Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

During the heady days of the 2016 Presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump promised to build a wall on our southern border and have Mexico pay for it. Leftists and the media (who are pretty much Leftists) scoffed at the idea and dismissed it as folly. Well, they’re not laughing much now because there may be a government shutdown unless Congress authorizes funding for the wall. And, if now-President Trump is to be believed, Mexico is paying for it indirectly.

In either case, what started out as an over-ambitious DIY project has turned into a controversy involving accusations of racism, questioning of the President’s manhood, and the impact of illegal immigration on our country. Not since Pink Floyd has a wall been such a source for symbolism. And, like the aforementioned Floyd film, we might need some drugs to fully appreciate it.

Absent the chemical components, though, you have me. May God have mercy on our souls.

border wall

What the Left thinks it means – a racist structure designed to prevent immigrants from seeking asylum in America, a structure to show off Trump’s manliness to compensate for other areas

What it really means – an idea that sounds good on paper, but has issues that need to be addressed to be effective

That’s right, kids. The wall is a great idea on the surface because it is believed to be a strong statement America is finally ready to defend her borders. The problem is a wall is only as strong as the will of those who want to circumvent it. No matter how high we build a wall, there are still tunnels underneath it that will allow illegal entry into our country. Instead of looking up, our leaders need to be looking down and shoring up the tunnel situation.

Now that we’ve discussed the serious matters surrounding the border wall, it’s time to move into the silly matters, namely the Leftist outrage over it.

Leftists have built a narrative that Trump is a racist, and everything he does (in their eyes) only proves it. That’s what is known as confirmation bias, folks, but I digress. To the Left, building a wall is racist because it prevents Mexicans and other “brown-skinned people” from entering our country. Wellllll…that’s a vast oversimplification of the issues at hand, and the devastation is in the details. First, the wall in and of itself isn’t racist because…now follow me here…it’s an inanimate object with no self-awareness. You know, like Chuck Schumer. You can ascribe racist notions to it, but that doesn’t make it racist. Racism requires the ability to hate another race or deem your race superior.

But is the border wall proof of Trump’s racism? That’s hard to say without knowing what’s in the President’s heart, you know aside from blood and muscles and stuff. Although he’s said and done some questionable things both before and after he became President, I don’t have enough information one way or another, and anyone who claims otherwise is trying to sell you something. In this case, I have to give the President the benefit of the doubt and come down against the wall being a racist idea. If anything, it’s a sign of his lack of racism and desire for all Americans to be seen as Americans first. (Which leads Leftists to scream about him being a racist Nazi, but that’s a blog post for another time.)

Then, there’s the Left’s attempt to whitewash the illegal immigration element of the border wall by turning every illegal immigrant into a monolith. Two tiny problems with that: 1) not all of them are seeking asylum, and 2) not all of them are innocent women and children. Over the past several decades, our political leaders have opened the gates and pussyfooted…sorry, front-hole-footed around the issues that came from our benevolence and compassion. It’s not a coincidence scam artists use both of these to get what they want from their marks, and it’s the same thing with illegal immigration. We have created an incentive-rich environment for people to come here, and that has in turn created an entire underground market for people looking to skirt the law to do just that. Of course, this is the same government that gave us the War on Drugs, so it’s not out of the question for them to apply the same losing strategy to illegal immigration.

Speaking of losing strategies, Leftists also love the point out the wall won’t work, using some of the same ideas I mentioned earlier. Does this mean I’m turning into a Leftist again? Nope. Been there, done that, still smell like patchouli and failure. What they’re missing is the idea that a wall can be effective when enforced vigorously. Look at Israel. They have a fence that makes the Maginot Line look impressive, but they make it work because they care about keeping their country secure from unwanted guests, albeit unwanted guests with bomb vests and death wishes to beat the band. Closer to home, though, take a moment to document how many Leftists are against the border fence. Then, see if they live behind a fence or in a gated community. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say there are enough to render the Left’s “fences don’t work” arguments null and void.

Now, let’s delve into the more puerile element of the Left’s anti-wall sentiments. I’ve seen teenage boys with more restraint than the Left when it comes to sexual matters, and current House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s statement about the wall being a symbol of Trump’s manhood is no exception. Believe it or…well, just believe it, Leftists are obsessed with sex on a level that makes Larry Flynt look like a Puritan. Their ideology is built around who is doing what to whom and how it benefits them in the short term, so it’s not surprising Pelosi would try to turn the border wall into something phallic. Well, soon-to-be-Madame Speaker, to paraphrase Sigmund Freud, “Could you lay off the sex talk for once, please?” Oh well, sometimes a wall is just a wall.

More to the point, Pelosi’s statement and its subsequent repeating within the Left detracts from their message because it makes them look silly and immature. You could have said Trump was a doody-head and at least retained some gravitas, but as it stands you look like you’re not serious about addressing the issues. (You’re not, of course, but that’s not what you need to broadcast right now.) Plus, you gave the President the ability to strike back just as poorly as you did and look like a victim in the process. Brilliant!

The border wall is a lightning rod for controversy, both real and ginned up for publicity, and it won’t do what is promised, nor will it get at the root of the illegal immigration problem. It’s going to be a multi billion dollar Band Aid that we’ll pay for and always feel the pain no matter when it gets pulled off.


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I hate to admit it, but Congresswoman-Elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is starting to grow on me. For someone who follows politics so you don’t have to and tries to pepper his commentary with humor, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is comedy gold!

Among the various ideas she’s tossed around is something called a Green New Deal, and it’s gaining traction among the greener members of the Left. And, like many of the ideas she’s tossed about, it has far-reaching implications…and is poorly thought out and, thus, mockable. So, let’s do that, shall we?

Green New Deal

What the Left thinks it means – a series of initiatives to address ecological and economic crises with the focus on climate change

What it really means – another attempt to grab green while attempting to go green

If the Left ever started a religion (aside from worshiping failed sociopolitical movements and, oh yeah, themselves), it might look a little like the green movement. No matter what happens, it’s attributable to climate change. And don’t you dare bring stuff like real science and facts into the discussion because that just won’t do. We have to believe climate change is real, is getting worse, and only we can stop it.

Come to think of it, that’s pretty much Leftists worshiping themselves. Anyway…

The Green New Deal has a lot of Leftist gated-community-cul-du-sac cred. First off, it’s based in part on Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, a series of government programs designed to lift our failing economy during the Great Depression. Second, it combines two of the Left’s favorite causes: the environment, and spending other people’s money. And third, it’s guaranteed to increase the size and scope of government. So, to the Left, it’s a win-win-win proposition!

Now, are you expecting me to pour a glacier’s worth of cold water on this idea? If you said yes, I hope you bet the over because there is a lot wrong with the Green New Deal.

First off, the New Deal wasn’t that great overall. In fairness, it did cut into the unemployment rate a bit, so I will give it credit for that. The problem is it didn’t solve the employment or economic problems nearly as much as we’ve been lead to think it did. When you look at the numbers (and I have since my social calendar is emptier than a strip club in Amish country), the New Deal moved unemployment less than a percent after several years of being introduced. Prices were still high for the time and jobs were mostly scarce, even with the New Deal’s make-work programs.

So, if it wasn’t the New Deal that got us out of the Great Depression, what did? A little thing the kids like to call World War II. After Pearl Harbor, our factories needed to produce goods for the war, which meant a need for people to work, and that meant more jobs to be had. FDR might get the credit from Leftists (and he does), but his programs didn’t accomplish what they set out to do in any significant way. Hopefully, there isn’t a world war that comes after the Green New Deal is put in place, but it might be the only way for it to succeed.

I’ve talked at length about the Left’s green hypocrisy, so I won’t go too much into it here. And if you’ve paid attention to federal budgeting in the past few decades, you know all about how the Left loves to spend other people’s money. I will say, however, many people who push a green agenda also have another ideology behind it: some variation of socialism. That’s not to say all of them are, but after seeing enough of them, I’m starting to think it’s a requirement, not an aberration.

Then, there’s the growth of government. Leftists love this idea because it guarantees jobs for people who wouldn’t otherwise be employed and protects them from being fired for the reasons these people wouldn’t otherwise be employed. I don’t know all of the specifics (because not even the Green New Deal supporters have thought it out yet), but I guarantee there will be overlap with existing government programs. How can I make such a bold prediction? Because there already is overlap, and a lot of it. Take the banking industry, for example. You can count on 2 hands the number of agencies that oversee different banking functions and might even need to take off your shoes and socks these days. And they are all doing the same thing. A Green New Deal will only repeat that process, and it won’t get us any cleaner. Just look at SuperFund.

While going green is an admirable goal, the Left simply can’t make it work without coming up with expensive “fixes” that don’t do anything or creating yet another government agency that will spend more on air travel to climate change conferences than on the actual problem of climate change. But before you think I’m just complaining without an alternative, let me roll out my Green New Deal.

Approach Elon Musk, offer him a sum of money upon completion to solve or at least mitigate the climate change problem, and let him go to work.

That idea will make Leftists’ heads explode, but hear me out. The problem with the green movement is that it doesn’t understand what Musk does: environmentalism isn’t sexy. If you want people to become more environmentally friendly today, you have to create a demand for it. Toyota tried doing this with the Prius, and it’s still limping along while others drive by in SUVs so high you need an air traffic controller whenever you go out for a drive. And a big part of that is the Prius looks like an egg. It’s not attractive, but it does fulfill human need, such as being part of a group and having that group think highly of the Prius owner. But ego alone isn’t enough to save the planet. What’s missing is capitalism.

Musk didn’t become rich and famous by settling for the mediocre. He dreamed big, risked big, and won big with the Tesla and with Space-X. We need that kind of daredevil intellect involved in what the Left considers to be the highest stakes of all with climate change, but the Left doesn’t want a solution; they want a problem they can milk for money, power, and occasional guest spots on CNN and MSNBC.

The fate of the Green New Deal is up in the air right now, but if the past is prologue, we know how the story ends before it even begins. Let’s try something new, a more daring approach.

Do it…for the children.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Once again, the eyes of Americans are drawn to our southern border as hundreds of people are heading there to try to enter our country. These potential immigrants are currently moving from Central America through Mexico, fleeing their homelands and requesting asylum.

At least, that’s what we’ve been told. The truth, as they say, it much more complicated.

Since both the Left and the Right have mischaracterized the migrant caravan, I can’t let either side slide on this. So, consider this a Bipartisan Lexicon Word of the Week.

migrant caravan

What the Left thinks it means – poor souls who deserve to be let into our country to start better lives

What the Right things it means – poor people who are trying to invade America and take jobs from us

What it really means – poor souls being used as political pawns or trying to use our immigration system to their benefit

Let’s deal with a few facts here. First, the people currently traveling through Mexico are trying to escape conditions that make “Mad Max: Thunder Road” look like “Heidi.” This is not a healthy environment for cockroaches, let alone human beings. Let me put it this way. If moving to Mexico is an upgrade, your home country sucks. End of story.

Second, Mexico has extended asylum to the caravan, and the members have refused it. On top of that, some have been complaining about the charity they’ve gotten from the Mexican people, saying it wasn’t new or good enough for them. It’s gotten to the point even Mexicans are tired of the migrant caravan. One poll I read showed they had a 49% disapproval rating among Mexicans polled. If it goes any hire, Donald Trump might let them in so he can look good by comparison.

Third, not every person in the caravan wants asylum in the traditional sense. The normal process for asylum or amnesty is through official channels, such as an embassy, consulate, or at the border itself, and it must be crystal clear at the time those seeking it arrive at the aforementioned locations. If you rush the border, get knocked back, and then ask for asylum, that’s not the way to do it. However, that’s the way at least some members of the caravan (and their Leftist supporters) want it to happen, and it makes a mockery of the existing process in place that millions of legal immigrants have used to come here. If getting asylum is as easy as throwing rocks at Border Patrol agents, you’re pretty much negating the need for borders. Which, by the way, is an idea in Leftist circles that has gained traction thanks to influence (and tons of money) from your pal and mine, Uncle George Soros.

Fourth, the media aren’t telling us the truth. Yeah, like that’s a shocker! The photos we see are often of women and children crying or otherwise being subjected to what we’re told is horrible conditions under the direction of that mean ole evil super-racist Donald Trump. I mean, he ordered the Border Patrol to shoot tear gas at those poor innocent migrants! That’s practically chemical warfare! And it’s exactly what the previous President, Barack Obama, did at least once a week on average since 2013. Furthermore, the majority of the people in the caravan aren’t women and children. They are…adult men. Hmmm…I seem to remember another group the media told us were totally peaceful women and children and turned out to be mostly men prone to violence. I wish I could remember who they were. Oh well, I’m sure they haven’t caused any trouble since migrating to various countries…

When it comes down to it, neither the Left nor the Right have taken the right approach to the migrant caravan. They aren’t all innocent, as evidenced by members of the caravan throwing rocks at Border Patrol agents, but they’re not all invaders. From what I’ve seen, unless the caravan has heavy artillery coming behind them, they aren’t in a position to invade an open bar, let alone America. We need to take the time to separate the good from the bad and make sure those who are legitimately seeking asylum here are given a chance to get it.

Here is my step-by-step guide to making that happen.

1) If they want asylum, they have to say it from the get-go. No ambiguity, no throw rocks, get knocked back by tear gas, and then say you want asylum. Call it the Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Peace approach.

2) For those who get past step 1, make sure to have all necessary personnel and logistics in place to process their requests quickly, yet thoroughly. If the asylum seeker’s story checks out, get them in here and under the care of those who will handle the next steps. If the story doesn’t check out, politely decline their request, give them a care package of some sort with food, water, and other supplies, and send them back. And no double-dipping!

3) Respond in kind where appropriate. Yes, I know rocks can be deadly, but for the most part they are non-lethal weapons. Tear gas is a bit much. Try something closer to bean bags or rubber bullets, stuff that won’t cause permanent damage but will be a reminder to behave around the Border Patrol.

4) Stand firm. Leftists are going to make hay out of this issue no matter what happens, so there is a temptation to give in a little bit to keep the heat off. The problem is if you give a Leftist an inch, they will take a light year and complain about it being too short. As long as the position taken can be defended from a policy, logical, and ethical standpoint, stick with it. And, if you want to throw in an extra twist, ask the Leftists to come up with a better plan. They’ll scatter faster than high schoolers at a keg raid.

These are simple short term steps that will hopefully become long term solutions, but they are needed more than ever. The migrant caravan now may turn into a wave of immigrants later, which is exactly what the Left wants because it satisfies two of their main goals: overwhelming the current system to the point it collapses, and a constant stream of voters for Leftist policies. The best way to curtail that is to figure out how to address the problem and stick with it. But until we come up with a solution, let’s not pretend the caravan is squeaky clean or black-hearted until we get more facts. A great man once said, “Trust, but verify.”

And that man…was my Uncle Steve. And now you know the rest of the story. Good day!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Welcome back, my friends, to the blog series that never ends…

I hope you all have a happy Thanksgiving, especially if you had to spend it with Left-leaning relatives. I know they mean well, but hearing diatribes on the current rise white nationalism in America over Grandma’s stuffing is enough to ruin just about anyone’s appetites.

The Left has figured out a way to turn a holiday meant to celebrate the good things in our lives and turn it into a Whine-A-Palooza where everything is problematic, political and ideological stands must be taken, and the worst possible thing you can do is spend time with family who might have different beliefs than you do. It’s almost as if they can’t count their blessings because they don’t see them (while simultaneously being able to see white privilege everywhere even when it doesn’t exist). Why does the Left hate Thanksgiving so much? I’m glad you asked!

Thanksgiving

What the Left thinks it means – a racist holiday based on the subjugation and near extinction of Native Americans at the hands of white people

What it really means – a holiday based at least in part on the fact socialism sucks

We’re going to go into a bit of history here, kids, so make sure you have a beverage and some truck stop speed for this one. After the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock (and exchanged insurance information afterwards), they had an idea. They decided to share everything they had and produced on their own. This idea was codified in the Mayflower Compact, and it worked great for a while. Then, winter came, along with numerous illnesses, and the Pilgrims had to make a choice: continue to live in abject starvation and limp through, or change their approach. Considering we still have stories about Pilgrims today, I think we can safely assume they chose the latter.

The Thanksgiving tradition came about after that rough first year and was meant to commemorate their survival and to acknowledge the divine providence that helped them survive and keep the peace with Native American tribes. Not to mention the Dallas Cowboys played the Green Bay Packers that year, so a good time was had by all.

Since that time, whites and Native Americans haven’t always been the best of friends, due in part to bad treaties, worse diplomacy, and the wholesale slaughter of people on both sides of that divide. These events are a part of our history and should be acknowledged. Having said that, Thanksgiving just isn’t the time to bring up that sort of history, mainly and especially because the Pilgrims had nothing really to do with what their descendants did generations later.

So, why do Leftists bring up the entire sorted history at Thanksgiving? Grievance politics and white-knighting, to put it simply.

The first is easy to understand when you think like a Leftist (not that I recommend it, mind you). A Leftist is in a constant state of outrage, depression, and general bad spirits because they see the world as unfair due to powers well beyond their control. So, when they see something that causes offense, they feel they have to speak up about it, whether it be through marching and wearing ridiculous hats that look like female genitalia or screaming at the tops of their lungs or destroying public and private property because reasons. To them, the fact they’re upset overrules any and all other perspectives. In other words, Leftists act like toddlers.

As for the white-knighting, that stems from the aforementioned grievance politics and gets mixed with a major superiority/savior complex to create the idea only Leftists can speak for Native Americans. And, by extension, they are the only ones who can take offense on behalf of Native Americans. Remember the controversy surrounding the Washington Redskins a few years ago? Guess who were primarily the ones taking offense. That’s right: white Leftists. Sure, there were some Native Americans who parroted the Left’s talking points, but they were outnumbered by whites trying to “help” them. Hmmm…isn’t that what got Native Americans and whites to hate each other in the first place?

With the current political environment, we may not be able to stop people from putting white people on trial every Thanksgiving, but we can do a few things to lessen the stress these folks bring to the holiday. First, make sure you know the facts. Leftist arguments work primarily on emotional reactions, so if you stick to the facts, you won’t be persuaded. Second, decide on how you want to respond. If your family enjoys healthy discussion over cranberries, don’t be afraid to speak up. If not, let the Leftist in the family speak his or her mind and look like the asshole. Finally, stick to your plan, no matter what. Leftists will try to rattle you so you’ll engage and make mistakes because you let your feelings run away with you. The easiest way to counter that is…just ignore them. Leftists hate when they’re ignored almost as much as they hate being mocked. By refusing to fall for their bait, you deny them your emotional response to their emotional tirades and you ultimately win by not playing their game at all.

In the meantime, enjoy your leftovers!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

When I was growing up, there were very few journalists and reporters who became well-known, and most of the ones I knew tended to be local. With the advent of cable news, the Internet, and social media, that has changed. People may not be able to name the three branches of government, but they might be able to name at least one journalist, and that one would probably be Jim Acosta.

Jim Acosta is CNN’s White House correspondent, and he has made a name for himself by being the proverbial thorn in President Donald Trump’s side. Lately, he has been embroiled in a controversy following a press conference where it appears he touched a female staffer doing possibly the most dangerous job in America: getting a microphone from Jim Acosta. Because of this, Acosta’s press pass was revoked, leading to CNN suing the President and others on the basis the White House violated the First Amendment right to a free press.

Why has so much attention been brought on one man? Glad you asked, or else this week’s Leftist Lexicon was going to be a few words short.

Jim Acosta

What the Left thinks it means – a hard-nosed reporter holding the Trump White House to task and risking life and limb to get us the truth

What it really means – a loudmouth with a Napoleon complex to rival the original Napoleon

When I went to journalism school, one of the first lessons that got pounded into me was a reporter was never to become the story because it distracts people from the actual news. I can’t say if Jim Acosta learned that lesson, but judging from his actions I guess he must have been sick that day…each time it was brought up in a class.

Acosta’s contempt for the Trump Administration has seen itself play out in numerous conflicts, which has made him a Leftist superstar. To hear Leftists talk, Acosta is the only one who asks really tough questions and hounds the Administration for answers. Of course, to hear Leftists talk, socialism hasn’t ever really been tried, so we don’t know whether it will suck out loud. (Spoiler Alert: it will suck out loud.)

As a recovering Leftist and former journalism student (which, these days is pretty much one in the same), I don’t see what Acosta is doing as journalism so much as it is agitprop. Agitprop is language crafted with the intent of enflaming the public to advocate for a certain idea or position, and it can be very effective. Remember the alar scare of the 1980s? That was agitprop in its purest form. And it turned out to be complete bunk after cooler heads did their homework and figured out what alar was.

That brings us back to Mr. Acosta. I know the press is supposed to be like attack dogs when it comes to reporting on the government, but there is still a fine line between being an attack dog and being an overbearing dick. And Acosta flamenco dances on that line consistently. His behavior is, at best, childlike, which oddly enough corresponds to his Lollypop Kid stature.

Sorry, Jim. That was a low blow. (Sorry. Couldn’t resist!)

And that’s part of the problem I have with Acosta. He just doesn’t look like one. He looks like a little brother who wants to hang out with his older brothers to be one of the guys, but he winds up being more annoying than cool. I know this because I am the youngest of three boys and I did exactly what Acosta seems to be doing while pretending to be a journalist. And he’s just as annoying as I was, or still am depending on who you ask.

The larger part of the problem I have with Acosta, though, is his disrespect for his profession and, more specifically, his colleagues. Yes, I know he works for CNN, which gives him as much gravitas as, well, anyone else who works at CNN. But Acosta seems to think it gives him the moral authority to run the White House Press Corps from the floor. That, in turn, gives him the moral authority to hog the spotlight, at least in his mind. The problem is…there are plenty of other reporters in the room when Acosta goes all Journo-Spartacus on the President, and I’m sure they would like to get their questions answered. But for the grace of the man who thinks he’s the God of Journalism go they, unfortunately, and he rarely if ever gives them a chance to go.

As far as CNN’s lawsuit against President Trump and members of his Administration is concerned, for me it’s a non-starter. The First Amendment will not be in jeopardy if Jim Acosta doesn’t get this press pass back because CNN can always find someone else to take his place. Yes, Jimmy, you are expendable.  If you are too much of a headache to deal with (and from accounts I’ve seen from other journalists, he is), you can and will be replaced by someone else. Just ask Keith Olbermann about that. The First Amendment doesn’t protect you from getting the hook because you’re an asshole, nor is it threatened if you are not allowed to be one during press conferences.

Yes, I know Fox News filed an amicus brief defending CNN and Acosta, but they are looking out for their business interests going forward. From 2009 to 2016, they were on the business end of a lot of Presidential harassment, so it makes sense for them to take up for their peer. But, really? Is Jim Acosta’s behavior the hill you want to die on? His presence in the room makes a mockery of the profession I learned and still respect on some level. And, news flash Fox News Kiddies, the next Democrat President will be as much, if not more, of a ballbuster than President Barack Obama was because Leftists don’t believe in the two-way street unless it benefits them directly.

And Jimbo, if you’re reading this, understand your bravado and behavior doesn’t make you the next Edward R. Murrow or Sam Donaldson. Yes, they asked tough questions and were adversarial when needed, but they understood where the line between adversarial and assholishness was. You clearly don’t, and it’s hurting your credibility, CNN’s credibility (or what’s left of it), and the credibility of the other reporters in that room. You are not a diva, but a divot.

To the Leftists out there who worship at the altar of Acosta, you need a better role model for journalists. Start with Murrow and see how a real newsman did it. Jim Acosta falls short every time.

Sorry, Jimbo. Had to throw in one last short joke, buddy.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Over the past week, the Left has brought up the same idea in two different circumstances, one involving their favorite “woke” CNN reporter and the other involving their least favorite investigative reporter. Jim Acosta accosted a female Trump Administration aide when she tried to take a microphone away from him, leading Acosta to deny he even touched her in spite of video footage showing he did. On the other side of the spectrum, James O’Keefe and Project Veritas released videos showing prominent Democrat campaigns doing nefarious and possibly illegal activities.

So, what is the unifying theme? Allegations of doctored footage by the Left. Oh, and dumb allegations of doctored footage.

Whenever the Left brings up doctored footage, you can bet there’s a deeper story, and you can bet I’m going to write about it!

doctored

What the Left thinks it means – video footage that has been edited in such a way as to create a dishonest narrative

What it really means – any video footage the Left can’t bullshit their way out of

As you might expect, Leftists accusing footage of being doctored is loaded with a lot of partisanship. After all, if footage is doctored, it can’t be trustworthy, right? Welll…considering the Left still cheers when Michael Moore comes out with a “documentary,” it’s clear they don’t have a problem with doctored footage when they do it.

The implication of the allegations of doctored footage is that the footage cannot be believed because it has been deceptively edited. That’s what the Left continues to bring up with O’Keefe and Project Veritas because their early videos were edited. That’s right, kids. Leftists think edits made by conservatives are deceptive because…that’s what they do.

However, edits aren’t necessarily dishonest by nature. If you are removing content that has nothing to do with the subject matter or doesn’t fit with the idea you’re trying to convey, it may not be an act of dishonesty, but of necessity. Without edits, documentaries would be hours and hours long, instead of just seeming like they are. (By the way, if you have insomnia, check out any documentary on a sloth’s life, especially if the narrator is Al Gore. You’ll be out in seconds.) And considering documentary directors tend to swing Left, that means their documentaries are dishonest and, thus, can be disregarded.

Unfortunately for the Left, Project Veritas is a step ahead of them because O’Keefe and company has been putting out the full unedited videos of their stings, which makes it harder for the Left to accurately accuse Project Veritas of doctored footage. Oh, they’ll still make the allegations, mind you…

That brings us to Jim Accoster…I mean Acosta. The video footage of his boorish behavior has been slowed down and zoomed in to focus on the actions he took. And, surprise surprise, the Left says the footage is doctored. Of course, they also bring up the fact the footage was provided by InfoWars which is as reliable as Palm Beach County’s vote counting. But in this case, InfoWars got it right. Their footage wasn’t doctored by definition because it wasn’t designed to create a false narrative. It was done to address whether Acosta made contact with the aide, which he did. Of course, the footage also made Acosta, CNN, and all the reporters defending him look like liars and idiots, so…win-win.

When Leftists make the allegation something is doctored, you have to look closer at the footage and try to determine the intent. I’m not going to say there aren’t bad players out there on the Right who would deliberately distort video footage for political purposes, but I would argue there are fewer on the Right than there are on the Left because the latter needs to lie consistently for political benefit. Why else do you think they haven’t done a thing to help gays, blacks, Hispanics, and other groups they claim to represent? Put another way, the Right may lie, but the Left will lie.

And when it comes to video footage and allegations of doctored footage, that distinction makes all the difference.

In the case of Project Veritas, the doctoring allegations fall apart with their transparency. In the case of Jim Acosta, the doctoring allegations fall apart because the footage isn’t deceptively edited. In both cases, it creates an environment where the Left has a vested interest in discrediting the footage: the footage exposes their dishonesty. And the allegations of doctored footage doubles down on it, which should be a major red flag to anyone interested in the truth.

Which is to say, anyone to the right of, say, Nancy Pelosi.

Ronald Reagan had a famous quotation related to the former Soviet Union: “Trust, but verify.” When it comes to Leftist allegations of doctored footage when it makes them look like scumbags, maybe it should be “Verify, then trust.”

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The Resistance is active again. In between calling President Donald Trump a racist because feefees and filling social media with hashtags and talking points, they’re telling us to vote in the midterm elections. And with all the campaign literature clogging up our mailboxes, who knew there was an election coming up?

But this isn’t just any midterm election. This is the one that could mean the difference between saving our country and an existence that would make “The Handmaid’s Tale” look like a Norman Rockwell lithograph. The Resistance even adopted a slogan: Vote like your life depends on it because it does. Let’s see…breathing, food, shelter…nope, don’t see voting as a fundamental need.

What is it about Election 2018 that has the Left hyperventilating more than a claustrophobe trying to get out of a paper bag while breathing into a smaller bag to try to fight off a panic attack? Good thing we have a blogger who can shed some light into this. But since she’s out of town, they’re letting me take a crack at it.

Election 2018

What the Left thinks it means – the most important election in history, but only if Democrats win

What it really means – a repeat of past midterm elections, just with more Leftist freakouts

After not being able to impeach the President or even make him look even the slightest bit like the evil fascist warmonger they’ve tried to make him out to be, the Left has put a lot of focus on the midterm elections. In doing so, they have tried to keep spirits high by predicting a “blue wave” and avoided talking about party mistakes and candidate scandals. And to be fair, it’s not like the Democrats have a member of the Democratic National Committee who is accused of assaulting a woman, right?

Okay, scratch that.

The Left has put most of their electoral eggs in the 2018 midterm basket because they feel they have no other way to stop Trump. They’ve tried yelling at us, calling Trump supporters horrible names, attempting to assault and/or kill Republicans, and generally dismissing voters not like them as dumber than Forrest Gump on a five year binge on old school NyQuil. You know the kind I’m talking about. The NyQuil with enough alcohol in it to drop a rhino while clearing up its sinuses.

Anyway, the Left’s attempts to persuade people not already on their side to join up haven’t worked well. Maybe it’s, oh I don’t know, the fact you treat us like crap? Just thinking outside the ballot box here, kids. So, after over 2 years of taking the same approach to attracting potential voters, the Left has gone into overdrive to try to persuade people to vote for their candidates. And, in a clear sign they’ve learned from past mistakes, they’re doing the same thing they did for the past 2+ years…only louder.

The Left says they need to win the midterm elections to ensure Trump is kept in check and to try to reverse the horrible things he’s done, like…tax cuts that benefitted a vast majority of people? Well, they haven’t really ironed out all the details yet, but by Election Day, I’m sure they’ll have something…

The real reason I think the Left is obsessed with the midterm elections is because they’ve been out of power for a while, and they don’t like it. Remember how Democrats acted in 2007 after they took back the House from Republicans? They acted like they were going to be in power for a long time, and the election of Barack Obama in 2008 only fed into that idea. Well, apparently a long time only lasts 4 years in Leftist time because Republicans took back control of the House in 2011. Shortly after that, the Senate went Republican and left all the rules former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made to come back and haunt the Senate Democrats. What can I say, Mr. Reid? Mitch McConnell warned you.

Now with Donald Trump sitting in the White House and the prospect of conservative Supreme Court Justices looming on the horizon, the Left have a perfect storm of impotence on their hands. They’ve let power slip out of their hands and they’re willing to do anything to get it back, including actions they would have decried if Trump and the GOP had done them.

We’ve spent a lot of time in this blog entry on the Left, but the question remains: how important are the 2018 midterm elections? To political junkies on both sides of the political aisle, they’re pretty important. To average folks like you and me? Not so much. In the end, one group is trying to take jobs from another group because the first group says they can do the jobs better since the other group is a bunch of dunderheads with IQs somewhere in the neighborhood of toe jam. And the other group is trying to prevent the first group from taking power because they are doing the best they can while the first group is slightly smarter than bread mold. How convincing these arguments are depends on who listens to and believes them.

I may follow politics like I do professional football, but I don’t think any politician is going to have that much direct impact on our lives. In groups, yes, but individually, no. I look at it this way. Most of the time, these folks don’t bother to contact me when they’re about to vote on legislation, so I don’t bother to consult them when it’s time for me to vote. If they come around, I’ll listen to them and consider their viewpoints. Otherwise, I’m fine voting for whomever I feel will do the best job.

That’s why I’m voting for my dog, Chico.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Leftists have been complaining about stolen elections since they started losing to candidates they felt had no chance of winning. After all, they had only the best candidates who were smarter and better suited to leadership, right? Who could forget the campaign brilliance of 3 time Presidential loser Al Gore and 2 time Presidential loser Hillary Clinton?

One of the favorite terms tossed about since President Donald Trump took office is Republicans cheat through a process called gerrymandering. I’m not exactly sure how to mander Gerry, but it’s worth taking a look at for no other reason than it gives me something to write about.

gerrymandering

What the Left thinks it means – a form of cheating done by Republicans to ensure they retain political power at the expense of our democracy

What it really means – a form of legalized cheating done by both major parties to ensure they retain political power at the expense of logic

In short, gerrymandering is when political parties in power redraw Congressional districts after they get census results. In recent years, this means Republicans have more of a hand in the district redrawing process than they have in past years. And, as a result, districts seem to be drawn by drunk spiders rather than reasonable methods like…oh, I don’t know…splitting up districts geographically without considering political leanings. Yeah, I know I’m a bit of an oddball when it comes to this, but hey, it’s my lot in life.

This is not to say Democrats don’t do and haven’t done the same in the past when they’ve held power. In fact, they do, and quite often with the same logic applied to letting Mel Gibson give a speech at a bar mitzvah. Take the House members of the Congressional Black Caucus, for example. Back in the 1990s, the Left decided only blacks could represent blacks, so they drew up Congressional districts that would allow just that. And, boy, it worked well. It not only gave us the psychotic brilliance of former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, but it gave us plenty of other dim bulbs who wouldn’t be getting into Office Depot let alone political office.

Of course, the Left doesn’t consider this to be a problem because…reasons. And in a rare display of bipartisanship, the Right agrees.

I, however, see a problem with gerrymandering regardless of who does it. First, it makes zero sense from a logical sense. I know, expecting politics to be logical is like expecting Michael Avanetti to stop chasing ambulances, but it doesn’t negate the point. When your Congressional district changes borders from block to block depending on what side of the sidewalk you live before expanding to include entire neighborhoods, it’s hard to argue the districts make sense.

Second, it shows a lack of political courage. If you have to redraw districts to ensure an outcome, you are rigging the results barring a political upheaval that would make the French Revolution look like a Buddhist picnic. What’s wrong with advancing a better argument in your favor? Why do we need racially-minded redistricting if all people are supposed to be equals under the law? It’s nothing short of cowardice to be afraid to face opposing ideas.

The third, and the most pressing one to me, is the fact gerrymandering is ultimately pointless. As we’ve seen with the Congressional Black Caucus, it’s easy to create districts that fit a specific political and/or social goal. That creates a natural pushback that gives politicians a vested interest in breaking up those districts when they can. If that pushback leads to upheaval, it creates a desire for the other party to return to or even expand their original district borders.

Mutually Assured District Destruction at its finest, kids.

What gets me is how the Left takes the concept of gerrymandering and completely misuses it. Although it can be argued it has had an impact on previous elections, it has nothing to do with Senate and Presidential elections. Yet, whenever Leftists talk about what they see as political shenanigans by Republicans, they throw around gerrymandering like a gangsta rapper throws around the word “ho.”

And remember, kids, Leftists are the smart ones.

Right now, gerrymandering is a problem made worse by both major parties trying to jockey for any power they can muster, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Typically I’m not a fan of adding laws to the books, but in this case I’m willing to make an exception. Call it the Congressional District Sanity Act. Under my law, gerrymandering for political, racial, or other reasons would be outlawed, and Congressional districts would all be redrawn to ensure representation actually resembles the population in the districts. I’m looking at you, Maxine Waters, whose actual home in her district bears little resemblance to the homes in the majority of her district. And I’m willing to bet many of her constituents wouldn’t be welcome at Auntie Maxie’s house. Don’t want to associate with the hoi paloi, after all!

Gerrymandering shouldn’t even be on the table in politics today or the future. The fact both sides see nothing wrong with it as long as they’re doing it speaks volumes about how little they care about representing the people.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

preferred pronouns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

her truth

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

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

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

Yeah, still too high a price for that power.

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

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

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

And that’s what the Left is counting on.

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

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

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

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