Strange Bedfellows


To put it mildly, I’m not a Donald Trump fan. However, the New York Times has put me into a situation I never thought I’d ever encounter.

I’m forced to defend Donald Trump.

It starts with a Times story that paints the Donald as a sexist monster that makes Bill Clinton look like Mitt Romney. Normally, a story like this would be right up the #NeverTrump movement’s alley…at least until you do a bit more digging into the story. One of the article’s primary sources came out on “Fox and Friends” this morning and said she never had any inappropriate sexual encounters with Trump.


To say journalistic standards have declined in recent decades is like saying Al Gore needs to work on his personality. It’s accurate, but it’s an understatement of epic proportions. And leading the pack as newspapers swirl down the drain is the Gray Lady. Although they’ve had their problems in recent years, taking on Donald Trump, especially with a story that seems flimsier than a toilet paper teddy, is not a smart move.

And if you thought Trump was bad before, Gray Lady, he’s only going to get worse. You’ve given him not just legal and political ammo, you’ve turned him into a sympathetic figure (or as much of one as can be made of him). Not to mention, you’ve given the Right yet another example of Leftist media bias that you can’t begin to deny without looking like buffoons. And considering you guys were the geniuses who hired Jayson Blair, that seems to be pretty easy to do.

But let’s say you’re right. Let’s say you have hard evidence Donald Trump is a misogynist and have no problem releasing it. That would be a major story, one that you could use to compare Trump…to the husband of a current Presidential candidate, former President, and documented rapist. Now, I can’t speak to Trump’s sexual history, but I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say he hasn’t actually raped anyone, unlike the aforementioned candidate’s husband.

But please, tell me more how Trump is bad for women. Oh, and while you do, make sure you give equal treatment to the Left. Wouldn’t want you to look like a partisan rag, right?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


About a month ago, the University of Massachusetts hosted gay libertarian Milo Yiannopoulous, feminist scholar Christina Hoff Sommers, and conservative comedian Steven Crowder in an event called “The Triggering.” And trigger they did. Campus Leftists felt the need to not only attend the event, but to do everything in their power to try to disrupt it.

To put it mildly, it didn’t go well for the campus Leftists, but it made an unintentional YouTube star out of one of the participants, Cora Segal.

Or as she’s better known, Trigglypuff. (A word of warning. There are parts of her outburst that are not safe for work…or for rational human beings, for that matter.)

During Ms. Puff’s…I mean, Ms. Segal’s rantings, she mentioned two concepts that I felt would make great additions to the Leftist Lexicon Words of the Week.

free speech

What Leftists say it means: the freedom to say what you want when you want
What it really means: the freedom to say what you want, but the intelligence to know when to shut up

hate speech

What Leftists say it means: speech that is hateful and should not be protected as free speech
What it really means: any speech the Left can’t handle

Ah, nothing like college kids thinking they understand the nuances of freedom of speech to teach us about how things should be. I know I feel better about the future when I think of people like Ms. Puff…I mean Ms. Segal.

Yeah, and I’m President of the Bernie Sanders Fan Club.

Here’s a pro tip for Trigglypuff: a difference of opinion isn’t hate speech in and of itself. I’m sure they didn’t teach that in your Multicultural Albino Feminist Tap-Dancing Midget Postmodern Poetry and Basket Weaving class, but it’s true. In fact, there is no fixed legal meaning of hate speech which means it could be literally anything. Including…oh, I don’t know…making an ass of yourself at a public forum by lying about a gay man and a feminist woman. In fact, that could easily be a…hate crime!

Of course, I wouldn’t be the one to press charges because I happen to believe in free speech beyond the confines of the First Amendment. Yes, Ms. Segal, I want you to speak your mind for two reasons. First, it creates a healthy environment for all parties who want to say something to do so. Second, it creates a healthy environment for me to mock you mercilessly.

That’s right, Trigglypuff. Free speech includes mocking people who richly deserve it, and you, my dear, have earned every bit of derision you have earned. Of course, you’ll call this mockery hate speech because it hurts your feelings. That’s nice. Now, care to engage in some real intellectual discourse? No? Didn’t think so.

By trying to paint free speech as hate speech, Leftists try to silence anyone who disagree with them. When that doesn’t work, they resort to the kind of antics we saw at the University of Massachusetts: disrupting the actual speakers. Although you have every right to do that, you look like an ass doing it. That’s the thing about free speech; you’re not guaranteed an audience, and you might just wind up being the Jim Fixx of running gags.

You know, like you are now.



Right now, there is a candidate for President few party members like, but is the presumptive candidate for said party. This candidate has been accused of being out of touch with the grassroots, too extremist, and utterly unlikable. Of course, this candidate’s supporters say if we don’t vote for the candidate, the candidate from the other major party is going to win and do far worse things, so voters should hold their noses and vote for the candidate.

Of course, opponents to this candidate are holding out for someone they feel is better, someone closer to their ideals of what a President should be. They are being told to stop holding out for their candidate and line up behind the presumptive candidate to preserve party unity.

The aforementioned candidates are…Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, respectively. Although, these same sentiments are being used by Donald Trump supporters to get Republicans and conservatives to climb aboard the Trump Train.

If Clinton and Trump are using the same rhetoric to force unity within their respective parties, how different can they actually be?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Yeah, I know it’s a little earlier than usual, but I figured I would write this one for all the mothers out there. So, Happy Mothers Day.

And, no, I didn’t save the receipt, so you can’t return it.

This Kentucky Derby was this past Saturday, and along with the big hats and mint julips there was People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals alleging animal cruelty against race horses. It seems any time animals are in the news, PETA and other animal rights activists aren’t too far behind. So, what better time than now to discuss this week’s words?

animal rights

What the Left says it means: treating animals as equals to human beings

What it really means: putting the “crazy” in “crazy cat lady”

PETA and other animal rights activists come from a good place. They want to protect animals from being mistreated, and it’s not a bad goal. And if you’re expecting a but here, you’re right.

The problem is these folks have a very liberal definition of mistreatment, both figuratively and literally. If you eat meat, PETA says you’re mistreating animals. That may be, but it’s delicious mistreatment, especially if it’s a medium rare steak with a side of bacon. Mmmmmm…

Where was I again? Oh, yeah, animal rights.

To put it mildly, the animal rights movement is on the extreme edge of the Leftist Utopia (Leftist Utopia void in anywhere that understands basic economics). Although their numbers are smaller than Verne Troyer starring in a remake of “Fantastic Voyage”, their influence is much wider due in no small part to their pals in the media. Whether it’s the Kentucky Derby or the circus coming to town, the animal rights movement will make itself known, and when they show up, the cameras aren’t that far behind.

But here’s the thing. A car wreck doesn’t require you to crane your neck at the carnage. Just because a few people hold up signs decrying meat as murder, fur as murder, and basically anything that gives people even an iota of pleasure as murder, it doesn’t mean we have to pay attention. Sure, it’s a freak show that would make Tod Browning flinch, but it really isn’t that fulfilling. Think of it as a Twinkie with a liberal arts degree.

At the heart of the animal rights movement is the idea animals are worthy of being elevated to being mini-humans with fur. (Wouldn’t that mean PETA should be against animals? I mean, they are wearing fur.) I get it. There are animals who make better people than some of the actual people walking mostly upright. I’m looking right at you, Kardashian family!

Now, here’s the problem. Animals aren’t humans. They lack certain cognitive functions essential to being human. Ever see a porcupine try to hug it out with anyone? Nope, and that’s for two reasons. One, animals lack empathy, and two, the quills are a bit of a deal breaker for hugs. And along with empathy, animals are missing a few other higher brain functions that would make them closer to humans than they are now. Then again, it might just qualify them for Congress.

Animal rights activists see themselves as the voice of animals, which would be unnecessary if animals had the intellectual capacity the animal rights movement thinks they do. Maybe they’re bucking for job security after the liberal arts degree didn’t qualify them for a job other than…oh, I don’t know…animal rights activist.

And here’s the kicker. Human beings are animals. Biology 101, kids. We are mammals with higher brain functions that make us unique in the animal kingdom. We can reason, feel, express ourselves in any number of forms, and all sorts of other things you won’t find very often in the animal kingdom. Or in the animal rights movement, apparently.

Although the animal rights movement may think they’re motivated by love of animals, they’re motivated by something else: control. Like all Leftists, the animal rights movement wants to remake the world in their image, and that means you will have to do what they say or else you’re scum. That means you have to give up your free will, something else humans have that animals don’t. And, as much as I love animals, I’m just not willing to hand it over and start eating tofu. For one, tofu by itself isn’t that good, and for another, forcing me to abide by someone else’s will might be a bit…unethical.

If you won’t want to eat meat because you think it hurts animals, fine. I’ll be more than happy to pick up your slack. Just let me do it. That’s all I ask. I won’t harangue you for your lifestyle, and we can part as friends.

After all, if I eat more meat, that frees up more salad for you! It’s a win-win!

Party Foul


With Ted Cruz and John Kasich dropping out of the Republican race, the GOP finds itself with Donald Trump as its standard bearer. Now, comes the fun part: uniting the party behind the candidate.

Easier said than done, given the sheer amount of vitriol coming from most of the candidates on the Republican side. Now, the ante is being upped by the Trump Trainers, with Mike Huckabuck…I mean Huckabee, telling Republicans who don’t support Trump to leave the GOP.

Oh, and Mike? That sound you heard was thousands of Republicans heading for the doors.

On the other side of the aisle, Democrats are faced with a similar situation. The tensions between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are running higher than a Denver pothead on April 20th. Or Tuesday, for that matter. As Clinton seems to be closing in on the Democratic nomination, she is finding it hard to attract Sanders supporters. And why not? She’s only a untrustworthy, calculating, and shrill harpy whose successes can be written on a portion of a Post-It Note and still leave plenty of room for a grocery list.

Put another way, the two major parties have trouble on their hands, and it’s here in River City. That starts with T and that rhymes with D and that stands for douchebaggery. That’s right, kids. Both major parties are treating their party members who don’t support the candidate or presumptive candidate as the case may be like Bill Clinton treats female interns.

I can understand the desire for the two major parties to have their party members coalesce behind their nominees, but it not a given. Just like respect, support must be earned, and out of the three candidates from the two major parties, none of them have earned my support, and there are many more of us out there who feel the same way. Should our voices be silenced or disregarded because we’re not behind the party’s nominee? Maybe, just maybe, there is a reason for our hesitation.

Maybe, just maybe, we’re waiting for the candidates to give us a reason to vote for them. And, no, “Because the other party’s candidate is worse” isn’t good enough. A crap sandwich is a crap sandwich no matter what color plate it’s served on. I’ve gotten to the point where I want to vote for something and someone rather than against something or someone. The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils is you still wind up with evil.

I think I speak for a number of people, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, when I say if the two major parties want our votes, they’re going to have to earn them, and it’s not going to happen if they continue to take us for granted.

Hoosier Daddy


With tomorrow’s Indiana primary looming, the writing may be on the wall for at least some of the candidates still in the race for the Democrats and Republicans. Depending upon which set of polls you believe, Donald Trump or Ted Cruz will win the Hoosier State and, with it, a slew of delegates. Between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders…ah, who cares? They both suck.

Whomever wins for the Republicans will have done something important. They will have made later contests matter.

One of the big complaints from states like California is that smaller states have a much larger impact on who the candidates are by the time they get to hold their party conventions. This year, though, that narrative has been thrown out the window. Later contests are actually having an impact on who the GOP’s nominee is.

And that, dear reader, is a good thing.

When we started out the campaign cycle, the Republicans had 16-17 candidates (depending on whether you counted the Pat Paulsen of the GOP this year, Jim Gilmore). By far, that has been the deepest field in my lifetime. Although they took up various points on the conservative spectrum, the GOP had the political buffet from which to savor.

Compare that to the 5 major candidates the Democrats had to suffer through…I mean pick from. Although the Democrats could fit all of their candidates on the same stage, they really didn’t deviate too much from the script: Republicans bad. Democrats good. (Read that in a Frankenstein’s Monster’s voice for the best effect.)

With such a wide array of candidates, Republicans had a lot of choices, and that, in turn, lead to a longer campaign than usual. Previous years saw a Republican candidate sew up the nomination by May or sooner. But this year, voters had an actual choice. They had to weigh options carefully, line up their own values with those of the candidates, and really think for a change instead of being forced to have warmed over dog crap sandwiches this late in the primary season.

Regardless of whether you’re on the Trump Train, want to Cruise with Cruz, or take up space with Kasich, there are two things we can take from this year’s primary season. One, the Republicans have done a masterful job in making later contests matter.

And, two, Bernie Sanders really needs to put away the Flowbee and get to a Great Clips.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


This past weekend was the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, or as it’s commonly called “Nerd Prom.” Typically, these kinds of events are as boring as a golf announcer doing commentary on paint drying, but this year’s event was newsworthy if only because the host, Larry Wilmore, called President Obama his…well, n-word.

Most people called Wilmore out on his use of the word as racist and disrespectful (that, and the fact he was as funny as Al Gore doing stand-up), but some on the Left defended him, saying it was okay because both Wilmore and Obama are black.

While we set this aside to let the irony/hypocrisy marinate, let’s look into the appropriate Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week.


What the Left says it means: a major problem permeating every aspect of life

What it really means: the ultimate “Get Out of Responsibility Free” card

It seems you can’t throw a rock in Leftist Land without hitting a racist institution, like universities and the media. Wait…don’t Leftists control those areas? Wouldn’t that mean…naaaaaaah!

To hear the Left talk, race relations are at an all-time boiling point, and it’s all because of racism. But if you’ve been paying attention, you see the Left’s narrative is full of more holes than a semi truck full of Swiss cheese caught in the middle of a gang war in Iraq. Are there racists out there? Absolutely. Are they as widespread as we’re lead to believe?


Take a look around. If things were as bad as the Left make them out to be, shouldn’t there be more chaos and destruction? Wouldn’t Beverly Hills look more like Detroit on any day ending in “day”? Shouldn’t there be more animosity between the races than the Hatfields and McCoys on PCP? If this is the racist tinderbox that is igniting fires across this country, I’d say we wouldn’t have enough fire to roast a mini marshmallow.

That’s the dirty little secret the Left doesn’t want you to know. The races in this country get along pretty well by and large. Once you realize that, you see the real problem isn’t racism; it’s assholism. It’s people doing reprehensible things and using racism as justification regardless of whether race is even a factor. Assholism knows no color. See Ferguson, Missouri, for proof of that.

Remember how the Left said the TEA Party was nothing but angry white people? Yeah, they completely ignored black TEA Party members, including Representative Mia Love of Utah. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t that be actual racism? Why, yes…yes it is!

But the Left doesn’t care about that actual racism. They would rather focus on the number of black characters on TV shows and in movies or the lack of black Oscar nominees because Hollywood is racist! (See my question above regarding who controls Hollywood because I believe in recycling.)

And guess what? They’re heavily invested in who can use the n-word.

So, why is the Left pushing a false narrative? There is money and power to be had in keeping the illusion alive. The longer we believe race relations are worse than Larry Wilmore’s hosting, the more the Left can take from from all races. At the end of the day, the only colors the Left doesn’t discriminate against are green and gold.

Now, imagine what would happen if we woke up tomorrow and actually got along. The Left would be more confused than Joe Biden trying to find a corner in the Oval Office. But America would be much better for it.

As it would if Larry Wilmore lost his invitation for future Nerd Proms.

Stop Me If You’ve Heard This One…


Remember when all of those Hollywood types swore they would leave America if George W. Bush won the Presidency? You know how many of them made good on their word? Fewer than the remaining fingers on both hands of the world’s worst shop teacher.

Well, in case you were nostalgic for that, happy days are here again! Several celebrities, including Lena Dunham and Samuel L. Jackson, have said they would move to Canada if Donald Trump wins. Of course, I’m not sure what Canada has done to warrant such an extreme response, one that I believe might be against the Geneva Convention. Fortunately for our neighbors in the Great White North, few if any celebrities will be moving there because such celebrities have a track record of saying one thing and then ignoring it after they realize there aren’t that many acting gigs in Canada.

But I wouldn’t be surprised to see more celebrities publicly stating they’re getting their passports in order.

If you are a celebrity reading this and are threatening to move to Canada or anywhere else for that matter if Donald Trump wins the Presidency, I have a quotation from “Tombstone” for you.


Of Pot and Pox


Recently, my fair state of Iowa has been embroiled in two seemingly unrelated disagreements, whether to legalize medical marijuana use, and whether parents should be forced to vaccinate their children. On the surface, both seem to be cut and dried issues, but simplicity can often camouflage something far more complex.

When it comes to medical marijuana use, I’m more libertarian. In fact, when it comes to legalizing pot in general, I’m more libertarian. No, it’s not because I want to spend my afternoons getting stoned and watching “Scooby Doo” reruns. It’s because I have this wacky idea that responsible adults might just have the ability to, you know, decide what is best for them without my sanction. If you want to smoke more Doobies than a hitman working for Michael McDonald, be my guest. Just don’t take my money to do it or demand my blessing.

With vaccinations, I’m just as libertarian. Parents should not be forced to make their children get shots. It would be a good idea, but forcing good ideas on people isn’t the best way to go about it. (And, yes, I feel the same way about seatbelts.)

“But, Thomas, what about the children?” some might ask. Using children to justify stripping away freedom is like hoping an aggravated cobra won’t strike you if you wave your hands in front of it. It doesn’t end well. Just ask Everytown for Gun Safety about their attempts to implement gun control laws.

At the end of the day, you may not smoke pot or need it for medical purposes. You may have already gotten vaccinated and had your kids vaccinated. But a freedom given away isn’t easily or quickly returned.

Besides, if Iowa legalizes pot, I have a great idea for a pot dispensary/bakery called Wake and Bake…

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


This week’s journey into the Leftist lexicon brings us to a rather loaded word being used incorrectly. And if there’s anything that’s rife with comedy gold, it’s misused words.


What the Left says it means: a term used to describe an unfair system that favors the rich and powerful

What it really means: The Left doesn’t understand how stuff works.

One of the biggest complaints coming from the Left is that we have a “rigged economy.” Yes, those evil rich people like Al Gore, Bill Gates, and Hillary Clinton are somehow gaming the system and getting rich off the backs of the poor. Well, when you really think about it…

The Left isn’t exactly known for its financial acumen. What they are known for is spending a lot of money on pet projects like Solyndra, Planned Parenthood, and National Endowment for the Arts grants for self-described artists to shove sweet potatoes up their…noses. (Well, not noses, but this is a family blog.)

Is the economy rigged? Yes, but only if you consider being smart enough to understand the law of supply and demand to be unfair. And knowing the Left, they do. (Would it be inappropriate to remind you all these are the same people who claim to be better educated than us? Naaaaaaaaaaah!)

The fact is the economy isn’t rigged. Everybody has the same chance to succeed or fail with a business venture, but you have to work for it. That’s where the Left gets off the success train. They feel anyone who is successful does so through deceit and oppression of the poor and middle class. They see the economy as a half-empty glass instead of realizing the glass can be refilled as often as needed.

Of course, they might understand that if they spent more time busing tables than spending hours working on their Albino Midget Lesbian Basket Weaving thesis.

I’m a bit of a skeptic at heart, so when I hear anyone complaining of a rigged system my first instinct is to look at the facts. More often than not, the people screaming about something being rigged lack even a basic understanding of how it works. But in cases like that, the desire to believe the worst is stronger than the facts. Think of it like trying to get a piece of candy away from a child. Only the candy is a false premise, and the child is a Leftist, but I repeat myself with the latter point.

Seriously, it’s important to know the facts before buying into a statement about a rigged economy, rigged election, rigged anything. A false allegation can lead to undercutting a legitimate concept or construct. Once tarnished, it gets harder for that concept or construct to be taken seriously.

Much like Joe Biden.