image_pdfimage_print

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Senator Elizabeth Warren is scared. Of what? Aside from taking a free DNA test to establish her Native American history, she is scared of what judicial nominees proposed by President Donald Trump might do! They might actually…rule in a particular ideological manner. (You know, like what many of Barack Obama’s judicial nominees did? I’m looking right at you, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.)

Fortunately, there is a term Chief Running Mouth’s concerns: judicial activism. And it’s especially fortunate for me, since I can write this week’s Leftist Lexicon!

judicial activism

What the Left thinks it means – judges ruling against common sense and the will of the people for purely conservative goals

What the Right thinks it means – judges ruling against common sense and the will of the people for purely liberal/Leftist goals

What it really means – judges ruling against common sense and the will of the people for purely ideological goals that have no basis in logic or existing law

Although I’m primarily focusing on the Left’s concept of judicial activism, I have to look at the Right’s concept of it briefly. Conservatives tend to look at the law as sacrosanct and rigid, so when a judge forces the law to bend a bit, it can be disconcerting to say the least, especially if the change doesn’t seem to make sense. Take the recent court rulings related to Christian bakers being sued by gay couples. Conservatives and libertarians, such as your humble correspondent, saw the change made by judicial fiat as shaky and illogical while limiting the freedoms of others. Even if we agreed with the end goal, the way we got to that goal can be an example when the bench made law.

And the Left is perfectly fine with it, as long as they agree with the decision.

The Left sees the law as more flexible than Plastic Man doing yoga. If there is a law stating “No Dogs Allowed”, the Left will find a way to turn it into “Only Dogs That Self-Identify As Dogs Not Allowed, and Even Then It’s Okay.” Why is this? Because the more gray a law is, the more flexible it becomes and the more exceptions that can be turned into law by finding a judge that agrees with the Left’s ideology. Given enough time, the Left would find a way to make it illegal to miss “The View”.

This dichotomy between the Left and the Right as it pertains to the law shows us two of the purposes of the law. One is to protect the public (which is what the Right tends to favor), and the other is to punish those who violate it (which is what the Left tends to favor). Put another way, the law is like a gun: it depends on how you use it that determines the result.

Now watch my email box overflow with Leftists complaining about “gun culture” or some such.

The point is a single judge’s decision in a court case may not be limited to that one situation thanks to a little thing the kids like to call precedent. Whenever there is a court decision, it can be used again and again like the Russia excuse for why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election. And when you have Leftists involved, those court decisions can and will be used in all sorts of bizarre and unrelated ways. Need to justify shutting down a Christian baker who refuses to decorate a cake for a gay wedding for dogs? Well, according to Schmedlapp vs. Throckmorton (a case that had to do with two neighbors fighting over who owned the crabgrass on a particular parcel of land), the baker has to do it because the judge said something about dogs being gay over crabgrass. Never mind the fact the judge was using the term “gay” to mean “happy”! Words matter!

Ah, but there’s another element of the law the Left doesn’t like to discuss: the spirit of the law. As much as they say they see nuance, the Left completely ignores it when it comes to the law because more often than not it ruins what they want to achieve through judicial activism. You can muddy the waters with language, but it’s a lot harder to do with the spirit of the law because it tends to be contextual and specific. Once you start bringing facts and context into the equation, judicial activism becomes more transparent and less justifiable.

To Chief Running Mouth’s point, it’s not that Trump is appointing judges who aren’t impartial. It’s that he’s appointing judges that aren’t partial to the Left, and that can only mean disaster for them. But if the judges Trump appoints are equally as loose with the law as the Left’s appointments tend to be, we will have the same problem, just with a different colored team jersey. Any judge who lets ideology trump the law should be removed from the bench because he or she is putting a thumb on the scales of justice and creating more headaches down the road. And when you consider the current jurisprudence cholesterol that clogs up our legal system (just watch any judge show for a week for proof), we don’t need to add judicial activism making the problem worse!

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To be honest, the Internet is as safe as a meth lab housed in a nitroglycerin factory on the San Andreas Fault. Although I’m exaggerating for (hopefully) humorous effect, you don’t want to be too careless with your personal information online because there are unethical slimeballs out there who will use that information against you in any way they can. Although, I hear that Nigerian prince is a real cool guy.

When the war of ideologies goes online, political operatives have a number of tools at their disposal, one of which is a called doxing. We’ll get into the definition of it here in a bit, but the reason it’s become a hot topic recently is because of a Huffington Post writer named Luke O’Brien. O’Brien did a story about a Twitter user named Amy Mekelburg who has tweeted some anti-Muslim sentiments and has been retweeted by President Donald Trump. O’Brien’s story exposed Mekelburg, but also opened up her family to additional harassment. And this occurred because Mekelburg left identifying information online for people to follow.

Leftists cheered this, stating racists have no right to privacy and should be exposed. Others expressed outrage at those who took it upon themselves to bring Mekelburg’s private actions into the public square and expose her family to various punishments for actions they didn’t directly take.

In order to understand the Leftist mindset on doxing, let’s start by defining the term, shall we?

doxing

What the Left thinks it means – exposing conservatives for saying and doing things that should be called out and discouraged

What it actually means – invading someone’s privacy for purely ideological reasons

One of the key elements of Leftist ideology is the ends justify the means. If they can find a way to destroy an enemy, even if it goes against their public platform, they will do it. It’s just a matter of how and when. And when it comes to doxing, Leftists have no qualms doing it to conservatives because of another key element of Leftist ideology: those who do not conform are the enemy.

Nice folks, those Leftists.

In the Mekelburg situation, the Left has argued she doxed herself, which is entirely plausible and most likely happened. If O’Brien wrote a piece limited solely to her, we can debate the merits and flaws of the approach. However, that didn’t happen. O’Brien went to her husband’s employer for a comment, which caused her husband to get fired and a business owned by members of her family (who have openly said they don’t agree with her, by the way) to get harassed. Collateral damage because Mekelburg said something the Left didn’t agree with.

And while we’re here, what did Mekelburg say? Among other things, she made disparaging comments about Muslim prophet Mohammed, linked to people like Sean Hannity, and told people to follow noted white supremacists. The first two are enough for Leftists to get their collectivist panties in a wad, but the third gave them all the excuse they needed to target her…and her family. Obviously, they must agree with her. After all, they have the same last name!

And, as with most things Leftists believe, their position is hypocritical on a number of fronts, the most glaring one being the Left’s professed love of privacy. This may smack of “whataboutism”, but I have to say it: the Left has more problem with a woman expressing an opposite and Constitutionally protected opinion than it has with a woman killing an unborn baby in the womb. Call me crazy (because, trust me, plenty have), but isn’t that a bit…well…stupid?

I don’t condone what Mekelburg says, but she has a right to say it, thanks to the First Amendment. Which brings us to another area of Leftist hypocrisy, by the way. The Left will cry about freedom of speech being threatened whenever Donald Trump calls CNN fake news (I have another name for them that’s far harsher), but they also want to limit the speech of conservatives and libertarians because they’re afraid those groups will tell the truth.

And to round out this trifecta of trickery, the Left engages in guilt by association when it suits them, as it did in this case. Yet, who are the first ones to scold us for assuming terrorists are Muslims because “not all Muslims are terrorists”? Leftists, who by a complete coincidence always assume mass shooters are white men. (And, unlike them, the people who assume terrorists are Muslim tend to be right more often than wrong.)

And let me make myself perfectly clear here. Doxing done by anyone is morally wrong and, in my humble opinion, is a form of terrorism designed to control targets into either hiding or conforming to the ”right” opinion. And, to take it a step further, anyone who is responsible for circulating a person’s information online and/or uses it to harass innocent people is just as bad as the doxers themselves. No gray area, no letting it slide, no mulligans. If you dox or help spread the information, you are scum. Thank you for playing.

That brings us back to O’Brien. I’m sure he thought he was doing the right thing, but he should have taken more than a nanosecond to think about the implications of and fallout from taking the actions he did before submitting even a pitch to his editors. The fact it doesn’t appear he took that step is a stain on his integrity and yet another blot on an already-Mount Everest-sized mountain covering the media today. As the saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right, and O’Brien and Mekelburg are as wrong as they can be.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Our favorite socialist, Bernie Sanders, is back in the news. Recently, he held a town hall meeting in California where he called for employees of a major global company to get paid more. That company? Disney. The location of the town hall? Disneyland.

For one day, Disneyland went from the happiest place on Earth to the most economically illiterate place on Earth.

Sanders and his followers (whom I call Bern Outs) advocate raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour and have a catchy little hashtag to go along with it, #FightFor15. And judging from the number of times it’s been trending on Twitter, it seems to be a popular idea.

Which is exactly why I relish the opportunity to mock it.

#FightFor15

What the Left thinks it means – a movement to raise workers’ wages by increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour

What it really means – more proof Leftists don’t know the first thing about economics

Throughout my working years, I have been paid less than, more than, and exactly minimum wage with each doing everything from mowing lawns to telling mortgage customers “no” when they wanted late fees waived because, and I quote, “we were only late several times.” And people wonder why I have gray hair…

My pay at each of these positions depended on a series of factors, not the least of which being work experience. I didn’t demand top dollar for my work because I didn’t have the body of work to back it up and I worked hard to build up my value to the employer. That way I knew I earned every cent.

Thanks to Sanders and the Bern Outs, people think they should be guaranteed a starting wage higher than the hourly wage many lower-level professionals make who have started building up their skills. And they don’t see a problem with this because they feel the working class doesn’t make enough to live in modern America, so they think raising the minimum wage will help.

Yeah…I’m gonna have to disagree with that because…how can I put this…it’s bullshit.

Although #FightFor15 is a nice idea on paper (or Twitter for that matter), it runs aground fairly quickly when you consider the impact it would have on labor costs. If Joe High School Dropout gets $15 an hour for running the fry machine on the night shift at the local Uncle Slappy’s It Kinda Looks Like Hamburger Emporium, that creates a business expense for Uncle Slappy, no matter how good or poor of a job he does. Throw in perks like health and dental insurance and before you know it, Joe’s doing all right for himself…until Uncle Slappy looks at his ledger sheet.

See, Uncle Slappy would not be the only employer having to pay increased labor costs due to the Fight for 15 crowd. Everything from the cost of what the Slapster swears is hamburger to buns to condiments will go up for the same reason. That creates a dilemma: raise prices or cut costs. At some point, raising prices destroys the consumer’s incentive to buy a product or service, which leaves cutting costs as the only option.

Guess what, Joe? You could find yourself on the unemployment line, and you know how much that pays? Zero.

Then, Joe will find himself in the same boat as other high-cost, low-skilled labor: competing for whatever work is available where only the most promising of employees will get a callback.

Even if Uncle Slappy is as liberal with his employee retention as he is with his “Buy One, Get a Stomach Pump Free” campaign, without cutting costs his Burger Emporium will close its doors, thus leaving Joe back in the same position he was in the other scenario. And, surprise surprise, make exactly the same pay as if he had been fired: zero!

Leftists will probably say I’m wrong about that, but there is a city that recently passed a law making a $15 per hour minimum wage a reality. And within a few months, their unemployment shot up, and companies started closing their doors because they couldn’t make ends meet. That city, by the way, is…Seattle, Washington.

Yep, a bastion of Leftist ideology got exactly what it wanted and saw it fail more spectacularly than Michelle Wolf’s jokes at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. And they still want to make $15 per hour the minimum wage.

Say what you will about the Bern Outs, but they’re committed. Or should be.

In the meantime, don’t be swayed by the arguments in favor of #FightFor15. If you want to make more than minimum wage, work harder, learn more, show up, and be responsible. It’s all about hustle. If you show it, eventually someone will take notice…and most likely give you more work. But at least you’ll be earning your paycheck, which is more rewarding in the long run than being given a wage you haven’t earned for work you can’t do because Bernie Sanders and the Bern Outs think you should.

Remember, Sanders has spent a great deal of his adult life making his money off taxpayers. Let’s just say I put more faith in my dog’s fiscal acumen than I do Bernie, and my dog licks himself on a regular basis.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Since he announced his candidacy, President Donald Trump has made illegal immigration a cornerstone of his rhetoric. Whether it’s his promise to build a wall between the US and Mexico or calling MS13 animals, Trump has been consistent and vocal about this issue.

So, naturally, the Left wants him to shut up about it, or if they can’t shut him up, they will try to make him look like a racist. Just like a port-a-potty teetering on top of a hill, the crap rolls downhill and affects ICE, or Immigration and Customers Enforcement for those of you playing along at home. The Left has called ICE “Trump’s Gestapo” because so much of what it does involves illegal immigration.

But are they as bad as the Left makes them out to be? Glad you asked!

ICE

What the Left thinks it means – a group of unaccountable racists who seek to destroy families of people coming to America to start a new life

What it really means – a law enforcement agency that does more good than harm

One of the things to remember about Leftists is they are experts at hiding their true intentions. (That, and they suck at staying on a budget.) When Leftists try to paint ICE as “Trump’s Gestapo”, it serves four purposes. One, it reinforces their idea Trump is acting just like Adolf Hitler did. Two, it creates a negative image of ICE, which creates fear and distrust of law enforcement in general. Third, it creates a need for Leftists to swoop in and be white knights for the poor oppressed people (that they helped to be poor and oppressed in the first place). Finally, it gives Leftists a steady stream of potential voters who will vote for anyone who will protect them. And, yes, there are illegal immigrants who vote, thanks in part to Leftist initiatives like California’s “Motor Voter” law which makes it possible for people to register to vote when they get drivers licenses. Because when you want to rig elections, you want to make it as convenient as possible, amirite?

Leftists may say they love law enforcement officers, but don’t let them fool you. They hate law enforcement at every level, and ICE is no exception. By doing their jobs, ICE disrupts the Left’s ultimate goal of turning illegal immigrants into a reliable voting bloc. Why, it’s almost as though ICE…wants our immigration laws enforced. Those bastards!

But are they really as bad as the Left makes them out to be? You might be surprised, but the answer is no, and this is coming from a guy who isn’t that keen on the Department of Homeland Security in the first place. ICE performs an important function for this country: trying to keep our immigration laws from becoming as meaningless as the current wall between the US and Mexico. That requires the grit of a soldier with the heart of a saint because every situation ICE gets involved in can go sideways in so many ways and affects entire families. Do I think ICE agents enjoy arresting mothers and fathers for being here illegally? Absolutely not. One would have to be a heartless, soulless monster to derive joy at that kind of pain. But they do have a hard, thankless job, no thanks to Leftists trying to paint them as the aforementioned monsters.

Here’s where things get a bit more complicated for the Left. ICE is actively seeking out and arresting people involved in human trafficking…a cause some Leftists have taken up. And when you consider many of the victims of human trafficking are women, it puts the Left’s hatred of ICE and their effectiveness as women’s advocates into perspective. While self-styled feminists march wearing knitted vagina, ICE is helping vulnerable women out of a horrible situation.

And that’s not all. ICE helps with other functions of law enforcement, including fighting illegal drug smuggling, international gangs, and cybercrime, just to name three. The more you look into ICE, the more you realize these men and women are doing their bests to keep the threads of society together as best they can.

As with all law enforcement agencies, there will be bad actors, but more often than not the good cops outnumber the bad ones, and I have no reason to believe ICE is any different. And I have no reason to believe the Left’s poisonous rhetoric. ICE isn’t the Gestapo for President Trump or anyone else. On a related note, I don’t seem to remember the Left getting their collectivist panties in a bunch when ICE did their jobs under President Obama. Coincidence? I think not! I guess when the “Gestapo” is working for a President you like, it’s perfectly fine to Leftists.

As with the Left’s recent love affair with the FBI (which is about as believable as Bill Cosby offering a woman a pudding pop), the Left’s hatred of ICE is politically motivated. When politics get injected into law enforcement, the results aren’t usually pretty and may actually hurt the latter in the short and long run.

That’s what makes the “ICE is Trump’s Gestapo” rhetoric so dangerous. The Left doesn’t care whether the world goes to Hell faster than Keith Olbermann can get fired from a job as long as their political needs are met. What they don’t realize is the type of criminals ICE is trying to catch don’t care about Leftists as long as their personal needs are met. And, given what we’ve seen from MS13 in recent years, Leftists had better be hitting their knees and praying to whatever deity they believe in that ICE is doing their jobs in spite of Leftists’ best efforts to destroy them.

Share This:

 

My 2018 Commencement Address

It’s that time of year again. High school and college students are graduating from their various institutions of public or higher learning, and that means they get to sit through another commencement speaker. Some are great (Michael Keaton’s will be hard to top), some are okay, and most are…well, predictable. All inspiring and “reach for your dreams”. Who wants to hear that?

In what is turning into at least a semi-annual tradition, I present the commencement speech I would want to give to graduating seniors.

To the Class of 2018, I have two words for you.

Now, what are you thinking those two words are? If you’re a WWE fan, you might think those two words are “Suck it!” That would be appropriate if I were former President Bill Clinton, but no. If you’re a comic book fan, you might think those words are “I’m Batman.” Considering Michael Keaton beat me to it, it’s not that. If you’re polite, you might think those words are “Thank you.” Not quite. Is it “I’m sorry”? No, that doesn’t come until after my speech.

Give up yet? Well, I won’t keep you in suspense any longer. The two words I have for you are…

Lighten up.

I know there are some of you out there who are thinking of two more words to say to me, but this is a family commencement speech. And, I want you to hear me out.

When I was your age, which was…far too long ago, I took myself way too seriously. I mean, I liked to have fun, but I thought I was the smartest thing since sliced bread. (Which, if you really think about it, isn’t that smart.) That ended after my very first class my freshman year of college. I walked in thinking I was brighter than everyone else and walked out knowing I wasn’t.

I offer you the same advice I learned the hard way: lighten up.

Listen, I know you have a lot on your plates. Global climate change which may or may not be considered weather, potential school shootings, online bullying, and any number of other threats that never could have been conceived when I was in your shoes. You may think you have to grow up faster just to keep up with the issues that pop up on a regular basis. I used to think that way, too. But here’s a little secret: this crap has been going on for decades. You’re just the latest group to find out about it.

You have a few options on the table, though. Some of you will choose to try to fix the world’s problems. Others will try to deny the problems exist. Still others will decide the world’s problems don’t have to be yours. After almost 50 years on this planet, I can assure you those of you in that last group are going to be a lot happier. Maybe not as happy as the people who deny the problems exist, but hey, you’re close enough for government work.

That just leaves the fixers out to address. I’m one of you. I love digging into issues and trying to figure out how to resolve them, so I get why you want to change the world. The problem is most of the change you’ll see is of the pocket variety, and most of your best efforts to fix the world will end in failure.

Brought the room down a bit, didn’t I?

This is why it’s important to lighten up. If you shoot for the moon and get frustrated you keep missing, you will get discouraged, depressed, or, worst of all, the urge to run for Congress. This is why it’s important to lighten up: it helps us calibrate our expectations to our abilities while making sure we’re not too hard on ourselves in the process.

And that goes for the lot of you! Have we forgotten how to have fun and laugh? I have seen so many situations where we have assumed the worst from people merely for telling a joke that we didn’t like. Except for you, Michelle Wolfe. You’re just not that funny. We have reached a point where jokes are the source of more outrage than people and actions that deserve outrage.

Lighten up already! Not every joke is an example of the Patriarchy oppressing people or whites oppressing minorities or whatever the outrage du jour is on any given day. To paraphrase Sigmund Freud, sometimes a joke is just a joke. And it’s only when we lighten up that we can recognize the jokes from the actual issues that need to be addressed.

And before the length of this speech becomes an issue, I’d better wrap it up. There’s a big world waiting for you out there, and it’s best experienced with a sense of humor and a smile on your face, if for nothing else than to confuse the people who don’t have either.

Congratulations! Now, go out there and lighten up!

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To put it mildly, the tension between the Israelis and the Palestinians over the Gaza Strip makes the Hatfields and McCoys look like a polite disagreement at a Lutheran potluck over whose Jello dish was better. Recently, those tensions came to a head when Hamas attempted to overrun the protective fence into Israel in Gaza and was met with violence. Reactions to this situation were mixed. Some said Israel was justified, while others lamented the death of Palestinian women and children. Still others wondered what stores were at the Gaza Strip.

Guess which side the Leftists took. Okay, they might be wondering about the stores, but most of them came down on Palestine’s side. And, yes, even Jewish Leftists came down on their side, which is a head-scratcher. I mean, it’s not like Palestine and Hamas want to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth or anything…oh, wait…

So, let’s take a trip to Palestine, thanks to the Leftist Lexicon. And the best part? You don’t even need to bring your passport!

Palestine

What the Left thinks it means – a country that is trying to fight against Israeli oppression and oppression

What it really means – a country that doesn’t exist today

That’s right, kids. You’re more likely to find Narnia or Hogwarts than you are to find Palestine in modern day 2018. Plus, I hear there’s a lot less violence in the former two, so there’s that.

Updated maps (excluding those of CNN and other Leftist media sources, by the way) do not show Palestine anywhere. This is not to say it didn’t exist previously, by the way. History and the Bible teach us it was a country, but as time went on, it was dissolved and became other countries. Its people assimilated into other countries and until recently things were quiet.

Then, the UN decided to recreate Israel using land in that part of the world where Jews had legitimate claim. Since then, the tensions skyrocketed like a SpaceX launch, bringing us to the present day where things aren’t much better. Yet, with all of that change, there are some constants. One, polyester should never be used to make suits. Two, Palestine didn’t reemerge. And three, Israel is still a target.

Palestinians groups like Hamas and the PLO before them love to sing the same song: Israel is oppressing us. They took our land, they kill our women and children, and are generally bad people. And Leftists, being suckers for a good sob story, have taken up for Palestine. With the frequent photos of the carnage, many non-Leftists are hard pressed to disagree.

Good thing I love a challenge.

There are many problems with the Left’s approach towards Palestinians, with the most obvious issue being the fact Palestinians are going after land that wasn’t part of Palestine. The bulk of what used to be their home country is in Jordan. There is some dispute over whether what is now Israel was a part of Palestine, but for the most part, Hamas and the PLO got their directions wrong.

So, that leads to the question of why Palestine is attacking Israel. Well, remember earlier when I said they wanted to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth? There’s your answer. Of course, the Left doesn’t believe them because of the photos they trot out whenever Israel decides not to take Palestinian crap. Yeah…about that…those women and children? They’re human shields. On a side note, where are the feminists on this? Oh yeah, supporting Palestine! Thanks, Linda Sarsour!

As far as the alleged oppression of Palestinians, you might want to take a look at Israel’s treatment of them. By comparison, Palestinians have more rights and enjoy a better way of life within Israel. They’re even allowed seats in the Knesset, the Israeli version of Congress. If that’s oppression, there are some Republicans in California and New York State who might want to sign up for that. On the other hand, we can imagine how Israelis are treated in the land the Palestinians call theirs. Let’s just say it’s not quite as hospitable. On top of that, Palestinian leaders treat their own people like Ike treated Tina, and it’s been pretty much a constant for decades. I mean, these people use women and children as human shields, put them in places where the leaders know there is a high likelihood they will be killed, and their properties look like Detroit after the Red Wings, Tigers, or Pistons win a championship (because we know the Lions won’t win a championship anytime soon.)

But, yeah, that’s Israel’s fault.

In spite of the facts on the table, the Left sticks up for Palestine for the same reason they take up for illegal immigrants: it’s an easy emotional appeal. Leftists love to take up for the underdog and they love to create images and ideas that play to our own love of them, which is both effective and manipulative. But once you realize it’s all a smokescreen, it’s easy to dispel the narrative.

No matter how you try to parse the situation, Israel was well within their rights to defend themselves against a hostile invading force trying to take land that doesn’t belong to them. That makes the Left’s arguments in favor of Palestine a really hard sell in my book. And by “really hard”, I mean impossible. The facts don’t line up, and they never will, which is why the Left has to make an emotional appeal.

But if they really cared about the Palestinians, wouldn’t they be doing more to stop the violence their leadership and Hamas have caused?

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It’s been quite a week for former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. For those of you who haven’t been following the news lately, Schneiderman has been accused of sexually assaulting at least four women. Normally, I would avoid this type of story like I avoid watching “Keeping Up With the Kardashians,” but it piqued my interest for a couple of reasons. One reason is because he is a Democrat who has built his career around fighting sexual assault, even to the point of being a proud supporter of #MeToo.

The other reason has nothing to do with Schneiderman directly. Instead, it has to do with someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Recently, MSNBC host Nicole Wallace asked reporters, “How do you resist the temptation to run up and wring her [Huckabee Sanders] neck?” complete with hand gestures replicating choking a person…in a question about tensions between Huckabee Sanders and the White House Press Corps.

Two different situations that fall under one word the Left slings around like hash browns at a Waffle House: misogyny. It seems to be a complicated, nuanced word to hear the Left talk, but is it?

Not so much.

misogyny

What the Left thinks it means – attacking a woman and her agency through thought, word, and deed

What it really means – attacking a Leftist woman and her agency through presumed thought, word, and deed

When the Left talks of misogyny, it’s usually in relation to existing economic or societal structures. In their minds, men run the world and do everything in their power to keep women down. Through this, Leftists weave a convincing narrative covering everything from women having to pay more for certain products like deodorant to women making less money as men for doing the same work to a lack of women in positions of power. All of this is wrapped up in a tidy bow and presented to us as fact.

Of course, it’s utter bullshit.

The Left needs women to think they’re being oppressed by The Man because that notion keeps them on the Leftist reservation with all the other people who think they’re being oppressed and the Left is the only group that can help them.  And, believe me, the Left talks a pretty good game when it comes to saying they want women to succeed. But try getting them to support a conservative or Republican woman. They abandon their identity politics faster than Bill Clinton hits on a woman at a Hooters and say “Supporting women doesn’t mean supporting women who aren’t qualified.”

In other words, Leftists support women so long as they think, speak, and act like they want. For anyone else, it’s open season.

Which brings us back to Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Because she’s not a Leftist, she can never be the victim of misogyny, no matter how vile the sentiments being expressed or how serious the threats to her personally and professionally.

But that sword cuts both ways. If you are a Leftist, you can never be a misogynist because you believe the right way. Even though it appears some of Schneiderman’s sexual escapades may have been non-consensual, there are Leftists weaving conspiracy theories stating President Donald Trump was behind it all. Granted, Trump has a lot of power, but he doesn’t have the power to make a powerful man treat women like trash, allegedly. That’s all on Schneiderman.

And that’s not the whole of it, either. Leftists also find ways to make just about everything misogynistic, even when there is no logical way it could be. One popular example of this is video games. The Left thinks video games are misogynistic if they don’t have enough strong female characters…or if they have strong female characters that are attractive to young men (the main demographic of video games)…or if the female characters don’t have compelling stories…or if they conform to the same goals as the male characters…or if they are the antagonists…or because their feefees got hurt.

This is one reason I always laugh when Leftists start seeing misogyny everywhere: because they are inventing outrage to justify their beliefs. (That, and they look like rejects from “Battlefield Earth.”) Another reason is because Leftists often fail to recognize actual misogyny. Extreme Islam, which actually attacks, kills, and enslaves women? The Left can’t be bothered to discuss that. They’re too busy protesting the obvious misogyny in Superman not being female!

Or hiding it when one of theirs is guilty of it.

Or attacking a conservative woman for not being one of them.

Leftists have a major blind spot when it comes to misogyny, which makes them not that credible when it comes to spotting misogyny. Instead, let’s call out the real misogyny that’s out there. Anytime a Leftist calls a conservative woman a horrible name, take them to task for it. Heck, if you really want to make a statement, insist Leftist males give up their positions to conservative women!

After all, they wouldn’t want to be misogynists, right?

Share This:

 

Promises Kept, Deals to be made

Another promise has been kept. President Donald Trump continues to keep his campaign promises. The dreadful Iran Deal is no more.

This deal was just bad from the beginning. The inspection provisions were a joke and the enforcement options non-existent. Iran had it made.

We basically were letting the world’s leading sponsor of Islamic terrorists develop nuclear weapons without so much as a glance. Iran in turn would use these weapons against the United States and Israel to start with before moving on the the rest of the world. Iran has stated many times that they wished to wipe the US and Israel off the map. And with nuclear weapons it would be possible to achieve that goal.

Iran would also sale these weapons of mass destruction and terror across the globe to any terrorist group wanting to get one. Forget the stadiums full of people. You could hold a whole city hostage with a nuclear device.

So now that the US is out of this deal. This enables us to act quickly against Iran if the need arises. And we are able to impose and enforce sanctions against Iran as well. Iran will have to come back to the bargaining table.

And this time it wont be a one-sided deal.

Share This:

 

Let’s Unmake a Deal!

It’s official. President Donald Trump announced we will be pulling out of the Iran Deal brokered by former President Barack Obama. And if your dogs heard a high pitched shriek, that was from Leftists losing their shit over it.

Let me make one thing crystal clear. I am not a fan of the Iran Deal, nor have I ever been. Although the Left says now it’s because I’m racist and want to erase a major accomplishment of the Obama Administration because Obama is black, nothing could be further from the truth. A bad deal is a bad deal, no matter who makes it.

And the Iran Deal is the Academy Award of bad ideas.

First off, it’s an agreement where the other party got the store without much effort on their part. The original terms of the Iran Deal included a provision where Iran agreed not to develop nuclear weapons while promising to allow inspections of their nuclear facilities. Sounds good, right? Wellllll…there’s part of the issue. In order for those inspections to occur, Iran would have to agree to let them happen and were given 24 days to comply with a request to inspect their nuclear sites. And if they refused or didn’t respond, there would be another vote by a Joint Commission…in which Iran would be allowed a vote.

In other words, if Iran got a request to inspect their nuclear facilities, they would have nearly a month to respond. Now, what could happen in that time frame? Maybe…oh, I don’t know…make it look like they were complying with the terms of the Iran Deal while not actually complying?

In addition to that, there isn’t much of an incentive to comply. If Iran failed, the sanctions they had before the Iran Deal could be put back in place, which is basically the equivalent of a sternly worded memo. You know, like the UN likes to send when a member country does something bad. And with those sanctions back in place, Iran could go back to doing everything it was doing to develop nuclear weapons prior to the Iran Deal.

Then, there’s the bribe…I mean payment we gave them. First, we gave them $400 million for an undelivered weapons shipment from the US to Iran during the reign of the Shah of Iran. After he was toppled by Islamic extremists, that money was frozen. Enter Barack Obama, who not only gave them the $400 million to settle that tab, but also gave them an additional $1.3 billion in interest to boot! That’s like giving a school bully your lunch money for the days he was too sick to bully you as well as your lunch money until you’re, oh, 75.

Good thing Iran has a history of liking us…oh, wait. Remember the aforementioned Shah of Iran? Well, his successors love to chant “Death to America” and want us wiped off the face of the planet. And no number of concerts with James Taylor sponsored by then-Secretary of State John “Robert Mueller’s Stunt Double” Kerry will change that. If anything, it might make Iran more driven to build nukes. Talk about seeing fire and rain, kids!

The kicker for me is the fact the Iran Deal wouldn’t move the needle on preventing them from building nuclear weapons. Under the terms of the deal, Iran would still be allowed to develop nuclear energy, just not nuclear weapons. But why would Iran need nuclear energy in the first place? They are sitting on one of the richest oil reserves in the world, and let’s just say Iran hasn’t been joining in the Earth Day celebrations since…ever. And considering the environmentalists don’t exactly like nuclear energy, it’s hard for me to believe they would be willing to roll over for this.

But let’s go back to the oil reserves for a moment. The bulk of the world still needs oil, which means Iran has a vested interest in continuing to drill for it. What would be their incentive to switch to nuclear power? Frankly, there isn’t one. Even if they found out their oil reserves were dryer than an Al Gore poetry slam, there is no upside to them going nuclear.

And that’s the point the Left completely misses when defending the Iran Deal. No matter what the terms of the agreement were, it wouldn’t stop (or even hinder) Iran from getting nuclear weapons due to the Mack truck sized holes in the deal. It would, however, give them plenty of incentive to play the same games Saddam Hussein did with his chemical and biological weapons while making the world community look like buffoons in the process. Brilliant diplomacy, Barack and John.

No matter what the world leaders say, the Iran Deal was a dog turd on top of a cold vomit sundae that we would have to eat while Iran got all you can eat ice cream. President Trump was absolutely right to get us out of the Iran Deal.

Of course, the Left will tell us such a move puts us all in more danger than if we had stuck with the Iran Deal or negotiated for a better plan. Here’s the thing, kids: Iran wasn’t going to comply because they are intent on getting nuclear weapons. They were stringing us along from the word go, and the Obama Administration were willing to hold the string. And, no, the Iran Deal wasn’t better than nothing, as nothing wouldn’t have given Iran an influx of cash they could divert to making or buying nuclear weapons, thus ensuring they would be a nuclear power either way.

Leftists also say pulling out of the Iran Deal is proof Trump, and by extension Israel, wants war. I beg to differ. Few people in this world want war, but blowing shit up tends to make it harder for our enemies to strike back or use their nuclear arsenals against us. If it’s war that will accomplish a non-nuclear Iran, then it will be a good sight better than the Iran Deal. It’s not the endgame I favor, but it’s the endgame we may be facing, and it was caused by an inept President and his inept State Department trying to get anything they could just to look like they did something.

In other words, they wanted a participation trophy for diplomacy. And we know how those tend to work.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Last weekend was the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, which some people call “Nerd Prom” and I call a waste of time. Among the usual back patting, chest puffing, and smugness, there was a… well, I guess you could call it a performance by a…well, I guess you could call her a comedian, Michelle Wolf, who delivered…well, I guess you could call it jokes, mostly directed at President Donald Trump and members of the Trump Administration. In the audience were White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders and Kellyanne Conway, who sat there and took the lines with a straight face. (Then again, judging from the YouTube video of Wolf’s comments, most of the people in the audience took the lines with a straight face, too.)

But the Left thought Wolf’s comments were brave, hysterical, and…get this…speaking truth to power. What is that, you ask? Well, good thing I decided to write about it this week!

speaking truth to power

What the Left thinks it means – bravely telling uncomfortable truths to people in power in the hopes it will change their minds and behaviors

What it really means – Leftists being assholes

I sat through Wolf’s remarks for two reasons. First, I wanted to make sure to get the full context of what she said. Second, so you wouldn’t have to. I came up with a drinking game where I took a shot for every time I laughed during her comments. After the full 19:17, I was…stone sober. Well, except for the shot I took when I realized Wolf is what you would get if Joanie Cunningham and Rachel Dolezal had a baby.

As far as speaking truth to power, I didn’t see much truth, and the media have lost a lot of their power through their incompetence. There were occasional facts thrown in for good measure, but much of what I endured was more talking point than truth. And I will admit Wolf made a couple of good points about what the media cover and what they overlook in lieu of continuing coverage of Stormy Daniels because God knows we need more of that.

The idea of speaking truth to power is funny to me because the Left isn’t always on speaking terms with the truth. In fact, some Leftist intellectuals (an oxymoron if ever there was one) argue truth is subjective based on personal experiences. This, of course, makes as much sense as putting Bill Cosby in charge of the refreshments at a sorority party. Truth doesn’t change because your background is different than mine. I’m pretty sure gravity affects us all the same regardless of whether you’re dirt poor or filthy rich, as do death, taxes, and the inevitability of the Rolling Stones going back on tour.

What the Left means when they say someone is speaking truth to power is that person is speaking a truth the Left agrees with, and anything that doesn’t conform is dismissed as false. Take gun control, for example. The Left squeed like I did at “Avengers: Infinity War” when David Hogg and his Parkland Pals “stood up” to the NRA by pushing for stricter gun control laws. They and their ideological allies point to the number of people being killed every year by guns, usually around 30,000 (all while ignoring inconvenient details like the number of suicides and gang-related killings that make up a decent chunk of that larger number), and by itself it’s pretty persuasive.

But it’s not the truth, or at least not all of it.

Research from the FBI to the CDC show there are more defensive gun uses than there are gun deaths. The term “defensive gun uses” refers to the number of times a gun is used in the defense of one’s person or property, and by sheer volume, it’s not even close. Last time I checked, the low end of this spectrum is in the neighborhood of 800,000 defensive gun uses per year. And, regardless of how you feel about the issue, regardless of your experiences, 800,000 is a bigger number than 30,000. To put it another way, you are over 26 times more likely to use a gun to defend yourself than you are to be killed by a gun. And when you take out suicides and gang violence, that number goes even higher.

I wouldn’t call that speaking truth to power, though, because to me the truth is power. And with that power comes a level of fearlessness that steels your resolve and calms you as you wait for the slings and arrows of outrageous outrage at dismantling a poorly-reasoned talking point. When you boil it right down, the Left loves thinking they speak truth to power because they think it shuts down all arguments. It doesn’t. One person armed with the truth can take down an army of liars. All it takes is the courage to unapologetically stand with the truth in the face of criticism.

That’s what Michelle Wolf (and much of the audience at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner) failed to do. They spoke and believed their own truths and overlooked the power they wield on a daily basis. I mean, it’s not like these folks have to take on a second job to make ends meet; they willingly take on second jobs as DNC spokespeople.

In closing, let me leave you with a joke.

Knock Knock
Who’s there?
Michelle Wolf
Michelle Wolf who?
Precisely

Share This: