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.

 

Obama Family Revelations

I recently ran across a snippet of a CNN street interview of the late Joan Rivers. She was of course known for comedic style from the Tonight Show.

Joan was very outspoken in her Liberal Leftist political agenda, a huge backer of Obama’s bid to become President. And a friend of the LGBT communities.

In case there are any doubts to the content. I have linked the video below. And in case the Leftist controlled social media sites ever take it down. I have it downloaded and preserved.

Joan Rivers had become a minister in the Universal Life Church. She had recently conducted a same-sex “marriage” at a Barnes and Noble while promoting her last book. This is when the CNN reporter caught up with her and began to ask her questions.

One was if Ms Rivers was going to become a celebrity wedding minister as a carrier move. To which she replied that she doesn’t charge to do weddings. Another question was if Ms Rivers ever thought that the country would have a gay president.

Joan Rivers promptly answered that we already had a gay president in Obama. And further stated that his wife, Michelle, was actually a transgender. Born a man, but reassigned to be a female.

The media and other places that talk about this at all state that it’s just Joan Rivers comedic style to say something outlandish. But there are other sites and sources that state the same thing if one goes digging around for them. Especially during the height of 2012 re-election bid.

At the time they were dismissed as right-wing conspiracy theory nut jobs. But they should be revisited. And Michelle Obama should submit to an independent blood test.

A simple chromosomal pairing will prove or disprove the theory in an instant. She will either have an XX pair and be female or she wont.

Of course if this is true and if it was known, Barack Obama would have never been elected president in 2008 to begin with and never would have had a re-election in 2012.

 

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice

Lets look at abortion, this is going to be a big topic in the coming months as new pro-life laws are challenged in the Supreme Court. Especially since Justice Kavanaugh will be on the court to hear these cases.

I’m not going to go into the fact that the Court doesn’t Constitutionally have this power of review, since that is a topic for another post. And they think they do and We the People do nothing and let them have it.

The pro-choice side states that life begins when a baby is born. That a developing fetus is part of the mother and is just a mass of cells. No different from any others of her body. And that a woman can do anything with her own body and we, meaning the legislature I presume, cannot make any laws against what a woman can do with her own body.

If I don’t have that correct please let me know, politely, in the comments. As a reminder personal attacks in the comments will not be approved. And the user may be banned from this site in the future. Thank you.

The pro-life side states that life begins at conception. We do not equate the egg and sperm as a baby. They must unite in the spark of light for a baby to be conceived. Only the resulting union is a new life. The developing fetus in the mother’s womb is a separate individual. It is not a mass of cells any more than the mother herself is a mass of cells. Just the fetus cannot exist outside of the womb until it is fully developed.

It is a false argument to state that the legislature cannot make laws against what a woman, or a man for that matter, cannot do with their bodies. There are a multitude of such laws already in existence. It is illegal to be a prostitute. It is illegal to use the services of a prostitute. It is illegal to consume certain drugs before a specific age. It is illegal to consume certain drugs for any reason or condition. These are just the easy ones. Each of these restrict what a woman can do with her body. Where is the outrage?

Additionally we already have common law examples that a developing fetus is a separate human life. This is proven time and time again when a pregnant woman is murdered. The perpetrator is charged with TWO counts of murder. One for the mother. And one for the unborn child developing in her womb. If that developing fetus was just a mass of cells and part of the mother, there wouldn’t be two counts of murder, there would be only one charge and not two.

So here is where the pro-choice argument fails and shows that it is a matter of convenience and not a matter of truth. Because truth would show that either a developing fetus is either a mass of cells or it another human life. It cannot be both. Either the murderer is charged with 2 counts and abortion is a murder. Or the murderer is only charged with 1 count and abortion is just the removal of an unwanted cellular tissue mass, like cancer.

To be pro-choice is either grossly neive and confused. Or one is mentally ill or just purely wicked and evil.

 

An Unpopular Opinion

Now that the drama from the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh has died down (except on the Left), it’s time for me to finally weigh in.

I didn’t believe him completely. And I didn’t believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford completely.

Instead of following the circus…I mean hearing on television, I listened to it online, and it was an enlightening experience. For one, Senate egos translate quite well with just sound. And for another, you catch more. Little turns of a phrase, white lies, and other verbal cues you might not notice if you’re paying attention to the visual elements. What I found was Kavanaugh and Ford both avoided questions that were central to the other side’s case. To me, that signals they both had something to hide, which raised more red flags than the most violent soccer match ever.

When faced with a situation where there is no clear truth, I like to focus on other factors. What do the parties have to gain by being dishonest? Who seems to be hiding more? What kind of tree would they be if they had a choice? You know, the hard-hitting stuff! In the Kavanaugh-Ford situation, I saw a clear motivation from both sides to be dishonest. For Kavanaugh, it was the possibility of being a Supreme Court Justice. For Ford, it was what I call the “Anita Hill Package.” To date, Ford received over $1 million on a GoFundMe, the adoration of modern feminists, a rejuvenation of the failing #MeToo movement, and the most important thing: an automatic pass on any lies she told because she did it for the right cause. Both sides had something to gain and a lot to lose, so they hid or distorted details as needed.

What ultimately turned the tide for me wasn’t who benefited more, but what both sides were willing to let slide to win. For the Right, they risked losing the female vote for decades by throwing in their lot with Kavanaugh. This was a political risk, and one that had to be executed without much room for error. Secondary to this was the risk of appearing to be anti-woman (even moreso than the Left makes Republicans look like now) right before the midterm elections. A disheartened base would spell disaster for the GOP at a time when President Donald Trump needs as much support as he can get congressionally.

On the other hand, the Left was (and still is) willing to overlook the presumption of innocence, the rules of evidence, privacy, and even basic decency to win. Yes, yes, I know it wasn’t a trial but a “job interview”, but presumption of innocence extends beyond the court of law, and it needed to be considered here given the severity of the charges and the implications of the decision of who to believe. The Left (and the Right, to a lesser extent) hasn’t shown a desire to ensure both parties in this matter were held to the same standard. For people like me, that’s inexcusable.

So, let me apply that consistent standard here. Kavanaugh and Ford both distorted the truth and hid key details more times than I like, meaning there were no white hats yet again. I’m not willing to overlook this for the sake of a Supreme Court Justice, nor am I willing to overlook the implications. Regardless of where you come down, Brett Kavanaugh will have the stench of corruption, valid or otherwise, all over him for the rest of his life because the Left can’t let it go. To them, he will always be in the same category as Brock Turner. Meanwhile, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is getting out of this matter relatively unscathed (and a great deal richer), but her reputation has been sullied by everyone not in the Leftist bubble, and the potential damage to rape and sexual assault victims and to women in general has yet to be determined

This remains a no-win situation with only potential short term gains considered. We deserve better.

 

Settled Law

Throughout the course of nearly every single Supreme Court nomination in the past couple of decades has been the topic of “Settled Law”.

This is a wicked and dangerous idea that needs to be eliminated once and for all. Many use this term when it comes to discussing the 1973 Supreme Court opinion on Roe v. Wade that legitimized the serial murder of children within their mother’s wombs. This is not, nor has it ever been, settled law.

There are only ten laws that are settled. Forever unchanging and compleatly irreversible. These laws are found in the Book of Exodus and have the common name of the Ten Commandments. And they can be usually found in every courthouse across this great nation. Rightly and proudly displayed to the public.

These are the only settled laws in all existence.

Every law that man has made is changeable by man at any time. What is illegal today can be legal tomorrow. What is legal today can become illegal just as quickly. This includes the opinion on Roe v. Wade, which isn’t law at all since it is a court opinion.

Many laws are changed, modified, rewritten, ignored, and removed every single year by state legislatures and Congress with a simple vote and then signature of the chief executive.

So take the notion of settled law out of your vocabulary. It doesn’t exist outside of the Laws of God.

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

One of the most intriguing (and admittedly frustrating) elements of the confirmation hearings of Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh is the use of names for people who question the testimony of Dr. Christine “Not Cool Enough for a Nickname” Blasey Ford. After all, we’re supposed to believe women, even when their stories are more bogus than a CNN fact check. People who take the “believe all women” stance have a particularly offensive term for those of us doubters: rape apologists.

And it’s a term that keeps getting thrown about whenever a woman comes forward with claims of sexual assault and/or rape. If you don’t believe a woman, you obviously condone rape according to the Left. If you defend a man against sexual assault and/or rape charges, you condone rape. In fact, I’m pretty sure being a man who insists upon breathing in a woman’s presence is grounds for being a rape apologist.

So, let’s put on our hip waders and take a walk on the slimy side.

rape apologist

What the Left thinks it means – a group of people, predominantly male, who will excuse sexual assault and rape under any and all circumstances

What it really means – a term that is used to try to protect women who have questionable allegations in an attempt to legitimize all questionable allegations against men

Even though I’ve been out of the dating pool for a few years, I understand the pressures of being a single man in today’s society. The manbun alone has been a pox on the houses (or at least the condos or apartments) of single men everywhere. But add the possibility of being accused of rape, and it makes the manbun look like…well, a manbun.

Accusations of rape and sexual assault are serious business because they have significant emotional and legal import. Just ask Brock Turner and his dad. That’s why it’s important we treat every allegation seriously and commit to finding out the truth. It’s also important we call out those who make false allegations.

To the Left, that makes me a rape apologist. To everyone else, that makes me a sensible human being. Guess which side I’m taking.

Leftists are quick to point out women really don’t have a reason to lie about rape and sexual assault, and they point to statistics (that they’ve invented) to point out how rampant rape is in our society. This is done to justify the idea of women as being helpless victims subject to the whims of evil men. And this turns into campaign contributions and votes for Leftists, who claim to be the champions of women and front line fighters against the rape culture. And these are the same people who throw out the rape apologist label whenever they think they shame people into bending the knee to their ideology.

Consider my knee unbent. Oh, and you Leftists can get bent.

It’s not that I don’t believe Dr. Ford so much as it is we’ve been down this road before with other accusations that haven’t panned out and have been whitewashed by Leftists. Remember Emma “Mattress Girl” Sulkowicz? She was the darling of the Left when she alleged she was a rape victim. Senator Kirsten “Hillary 2.0” Gillibrand invited her to one of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Addresses, where she was featured prominently. She was praised for her lame stunt…I mean “art project” and was believed without so much as a thought.

Guess what? She lied. Her “rape” was actually consensual sex. But that’s just one example, right? There can’t be more! Well, you might want to ask Rolling Stone about that.

This is not to say Dr. Ford is a liar. It’s to introduce a concept that isn’t often considered when discussing rape and sexual assault allegations: due process. Betsy DeVos caught a lot of flak for trying to update Title IX to bring college campuses closer to the due process standard, but it was the right thing to do because prior to her intervention, those accused of rape were guilty even after being proven innocent. For that, DeVos was called a rape apologist (among other things).

If you’ve been paying attention, you see a couple of patterns. One, Leftists are really unhinged. Two, the people being called rape apologists are calling for men and women to be on equal footing legally when it comes to rape allegations. And three, not one of the people accused of being rape apologists…have literally apologized or tried to delegitimize rape.

That’s because throwing out the “rape apologist” label isn’t about rape so much as it is about maintaining the status quo where women have the power to ruin men’s lives with none of the consequences that come from false allegations. The problem with this approach, however, is that it runs in direct conflict with their claims of a “rape culture.” If there really is a culture that condones and promotes rape (spoiler alert: it doesn’t exist), why would the Left want to make it harder for actual rape victims to come forward and be believed?

Let’s just say the Left doesn’t have a problem with actual rape when it suits their needs. See Bill Clinton. And as long as they can get enough people to believe they care about women while making it easier for people to disregard actual rape and sexual assault, they will continue to use women, just like…well, Bill Clinton.

 

Congratulations Judge Kavanaugh

I watched the Senate vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Throughout the vote Leftists in the gallery violated Senate rules and interrupted the proceedings several times causing the sergeant-at-arms to restore order.

I think these people should be federally charged, face prosecution with jail time and be forever barred from entering the Senate gallery for life. There is a time and place for such actions but it is not in the Senate gallery.

The outcome of the vote was 50 in favor of confirming the nomination and 48 opposing the nomination. Per the Senate rules, which in this case requires a simple majority, the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States was approved.

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

During this past week’s drama…I mean circus…I mean confirmation hearing for Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh, Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee made it a point to underscore how brave Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was for appearing before the committee and telling her side of the story. And I literally mean “story.” I haven’t been so unconvinced at what I saw since I watched the actors in “The Blair Witch Project” trying to convince me the movie was scary.

The standard for bravery is different for everyone. For some, it’s the soldier who lays down his or her life for her country. For others, it’s police officers and firefighters running towards danger. For Leftists, it’s…a privileged white female professor who flies across country. Granted, if she flew on United, they might have a point.

And because of this disparity, we have a point to discuss in the Leftist Lexicon.

bravery

What the Left thinks it means – courage in facing adversity, often imposed upon people by conservatives

What it really means – a term the Left has really watered down

One of the hardest parts of defining bravery is in nailing down what constitutes it. Everybody’s going to have a different perspective due to their individual experiences. Having said that, I would like to think there is common ground on the definition.

Then, the Left get involved and any common ground turns into the Dust Belt.

As with public education, school lunch menus under Michelle Obama, and personal ethics, the Left sets the standard for bravery lower than Congress’ approval ratings. That’s not to say they don’t have standards, mind you. It’s just their standards are more ideological than anything else. (Surprise, surprise.) Anyone who could conceivably or actually represent Leftists get the fast track to hero status. That’s why AIDS victims are lionized while police officers are cursed (and cursed at, for that matter). It’s also why soldiers get called baby-killers while women who had or support abortion get positive press.

But it misses the point. You aren’t brave if you stick with the prevailing idea, no matter how many Leftists call you brave. If anything, conformity is the opposite of bravery because all you’re doing is following what the crowd tells you is good and right. And that’s how “Two and a Half Men” got into syndication.

The truly brave people are ones who ignore the majority and seek a better solution on their own. Our country might still be English colonies if the Founding Fathers listened to majority opinion at the time, which clearly sided with continuing to be colonists. Maybe they were afraid to change or maybe they had a thing for guys in white powdered wigs, but the point is the Founding Fathers took on great risk and the possibility of failure to take a chance at something great.

And it’s not just here and in the past, kids. People like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Harvey Milk, Susan B. Anthony, and countless others (including more than a few idols on the Left, I might add) bucked the existing system and brought about the societal change they wanted to make. I may not agree with them or what they stood for, but I cannot deny they were brave.

At this point, you may be asking yourself, “What does Thomas wear around the house?” Or “What does Thomas consider brave?” You know, whichever.

To answer the latter question, bravery is when you swallow today’s fears so others won’t have to be afraid tomorrow. That means a lot of people the Left call heroes don’t make the cut, including Dr. Ford. She wasn’t courageous for coming forward; she merely did what was expected she’d do and was treated like a Faberge egg in a pillow factory. Had she come forward in the 80s and faced down a hostile legal team who cared nothing about her or her feelings, that would have made her brave. As it stands, Dr. Ford’s bravery was more watered down than Michael Phelps’ Speedo.

As for the former question, I’m saving that answer for another blog post.

Bravery in any form comes with an element of risk. The higher the risk, the greater the reward for success or penalty for failure. And with Leftists wanting to take the risk out of everything so everyone can be equally mediocre, that means being brave gets a lot easier if you subscribe to the Left’s mindset. The problem is if everyone can be called brave, then no one gets to be brave. Bravery becomes the norm.

Let me put it another way. Being an outspoken Leftist at UC Berkeley requires little bravery. Being an outspoken conservative at UC Berkeley requires much more bravery because a) you will always be outnumbered, and b) the outspoken Leftists at UC Berkeley may physically hurt you for being an outspoken conservative.

Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart used a now-famous test for obscenity: “I know it when I see it.” Bravery works a little bit differently. You’ll know it when you don’t see it.

 

Lunacy over Kavanaugh

It is absolute lunacy. The Marxists in Congress continue to assault the dignity and reputation of Mr. Kavanaugh. 1st it was an attempted sexual assault in high school. The 2nd allegation was exposing himself at college, and a woman accidentally touching his exposed penis. And now, Mr. Kavanaugh is accused of participating in giving high school girls drugs at parties and gang-rapping them. Come on. Really?

Each of these tales get wilder than the one before it. Of course the Leftist loonies believe that a man who is accused of any sexual misconduct is automatically guilty and must prove his innocence if they want to give him that opportunity. But usually he is guilty and should be removed from society without due process.

But that rule doesn’t apply to those men who are Leftists themselves. Like Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and many members of the Democratic Party in Congress who have settled out of court with their victims and never proclaimed their innocence at all.

Of course come Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote in the Senate on Friday. There will probably be another allegation brought up against him. Maybe the Leftists will report that Mr. Kavanaugh really is someone else who has done all these things that we thought was in prison or even never caught. Thus making his whole life a lie.

Funny though that in the SIX FBI background investigations that have happened during Mr. Kavanaugh’s political career that NONE of these things have ever been discovered.

 

Round Two of the Fight

Another accuser has come forward. Just in time to prolong the nomination hearing in the Senate Committee or again to stop it in it’s tracks. This is the Left’s goal.

They would rather have the Supreme Court empty than have one more of President Trump’s nominees on it. They will push this issue with Mr. Kavanaugh until he or the White House withdraws the nomination. And the Left will then viciously attack the next nominee put forth by President Trump as well. Pushing these strings of nominees and hearings all the way to the 2020 presidential election.

Then they will entrap Senator Grassley with his own words from 2016. “Let the next president decide.” Of course hoping that the next president is one of their own and not a re-elected President Trump. Make no mistake at all, that is the plan of the Left.

As for this 2nd accuser of sexual misconduct against Mr. Kavanaugh. It allegedly took place only a year or so later than the 1st alleged incident. When the alleged victim and perpetrator were both Freshmen in college. And this too happened at a party. No originality to the Left’s made up stories and I’m sensing a theme here too.

We are seeing a pattern of alleged behavior that is in close proximity to one other in time. This makes gives the illusion that Mr. Kavanaugh is a serial offender. Under-aged drinking is involved at wild parties. Again another painting of Mr. Kavanaugh wrongfully being presented as a heavy drinker and very irresponsible. And then the very alleged acts that take place leaves people to believe that Mr. Kavanaugh looses all self-control when he is drunk. All of these things paint the picture of someone not worthy to sit on the High Court.

And all of these things are a lie too. Carefully constructed by the Left to make it near impossible to dispute.

But since this alleged event took place at a college frat house. I’m sure there are plenty of witnesses that will come forward. And that a report was filed with the college at least. The name of the fraternity should be available. The date of the party should be also available. And it should be on record if Mr. Kavanaugh was even a member of the fraternity as a Freshman.

One should remind all parties that lying under oath at a Senate Hearing is a federal crime. This warning goes to the accusers, to Mr. Kavanaugh, and members of the Senate Committee as well.

We are in for a long fight against the Leftists.