image_pdfimage_print

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you’ve been living under a rock over the past week, you might have run into Minnesota Senator Al Franken, who found himself in the midst of a sexual misconduct scandal. During a USO tour, Franken was photographed apparently attempting to grope the breasts of former Playboy, Maxim, and FHM model Leeann Tweeden while she appeared to be asleep.

Yeah, not a good look.

As news of this photo went public, people started discussing the situation, usually through a partisan lens. Some Leftists went so far as to suggest (or outright say) Tweeden was to blame for the situation because of her past, her present connections to Roger Stone and Sean Hannity, and other unrelated factors. There is a term for this, one the Left has used multiple times before: victim shaming. Of course, the Leftists attempting to undermine Tweeden deny they’re doing it, so you know they’re not…exactly credible.

So, let’s delve into the weird world of victim shaming.

victim shaming

What the Left believes it means – bringing up a victim’s past as a means to discredit him or her

What it really means – scumbags looking for a way out of taking responsibility for being scumbags

Sexual assault is a touchy enough subject when it comes to the victims. Anything at call could trigger memories of the assault, which can lead to psychological issues. Now, imagine remembering those events and having people not believe you because others have started throwing more mud at you than if you were standing behind a monster truck during a rally.

That’s victim shaming in a nutshell.

Normally, the Left is against victim shaming, mainly because it runs counter to their ideological beliefs. After all, the Left claims to be pro-woman, and any attempts to question a woman who is claiming to be a victim of sexual assault or sexual harassment are considered to be sexist. Even if the accusations themselves are flimsier than a balsa wood couch at Michael Moore’s house. Normally, that’s enough to turn back anybody who questions the word of the victim.

Then, there are the victims that don’t fit the Left’s ideological box. To them, the Left has zero sympathy. They might as well be nymphomaniacs wearing clothes from the Nikki Minaj Collection. These are the people who must be shamed by the Left as a means to protect the ideology and/or those who subscribe to it.

Like Leeann Tweeden.

As horrible as her victim shaming is, she’s not the only one. Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, Gennifer Flowers, and many, many more women have been on the receiving end of Leftist victim shaming, and no one within Leftist ranks dared to stand up for them for 20 or more years. Now, some are starting to reconsider their previous positions (at least in Broderick’s case) and voicing their displeasure at Bill Clinton for his sexual assaults.

But Tweeden? Not so much.

There are a couple of lines of thought that might explain it, but the simplest is because Bill Clinton is old news and Al Franken still has some use left to the Left. In that case, Tweeden and any other woman who comes forward to accuse Franken of sexual assault or harassment will be put under the microscope for anything that could sully their reputations and make them non-believable.

Now, some of you may be asking where the feminists are in this situation. After all, aren’t they the ones who scream the loudest whenever a woman is victim shamed? Well, their defense is as spotty as Wifi in Amish country because it is also based on ideology over consistency. As we saw with Bill Clinton, feminists place “women’s rights” (i.e. abortion) above anything else, so anyone who threatens it, male or female, gets heaped with scorn.

Of course, this lead to feminists being distrusted by women because they saw the blatant hypocrisy, but hey. Let’s just say Tweeden et al shouldn’t be waiting by the phone for modern feminists to call them because…reasons.

With friends like these, women don’t need enemies.

The whole concept of victim shaming revolves around intent. If someone is being questioned because a story doesn’t add up, that’s not victim shaming. If it’s being done for anything other reason, it most likely is. Guess what, Leftists? You are victim shaming Leeann Tweeden, either directly with your words, or indirectly with your silence. And all to protect Al Franken.

If that doesn’t prove the Left is dumber than a bag of hammers, nothing does.

Share This:

 

We’re Just Not That Into You

So, Chelsea Clinton is a thing. Or not.

The reason this is up in the air is because we’re seeing two different perspectives. One is being generated by the media, who have treated the Clintons like the royalty (even though the Clintons have royally screwed them over many times…and that’s just Bill!). After the Hillary experiment failed twice, their sights are on the next generation of corrupt politicians, Chelsea.

The superlatives read like a romance novel. She’s smart! She’s popular! She’s cute! She’s a successful businesswoman as well as a wonderful mother! In other words, she’s everything her mother isn’t.

But as you might have guessed, I’m skeptical. For one, I’ve read her Twitter feed on occasion. She’s as sharp as a bowling ball on League Night. Her resume is great if you like light reading with a touch of fiction. And she seems completely oblivious to the world around her. As much as she tries to sound like she cares, it comes off as either forced or out-of-step with the rest of the world. It’s like she lives in her own little bubble and doesn’t venture out for anything. In other words, she’s everything her mother is.

The question that comes to mind is why Chelsea is getting a push now. It’s only a few months from her mother’s stunning defeat at the hands of Donald Trump, so the wounds are still pretty fresh. Perhaps the reason for the push is a direct result of Hillary’s loss. Without a second Clinton Presidency to fall back on and Hillary getting long in the tooth for a third potential failure, the press needs new blood to keep the Clinton name alive in political terms. That brings us to Chelsea, who at least on some level is being groomed for a possible Senate run in the near future. When you consider the Senate is where intellectual midgets like Joe Biden, Al Franken, and Elizabeth Warren reside, Chelsea will fit right in. That would be a repeat of how her mother won her Senate seat, and it would be a nice place for her to get her political chops in order for a possible Presidential run.

But the question remains of whether America wants another Clinton in office. Granted, Chelsea could easily run for Senate in a blue state where a moldy sandwich could get elected if it had a D behind its name (see the aforementioned Senators for proof). Having said that, even the Left is getting tired of the Clinton family, and when you consider what the DNC and the Clinton campaign did to hamstring Bernie Sanders, it will take a lot of work to bring the party together. Just ask current DNC Chair Tom Perez, provided he’s taken his meds and had his shots. Add to this the fact the Clinton name has been damaged more than a balsa wood bedroom set at Michael Moore’s house, and you have the recipe for an electoral drubbing.

And we haven’t even gotten into the Clinton Global Initiative, a potential treasure trove of mismanaged money and political favors. Just like the DNC, but with 300% more Clinton!

It may be time for Americans of all political stripes to just say no to Chelsea Clinton. Or if we can’t say no, then maybe just point and laugh at all the attempts to make her seem like a winner.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

You know you just went through a contentious election when you hear calls for impeaching a President-Elect before the Electoral College even had a chance to vote. And that’s exactly what Donald Trump has been enduring since Election Day 2016. Most of it can be chalked up to grapes so sour vinegar tastes like grape juice, but is there a legitimate case for impeachment?

According to the Left, there is.

According to me? Not so much.

impeachment

What the Left believes it means – a punishment for a President who breaks the law

What it really means – a punishment for a President who actually breaks the law

I will be the first to admit Donald Trump wasn’t my first choice, but lately it seems I find myself defending him against the onslaught of Leftist whinging about him. When the Left started calling for Trump’s impeachment, I made it a point to look for their legal arguments to support such a movement. After extensive research, I’ve come to one conclusion.

The Left wants Trump impeached because they’re butthurt over his victory.

To give you the Reader’s Digest Condensed Version of impeachment, it is reserved for those people of high office who have committed crimes. Although the Left’s fee-fees getting hurt may seem like a crime to them, it isn’t really illegal. Neither is beating a fundamentally flawed Democrat in Hillary Clinton. What is an impeachable offense is up to interpretation, but it’s usually reserved for criminal activities, like obstruction of justice and perjury.

You know, like Hillary’s husband Bill did?

The Left is convinced Trump will not survive one year as President before he’s impeached. And they were also convinced Trump had no chance to get 270 electoral votes, too, so you can take their notions with a Mount Everest sized grain of salt.

That’s not to say Trump may not have or may not run afoul of the law sooner or later. With his history, there seems to be a pattern that could put him in the crosshairs of a politically motivated impeachment campaign. But let’s take a look at what the Left has tried to get to stick so far.

Russian involvement in the 2016 Election – This is the holy grail of Leftist cultism…I mean thought. To date, there has not been any proof Russia involved itself in our election. There have been suggestions, thoughts, and anonymous conclusions, but nothing concrete. This case is weaker than a mixed drink at an Amish bar.

Failure to divest himself from his business interests – This is an interesting situation because there is no clear legal definition of how far removed a President has to be from a business. Considering Trump comes from the world of business, it may be impossible to completely divest himself, and certainly impossible to divest himself to Leftists’ satisfaction. Would one degree of separation be enough? Two? Three? Will he need to consult with Kevin Bacon to get six degrees of separation? In any case, it will be hard for the Left to get this one to stick without a lengthy court battle with little or no political advantage.

Failure to release his tax returns – Although this is an expectation of recent Presidential candidates, there isn’t sufficient legal grounds to support an impeachment effort. Besides, it might not be a positive result. Remember how little Al Gore and Joe Biden gave to charity, as disclosed on their tax returns? Let’s just say they are far more generous with other people’s money.

Drone strike that killed innocent people – This is a fairly new one, but I see it will be gaining steam soon. However, the same people who want to hold Trump responsible for it were pretty quiet when the previous President did drone strikes. And I’m pretty sure those drone strikes might have killed some innocent people, too.

Mental incompetence – The Left keeps coming up with psychological diagnoses to show Trump isn’t mentally fit to be President. Of course, it hurts their cases that none of the people making these diagnoses have actually consulted with the “patient”, thus rendering their opinions as worthless as a murder mystery written by Sheila Jackson Lee.

But the biggest roadblock the Left can’t seem to overcome in their quest to impeach Donald Trump is…the fact he hasn’t broken any laws yet. The best they can come up with is there are some shady things going on with him. Considering the person they ran against Trump had more skeletons in her closet than a medical supply store with storage issues, they might not be the best judges of character here.

Listen, I get why you’re mad, Leftists. You thought you had the election in the bag (or at least as much in the bag as Hillary was most of the time as Secretary of State), but that’s not a reason to impeach Donald Trump. You have to actually come up with legitimate charges based on actual law. Until you do, you’re wasting your time.

On second thought, if you’re wasting time tilting at these windmills, you’re not spending time preparing for the 2018 and 2020 elections or figuring out how to attract voters.

Nevermind!

Share This:

 

What Difference At This Point Does It Make?

This is a follow-up to a previous post titled “Who’s Promoting Rape Culture?” In discussing the fundamental idea behind the post (actual rape versus presumed rape culture), more than a few people asked a legitimate question: why does what Bill Clinton did as President matter since it’s Hillary Clinton running for the office?

On the surface, it’s a legitimate question. After all, Hillary wasn’t the one who raped women, got blowjobs from an intern, and has a history of sexual misconduct starting from college on. That was all Bill. (Now, she may have been the cause of Bill’s infidelity, but the less shrieked about that, the better.)

I take you back to 1992, dear reader. When the aforementioned Bill was running for President, he maintained by electing him, the country would get “two for the price of one.” At the time, it seemed to be a good bargain, but after they found their way into the White House, the two-for-one deal wasn’t all that great because neither one was worth the price of one. Between Bill’s sexual proclivities and Hillary’s selective adherence to those little things called federal laws, the Clintons made a pretty slimy bed and sold the rights to lie in it for campaign contributions.

And, boy, did people flock to it.

Flash forward 24 years, and not much has changed. Bill is still a horndog, although he looks like a horndog with a slow leak. Hillary is still shadier than a goth kid’s bedroom during the winter solstice. Don’t believe me? Have Hillary email you the details of her whereabouts during the Benghazi attacks.

Hillary’s supporters point to what they consider to be an impressive list of accomplishments which make her more than qualified to be President. Let’s take a short list of those accomplishments.

– rode Bill’s coattails to a US Senate seat
– sponsored or co-sponsored 713 pieces of legislation, with a whopping three of them becoming law
– supported the Iraq War, only to come out and criticize it
– lost to a half-term Senator from Illinois in 2008
– became Secretary of State under said half-term Senator
– gave the Russians a “Reset Button”, complete with the wrong word for “Reset” in Russian
– proponent of the “Arab Spring” which helped ISIS come into being
– Benghazi
– blaming Benghazi on a video
– hiding facts from the families of the Benghazi victims
– ignoring Russia and China becoming threats to the US again
– signing off on the poor treatment of Israel
– starting the Clinton Foundation where foreign countries traded contributions for access
– her homebrew email server suddenly being scrubbed completely by accident (thanks to a clever Clinton IT guy posting on Reddit)
– lied about her health and the reason for its deplorable conditions
– calling half of Trump supporters a “basket of deplorables”
– calling Republicans her #1 enemy
– cheating Bernie Sanders with the help and blessing of the Democratic National Committee

Wow. With those accomplishments, who wouldn’t want to vote for Hillary? I mean, aside from anyone with an IQ higher than the temperature of tap water.

In short, Hillary’s list of accomplishments in public service just from this century is less than impressive, if not downright disappointing. But the cherry on top of this crap sundae is the fact she still needs Bill to bail her out. During the first Presidential debate, she actually tried to use her husband’s economic strength as proof she would be just as good. (Of course, Bill’s economic strength is based on a series of lies, assumptions, and illegal accounting that got Arthur Andersen in trouble.)

In other words, Hillary needs Bill because she lacks the ability to stand on her own merits.

So, why does it matter what Bill Clinton did as President when Hillary Clinton is running? Because they are fused at the political hip. That makes his past, as well as Hillary’s role in it as an enabler in that past, completely relevant.

Share This:

 

Who’s Promoting Rape Culture?

The Huffington Post recently ran an interesting piece about Donald Trump’s attitude towards women and how he contributes to rape culture. Upon further thought, I came to realize the fundamental flaw in the article’s premise.

It was written by someone at the Huffington Post.

The actual problem with the premise rides on a couple of assumptions. The first assumption is Trump’s attitude sustains rape culture. Granted, some of the things he’s said made him as popular as David Duke at the Apollo on Black Lives Matter Night. Having said that, calling people like Rosie O’Donnell names isn’t exactly perpetuating rape. Last time I checked, rape was still illegal and frowned upon in America. Trump isn’t trying to get rid of rape laws, and his campaign has some pretty high profile women out there defending their candidate.

Damn that Donald Trump! Having women visibly in campaign roles? Next thing you know, he’ll be treating women as equals or something!

For those Leftists reading this blog, that was sarcasm.

The second premise in play is people will forget the white-haired element…err, donkey, in the room: Bill Clinton. While Trump has said some arguably vile things about women, Slick Willie has done some definitely vile things to women. From dropping trou in front of Paula Jones or raping Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey (among others), Bill should be on feminists’ radars as a true sexual predator.

Of course, he’s not because he supports abortion or something like that. Oh, and he apologized or something. Or not. Or right wing witch hunts.

The kind of mental gymnastics that have to be done to defend an actual rapist while simultaneously accusing a Presidential candidate of contributing to rape culture would guarantee the Left would get gold medals in the Olympics. In discussing this issue with Leftists online, they are either a) blissfully unaware of Clinton’s history, b) know it and simply don’t care because Trump, c) trying to cover up Bill’s sexual history as a means to shield Hillary, d) are dumber than trying to carry water in a fishing net, or e) all of the above.

The other tactic they’ll try to use is say Clinton can’t be considered a rapist because he was never tried and convicted of rape. Yeah, because we can’t believe women have been raped until it goes to trial.

Again, for any Leftists reading this, that was also sarcasm.

Even if you believe Trump’s attitude towards some women is problematic, Bill Clinton’s actions towards women should at least be somewhat troubling to you. Calling Rosie O’Donnell a fat pig isn’t nice (although, it’s pretty close to accurate if you ask this humble reporter). Giving a woman a fat lip while making unwanted sexual advances goes beyond the concept of nice and into the world of criminality. There really is no comparison.

Then again, what would you expect out of the Huffington Post? Actual journalism?

Yep. Still sarcasm, Leftists.

Share This:

 

We Found One!

To hear modern feminists and Leftists talk, we are living in a rape culture where rape is okay. (For more information on rape culture, feel free to check out this little ditty penned by yours truly.) But if you don’t want to read my drivel, here’s how Wikipedia defines rape culture.

In feminist theory, rape culture is a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality.

As you might have guessed, I’m not exactly sold on the concept we have a rape culture in America, what with the utter lack of a rape culture and all. Well, I have to admit I’m wrong. My crack research staff (consisting of my dog and me) found an actual case of rape culture. And it’s from a source you’d never expect.

There is a Leftist website named Wonkette that recently posted an article titled “Let’s Talk About Juanita Broaddrick.” If you haven’t read the piece, don’t. Imagine the worst ice cream headache you’ve ever had. That’s a walk in the park compared to the typical Wonkette piece.

Normally, I wouldn’t bother with it, but there was a part in the aforementioned piece that caught my eye. And by “caught my eye”, I mean it made my head spin like Linda Blair in “The Exorcist”. Here’s the part for your consideration.

To sum up, I think Bill Clinton could very well have raped Juanita Broaddrick; that it doesn’t make him an evil man, or irredeemable (I’m Catholic; we’re all forgiven, if we’re sorry, and Broaddrick says Bill Clinton personally called her up to apologize). It doesn’t even necessarily make him a bad feminist — you know, later, once he stops doing that.

So, let me get this straight. A powerful man is alleged to have raped a woman…and it doesn’t make him evil if he apologizes? And on top of that, if he stops raping women, he can be considered a good feminist?

Feeling that worst ice cream headache feeling yet, kids?

Let’s go back to the Wikipedia definition of rape culture: a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality. Let’s see…

Has the Left made rape pervasive when it comes to Bill Clinton? Given Clinton is hornier than a 13 year old boy at a brothel with a black American Express card, I would say they have.

Has the Left normalized rape when it comes to Bill Clinton? Given the Wonkette article quoted above, I would say so.

Has the Left expressed societal attitudes about gender and sexuality when it comes to Bill Clinton? Within Leftist circles, yes, yes they have.

Looks like we have a Bingo, kids! Thank you, Wonkette, for establishing once and for all there is a rape culture in America, and it’s on the Left.

Share This:

 

How She Did It

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

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

Whitewater? Check.

Monica Lewinsky? Check.

The Clinton Foundation? Check.

Benghazi? Check.

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

Ambassador Chris Stevens could not be reached for comment.

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

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

Just as she did the previous 8 times.

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

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

Share This:

 

The Definition of Insanity

Stop me if you’ve heard this one…

A President (let’s call him…Zimmy Barter) decides to expand home ownership to more Americans. Another President (let’s call him…Dill Plimpton) decided Barter’s idea was so good that it needed to be expanded to the point where mortgage banks would have to approve more loans to people who may not have the ability to pay or else the government would have to get involved. Then, just for the sake of argument, let’s say there was a monumental global economic collapse due in part to the Barter/Plimpton mentality. It would be utter insanity to repeat the steps that lead to the collapse, right?

Wellll…not according to the Obama Administration. Recently, President Obama proposed banks lend money to people with bad credit so they could buy houses. But don’t worry. The government will provide additional insurance to protect lenders in the case of default because we’re totally flush with money and completely recovered from the financial meltdown of 2007.

Yeah, and if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

As someone with 15 years of experience in the mortgage industry, I can tell you returning to the lending standards from before the mortgage crisis is a worse idea than getting driving lessons from Caitlyn Jenner. Lending money to people with bad credit comes with an amazing amount of risk. That’s why the interest rates on “payday loans” are higher than Snoop Dogg in Colorado on 4/20. Even with government insurance, it’s too great of a risk. Let me put it this way. We have a federal government who can’t seem to live within its means backing up people who have a similar problem on a smaller level.

Yeah, doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence, does it?

While President Obama’s intentions may be noble, the reality of the situation is not everybody is capable of owning a home. It takes a lot of work, commitment, and yes, money to ensure the house you get from the bank doesn’t wind up getting lost in a foreclosure sale. If Obama gets his wish, I guarantee we will see more and more people lose their homes on the promise of a President whose current political capital makes a crack house in Detroit look good.

It’s said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result every time. For Democrats, it seems to be standard operating procedure.

Share This: