Their conclusion? The older Brits weren’t concerned about the future and voted in their best interests, while younger Brits, especially millennials, voted for the future and the best interests of the world. Furthermore, the Left says we should have listened to the millennials because they’re just so smart!

Is it just me, or didn’t we Americans heard the same comments in 2008 about Barack Obama?

As with much of what the Left believes, it’s not exactly on speaking terms with reality. The motivations behind the Brexit results were much deeper than old people telling young people to screw themselves. And to get off their lawns!

I did a bit of digging on the characteristics of millennials and found a neat little list from our friends at Rice University. Upon further review, the millennials’ position on Brexit became very clear, but in case you don’t want to click on the link, here’s the Readers Digest condensed version.

– Millennials tend to think in terms of groups rather than individuals.
– Millennials trust government more.
– Millennials are sheltered.
– Millennials think they know how to fix things.
– Millennials are confident in themselves.

In short, millennials are Leftists. Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with how much positive coverage the media give them…naaaaaaaaah!

One of the characteristics not in the Rice piece, but that is quite obvious, is millennials don’t have the same experience that other generations do. For a good chunk of millennials, they didn’t know what it was like living in fear of a nuclear attack during the Cold War or what role Britain had in resolving it. They may have never heard of the Faukland Islands or why Britain and Argentina were fighting over them. They may not know the significance of Britain giving away sovereignty of Hong Kong to China.

But they know every damn craft beer establishment in every country on Earth and are willing to talk down to you about them all.

The generation that brought us “safe spaces” on college campuses, the man bun, and the Bernie Sanders for President 2016 idea may not be the best people to tell us whether to upsize our value meal, let alone make a decision that would bind all of England to what can at best be called a Titanic-sized sinking ship in the EU. And they’re now calling for a revote because reasons! Seriously, they feel their voices were heard and may have been mislead on what they were voting for in the first place.

Remember, kids, these are the people the Left tells us are smarter than we are, so we should listen to them.

Listen, millennial Brits. The world isn’t going to end because of the Brexit vote. They are going to need more unity than ever before, and that’s something you can actually help with. You lost this one, but your country isn’t as lost as you think. Take this opportunity and build a better Britain.

Oh, and can you please stop with the man bun thing? It’s not cool, and unless you’re a samurai, it’s not a good look.

Brexit Stage Left


By now you’ve heard England has decided to leave the European Union, and if you have, I’m sure you’ve heard Leftists wringing their hands in anguish. England leaving the EU? That’s worse than Hitler, George W. Bush, and the all-female “Ghostbusters” combined! England will rip itself apart! There will be mass starvation! Economic turmoil! Human sacrifices! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

While the Left has been fearmongering, sober souls (both figurative and literal) have been giving Brexit some serious thought. As complex as the issue seems, it can be boiled down into a few simple ideas.

Obviously, there is a nationalist angle to consider here. After all, if England stayed in the EU, it would become a cog in the big EU machine. Imagine if America decided to give the United Nations power over its everyday operations. (More than we already do, that is.) If that were to happen, our national identity would be more worthless than singing lessons from Kanye West. Not to mention, countries like China and Russia would have the ability to derail anything we would want for self-improvement.

If England stayed in the EU, they would face that very situation. The EU is the ultimate poster child for collectivism. Not only is it overly large and full of bureaucratic red tape that would make the tax code look like a leaflet written by Joe Biden, the people who would be making the decisions for the betterment of the EU are unelected. That means what might be good for England could get vetoed by other EU members if it meant England’s decision would not be in the EU’s best interests.

Although nationalism is the easiest explanation of the Brexit vote, it’s not necessarily the right explanation. England hasn’t always been an EU member and for the better part of the EU’s existence has actively fought against being in the EU. Only by the grace of Leftists did England get into the EU, and it hasn’t been that great for England. Consider the fact England has pretty much been funding the EU and has gotten little, if anything, out of it. (Just like America and the UN.)

To put it mildly, England is in dire economic straits, and the EU just keeps asking for money. If this were a relationship between two people, it would be toxic and more than a little codependent. Think dating Lindsey Lohan, but with fewer mugshots. In this kind of situation, England owed it to itself to break with the EU.

This is one reason the Left hated the Brexit idea. If England would leave the EU, the EU would lose its sugar daddy, and if there’s anything that scares Leftists, it’s the thought of losing a stream of easy cash.

A related point is how the EU has used the money it’s received from its member nations. Remember when Greece was undergoing an economic China Syndrome? It received a lot of money to keep from going under. Yet, other countries in the EU were in similar straits and didn’t get the same attention.

A country like…oh, I don’t know…England, maybe?

Perhaps the most compelling reason I see for Brexit is how similar it was to our own founding. Back in the day, we were the ones looking for independence from a government that had its own best interests in mind and had no time for people who complained about a lack of freedom. Today, it’s England trying (and ultimately succeeding) to forge its own path free from the constraints of corrupt governance. As someone who has benefited greatly from the hard-fought freedoms gained from our independence, I wish England the best of luck in its new world without the EU.

By the way, we’d like you to take back Piers Morgan. We’ll owe you one, man. Thanks.

Don’t Just Do Something! Sit There!


Yesterday, the House of Representatives made news, but not necessarily the kind of news you want to make. After Senate Democrats failed to pass gun control laws that would have made it illegal for people on the FBI terrorist watch list to own weapons, House Democrats decided to do something and…conduct a sit-in on the House floor. Personally, I think House Democrats are missing a letter in “sit-in” to more accurately describe what they’re accomplishing, but that’s neither here nor there.

What House Democrats and their Senate colleagues are attempting to do is use political theater to drive their agenda to pass more gun control laws in the wake of the Orlando shooting. Of course, the kind of laws they’re trying to pass right now go completely against the Fifth Amendment’s concept of due process under the law, but hey, it’s just the Constitutional rights of people we’re dealing with here! Who cares when we can pass more gun control laws that will only affect people who follow the law?

The ACLU, for one.

In the spirit of transparency (real transparency, not the Obama Administration’s definition of transparency), I have to say the ACLU and I don’t necessarily agree on much. In fact, the ACLU has been pretty much anti-gun in the past few decades and have adopted the Left’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. Yet, the ACLU came out and said the Democrats’ proposed gun control bill was unconstitutional.

Let that sink in for a moment. A left-leaning organization with a history of being anti-gun is telling their fellow Leftists to slow their roll when attempting to erode the Constitutional rights of people. No, you haven’t gone through a dimensional wormhole. Trust me, I checked. What happened is not just a rare moment where I agree with the ACLU, but is also a red flag that the Left is going way off the reservation with this one. (And, no, that’s not a swipe at Senator Elizabeth Warren.)

This is the point where the curtain gets pulled back and we get to see the Wizard of Oz. If Democrats were serious about passing what they call “sensible gun laws,” they would be willing to draft bipartisan legislation where civil liberties could be protected. Instead, they drive to the left faster than a NASCAR driver at the Daytona 500.

That’s because the Left doesn’t want anything sensible in this debate right now. Doubt me? Keep in mind a handful of Democrats have literally said Republicans want to arm terrorists because they refused to vote for the Democrat bill. (Given the fact the current Administration literally has armed terrorists, the irony is richer than Adnan Khashoggi betting on whether Joe Biden will say something stupid.)

When you resort to gross misstatement to make your point, your point might be weaker than a balsa wood love seat at Michael Moore’s house. Then again, it might have been an attempt to divert attention away from how ridiculous the House Democrat “sit-in” looks. When grown adults are sitting and pouting as their colleagues bring in pillows and blankets, comfort foods like M & Ms, and cater in meals (totally not making that up, by the way), they should be called out as the children they appear to be.

This is where Speaker of the House Paul Ryan fumbled the football a bit by trying to get C-Span to stop broadcasting from the House. If anything, I would have allowed the cameras to keep rolling, but with a bit of a twist. I would encourage House Republicans to hold up signs or visual aids mocking the House Democrats for their antics. As it stands, Ryan miscalculated, and the result was the “sit-in” disrupting actual House business by being vocally disruptive. Yes, they have the First Amendment right to assemble, but for members of a party who has accused Republicans of being obstructionist while they are actually disrupting Congress, we have the First Amendment right to tell them to go pluck themselves.

Or a word that rhymes with “pluck.”

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


In the aftermath of the Orlando shooting, Leftists got on their soapboxes (or whatever boxes they could find since they don’t typically use soap) and talked about the need for more gun laws to prevent shootings…that couldn’t have been stopped with any of their previous proposals to stop the shootings. But this time they’ll be successful!

At least until the next shooting.

In the meantime, we can discuss their “solution” as the Leftist Lexicon Word(s) of the Week.

gun control
What the Left believes it means: measures to protect people by restricting gun ownership, bullets, or other means

What it really means: The Left wants your guns

Right now, Leftists’ heads are exploding with rage at my statement. See, to them, they’re not really going after guns. They just want to make gun ownership as impossible as Michael Moore refusing a second trip to the all-you-can-eat buffet. That’s totally not the same thing!

Except, it is.

The Left does want to take people’s guns, and they make no bones about it. After all, only redneck white trash Republican Trump supporter types think they need guns for protection. When a Leftist needs a gun, it’s an actual need because, well, reasons.

See, that’s the dirty little secret of the Left. They want to take other people’s guns, but keep their own so they can be the only ones who can shoot people. Yeah, that won’t end badly for anyone. Oh, by the way, there’s a call from a Mr. Crispus Attucks for you Leftists. Something about spinning in his grave so much the estate of the inventor of the centrifuge is suing his estate for copyright infringement. On the plus side, you might be able to figure out a way to use his spinning to generate clean electrical energy.

And speaking of spinning, the Left always tries to spin events to create support for gun control measures. If you followed the Senate Democrats’ filibuster to shame Senate Republicans into acting on demands for tougher gun laws, you got to see it in action. That, and I’m sorry you sat through several hours of Leftists showing how little they know about guns.

The Left knows it can’t come out and say “we want to take your guns” and they can’t admit they know nothing about firearms, so it relies on human emotion to make up for it. As powerful as it is, it fails in the face of an informed citizenry. Once you really look at the proposals the Left devise, they fall faster than a house of cards on the San Andreas Fault. (And while we’re here, why is it always the San Andreas’ fault? Seems to be a bit of racial profiling to me…)

Let me make something very clear. Most of the recent mass shootings have been done by people who have beaten the existing system. You know, the one the Left said was needed to prevent mass shootings? Yeah, that’s worked well. And the Left wants to keep adding onto the number of hoops gun owners jump through in order to purchase guns. Meanwhile, those with a predisposition to disobey the law will laugh as they circumvent the laws.

Before you Leftists start asking, “So you’re saying we should have no gun laws?”, let me save you the trouble. Some gun laws are needed, but the current system is broken and should be fixed before we add to the laws in place. If you really care about reducing gun violence, you can’t be satisfied with the current system.

Ah, but that assumes the Left cares about reducing gun violence. They don’t, actually. They need bloodbaths (or the illusion of bloodbaths) to maintain the viability of their attempts to reduce gun ownership. Let’s not forget, the operative word in what they believe is control. If the Left can control guns, they can control far more than guns.

Which is why they’re retooling what they say they want. Now, they say they want “gun safety.” Yet, how many gun safety courses do they sponsor?

Zero. None. Nada. The Big Goose Egg.

And who does sponsor gun safety courses? The eeeeeevilllllll National Rifle Association.

That should tell you everything you need to know about how serious the Left is about gun safety.

Good Idea or Bad Idea?


In the wake of the Orlando shooting, Democrats decided to recycle an idea they introduced last year: banning people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list from getting guns. (At least they believe in recycling something!) On the surface, it makes sense. We don’t want terrorists getting guns, right? Absolutely.

So, why aren’t more people on the Right on board with this idea? A little thing the kids like to call “due process.” It might be just a fad, though, if some people get their way.

Put simply (so Leftists can understand it), due process requires people not be denied their fundamental rights without there being some sort of legal action. Although the FBI is an arm of law enforcement, it is not equal to a trial where little things like evidence and sworn testimony can be used to determine guilt.

Still unclear about this concept, Leftists? Let’s try something closer to your political hearts. Due process prevents cops from throwing members of Black Lives Matter into solitary confinement before the BLM clowns get their case heard in court. After they’re found guilty, then the BLM clowns get thrown into solitary. There are no short-cuts in the process, kids.

Even if you’re not down with due process, there’s another huge (or YUGE if you’re a Trump supporter) problem with the FBI’s watch list. The way you get on the list in the first place is completely arbitrary. You don’t even need to be an actual terrorist to land on it! In fact, you could be an actual terrorist and not land on it. (See the Boston Marathon bombers for a prime example.) And if you’re a mother of three from Minneapolis with the oh-so-Muslim-sounding name of Lena Olson, you could wind up on it by mistake.

Yeah, that’s not exactly a “whoops.”

And it’s not exactly something we can gloss over, either. Since 9/11, we as a society have been willing on some level to let some rights go by the wayside. Democrats and Republicans alike have used the fear of terrorism, both foreign and domestic, to weaken the concept of due process for their own political ends. This continues today, as does the inefficiency and ineptitude of those who keep and maintain the watch list.

That, in and of itself, is not a valid enough reason to apply the watch list to whether someone should be allowed to get a gun. But I do have an idea, and I’m hoping the Left (and some people on the Right) have the intellectual courage to act on it.

If you support the Democrats’ proposal, volunteer to go on the watch list. Even if your name is Lena Olson. Report yourself to the FBI as a suspected terrorist, just to be on the safe side. If it saves just one life…

The M Word


Unless you’ve been living under a rock or have been blissfully unaware of what has been going on in Washington, DC, recently, you’ve heard about the shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando committed by a gay Muslim who swore allegiance to ISIS/ISIL before the shooting. And if you’ve been following the media coverage of the shooting, you’ve probably heard the following people, organizations, and ideas blamed for the shooting.

– The NRA
– Donald Trump
– Christians
– House Republicans
– The gun lobby
– Gun manufacturers
– Homophobia
– North Carolina’s bathroom law

Notice the one person who isn’t being blamed for the shooting? The actual shooter himself. You know, the presumed gay, but most definitely Muslim extremist who committed the crime? Yeah, that guy.

The silence regarding the obvious criminal’s actual motivations behind the Orlando shooting is breathtakingly deafening. It’s almost as if people are scared to mention the shooter’s religious affiliation, even though it’s the most likely explanation for his actions.

Now, let me be clear here. I am not saying all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, I believe most Muslims are peaceful and want to be left alone to worship in peace. No, Muslims are not all sleeper cells awaiting for a secret code in a package of Eggo waffles.

But I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t concerned at the number of Muslims who either vocally or silently support their extremist brethren.

While the media and the Left try to find their scapegoat du jour, I did a little digging on various killings committed by Muslims, and boy did I find a bunch! According to, there have been 74 instances of Muslims taking American lives since 1972. That’s close to 2 a year. Granted, when compared to the alleged number of mass shootings in America, it’s not as impressive.

Ah, but this is where things get interesting. After a bit more digging, I found of those 74 instances, 3 directly involved Muslims killing homosexuals. Now, 3 in 44 years isn’t bad.

One tiny problem. Those 3 have occurred…since 2014.

And they’re not just happening in right-leaning cities. One of these killings happened in Seattle, Washington, home of the Seahawks, Starbucks, and the sucky $15 per hour minimum wage. Even in the Leftist version of Utopia, Islamic extremism has taken lives.

But tell us again how strengthening gun control laws will help.

The Left, as usual, is looking in the wrong direction when it comes to the Orlando shooting. They’re looking for excuses when they need to be looking at a clear trend that has started to spike in recent years. Until America gets over its fears of being called Islamophobic, we are going to see more attacks on its citizens, gay or straight.

And if you’re gay, bi, lesbian, trans, etc., you should be at the forefront of this matter. Nearly 50 people lost their lives as a direct result of a Muslim extremist. I see groups about gays against Islamophobia cropping up, but not nearly enough wanting to take on Muslim extremism with the same vigor you take on Christians. And before you tell me Christians and Muslims aren’t that different with regards to homosexuality, let me point out something.

Christians may disagree with your lifestyle, but most aren’t going to try to kill you over it. With Muslims, it’s a little less certain. Put another way, some Christians will try to “pray the gay away,” while some Muslims will try to stone the gay to death. There is a big, big difference between the two.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


This past weekend many cities across the country hosted Pride parades. Putting a damper on the festivities was a mass shooting at a gay bar in Orlando. Yet, one subject can be found at the center of the discussion of both events: homophobia.

It’s a term that gets thrown about more than a deflated football in Tom Brady’s hands. And it just so happens to be this week’s entry in the Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week.


What the Left believes it means: Any negative response to homosexuality

What it really means: Not agreeing with the radical gay agenda

You can support a cause while calling out some of the people ruining the cause. Unless, of course, you’re calling out members of the LGQBTABCDEFGRESPECTFINDOUTWHATITMEANSTOME movement. Then, the Left will say you hate gays, even if you’re carrying a rainbow flag and marching to “Macho Man” by The Village People while you do it.

How do I know this? I’ve actually had it happen to me and seen it happen to others. Even a slight disagreement over practice can tar you as a homophobe in some circles. In other circles, you could be called a homophone, which makes no sense. That’s why I try not to travel in those circles very much.

Seriously, though, allegations of homophobia are becoming more common as the gay rights movement makes strides in being treated like everyone else…just with more rights and considerations than if you’re a straight white heterosexual. Yes, you read that right. The gay rights movement wants to have its cake baked by Christian bakers under fear of legal and fiscal backlash and eat it, too, and you can’t say anything about it.

But here’s the thing. You can disagree with the gay rights movement without hating gays. The two are mutually exclusive, but the Left wants to make it an all-or-nothing affair. (Which, oddly enough, is the same approach some talk show hosts on the Right use. I’m looking right at you, Sean Hannity!) This has made it hard to have a serious discussion on the merits of and the areas of opportunity for the gay rights movement. After all, who wants to try to discuss a subject when the person on the other side of the table does nothing but throws hateful rhetoric at you? It’s almost like being married. (Just kidding, dear! Love ya!)

Then again, as we’ve seen with other subjects they champion, the Left may not want a serious discussion. That might lead to…a civil exchange! One that could…result in actual solutions and…understanding! The Left can’t have that! How else would they bilk…I mean help gays?

Maybe I’ve said too much…

This is not to say there aren’t people out there who legitimately hate gays and, thus, are actual homophobes. The Orlando shooter certainly fits that description better than a suit designed by Tim Gunn. But there are more people who get called homophobes who don’t. If you want to stomp out homophobia, first you have to make sure of who the homophobes are. Here’s a handy dandy checklist for my gay friends out there.

1) Do you agree with the Westboro Baptist Church? If your answer is yes, you are a homophobe. And a backwards asshat. If your answer is no, you aren’t a homophobe, but you may still be a backwards asshat.

2) Do you support ISIS/ISIL? If your answer is yes, the Westboro Baptist Church may want to talk to you. You know, exchange recipes, maybe get together for a few laughs, blow up a Pride parade or two. (Note to ISIS/ISIL and the Westboro Baptist Church: This is not an actual suggestion.)

3) Do you hate the sin, but love the sinner? If your answer is yes, you aren’t a homophobe. If your answer is no, you have bigger problems than what gays are doing right now.

End of the list, kids. I hope this helps.