Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

230 Views

There are times when a topic for a blog post is harder to find than the point of an Elizabeth Warren Presidential run, but there are other times when the perfect topic drops into your lap. Ladies and gentlemen, the latter occurred, thanks to the Mueller Report.

Whether you were hoping Robert Mueller’s report would exonerate or condemn President Donald Trump, the world waited with bated breath for a 400+ page report with redactions. It was almost like watching fans waiting for the next Harry Potter book Harry Potter and the Quest to Buy J. K. Rowling a 43rd House. And what we found was…well, let’s just go to the definition and analysis.

the Mueller Report

What the Left thinks it means – a report that proves Donald Trump obstructed justice and worked with the Russians to steal the 2016 Presidential election

What it really means – one of the most expensive door jams in American political history

I’m not usually cynical, but when it comes to politics and the theater of the magnitude of the Mueller Report, it’s hard not to be. From the beginning, I felt it was going to be an inconclusive waste of time (and taxpayer money) because no one was going to be happy with the outcome. If the report proved beyond a reasonable doubt Donald Trump worked with the Russians to win the 2016 Presidential election, a good chunk of the country would say it was fake news, no matter how well sourced it was. If the report showed Trump was as innocent as a newborn, a good chunk of the country would claim the report was a sham and that Trump used his power and influence to affect the outcome.

And what we got was firmly between these two extremes. A redacted report (as required by law after the Starr Report) made the Left mad because they know there’s good stuff that proves Trump is guilty. And even if there isn’t, they claim there’s enough there to warrant impeachment. The report also made Trump supporters ecstatic because it showed (even with the redactions) that the President wasn’t guilty and the investigation was a sham from the word go. To me, however, the Mueller Report doesn’t prove Trump’s guilt or innocence because it wasn’t meant to do either.

At its core, the Mueller Report was a mutli-million dollar job project for people who want to keep our eyes off the real issues in this country, not the least of which being the federal government spying on a private citizen in the hopes of getting some dirt to help a severely flawed candidate limp into the White House because it was “her turn.”

But I’m totally not cynical.

Yes, there were a number of Trump associates who plead guilty to crimes…that were unrelated to the campaign itself. Yes, the funds seized from the aforementioned guilty parties was more than the cost of the investigation…which ultimately didn’t turn up anything concrete about the actual subject matter of the investigation, Donald Trump. Yes, the report uncovered suggestions that Trump may have possibly broken the law…but leaves that open to interpretation to the point of being irrelevant. Yes, the report did leave the job of holding the President accountable to the crimes (real or imagined) to Congress…which is what they are supposed to do anyway. In other words, we’re pretty much back where we started, but now we have a report.

Yay for us?

The real kicker here is the Mueller Report might be worthless at the jump because it may not be used as grounds for impeachment. Under that little document the kids today call the Constitution, a President can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. But what if the crimes are committed before the President is sworn in? That’s a question the Left hasn’t thought to ask before now in their rush to impeach Trump, and it’s a question the Right hasn’t thought to ask before now in their rush to defend Trump. And it’s a pretty big question to be overlooked.

Put simply, the Mueller Report is a lot like making hot dogs: you’ll enjoy it better if you don’t think about what went into making it. The problem (among several I could rattle off here) is the reason we have the report in the first place is fundamentally flawed and politically motivated, which makes any result questionable at best. I’m not a fan of the President, but I have to call bullshit when I see it, and basing an entire impeachment case off the Mueller Report and what lead up to it is USDA Grade A all-American bullshit. Expecting good results from bad faith is foolish.

It’s important that we separate the report from the man, however. Robert Mueller may be a choirboy or a criminal, but until we know the man, we should not judge him. From where I sit, he has kept his mouth shut for the most part while investigating the allegations, so that speaks well of his commitment to justice. Let’s not malign him until he acts or says something that warrants it.

In the meantime, let’s direct our ire towards the Mueller Report and make sure we’re not getting caught up in the debate over minutia coming from it. There are serious legal, Constitutional, and ethical concerns that need to be addressed before any action can and should be taken.

But knowing politicians, they can’t be bothered with said concerns because they ruin the political narrative.

But, still totally not cynical.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

80 Views

One of the most interesting perspectives in politics today is watching people get bent out of shape over ultimately trivial matters, only to turn around and excuse it when someone on their side of the argument does it. This phenomenon has a name: hypocrisy. But Leftists have given it another name: tribalism. And as you might expect, tribalism isn’t a good thing to them.

In today’s team-based political mentality, tribalism isn’t unusual. If you’re a Republican, you want Republicans to win. If you’re a Democrat, you want Democrats to win. So, why is it now frowned upon by the Left? Let’s find out!

tribalism

What the Left thinks it means – Republicans and conservatives simple-mindedly believing the same things, promoting the same ideas, and quoting the same sources to promote their ideology

What it really means – substituting party line thinking for actual thought

Sociologists (or at least the ones I could stay awake listening to) have long stated humans have an inborn desire to be part of and accepted by a group. That sense of belonging is fine and all, but it can lead to another phenomenon called “groupthink.” Basically, that’s when you go along with the crowd because you want to continue fitting in, even if what the crowd says absolutely sucks. I call it the Sanjaya Effect. “American Idol” fans know who I’m talking about, and for once it’s not Shaft. (And, yes, we can dig it.) The Sanjaya Effect made millions of people vote for an okay singer because everyone else they knew was doing it.

And that’s where tribalism comes into play. Once we become invested in a group, we want to defend it against those who would mean it harm. This plays out in our minds in several ways, ranging from the logical (protect the clan) to the social (more people will like me) to the personal (I feel good about myself) to the sexual (chicks dig it). In a political framework, the same concepts apply (defend our ideology, more people will like me, I’ll get noticed and appreciated, chicks dig it). At its core, tribalism is primitive and driven by instinct and/or emotion.

Which begs the question of why the Left would be against tribalism, given the emotional spectrum is their playground. The answer, oddly enough, involves their feelings of self-worth. Leftists always like to think they’re the smartest people in the room and are above the kind of visceral reactions they claim to see from the Right. That gives them a blind spot when it comes to looking at what they do on a regular basis.

Here’s a prime example. Recently on MSNBC, host Nicole Wallace said, “There isn’t a strain of racism on the left.” Ah, but that ignores a litany of blatant and covert racism, mainly blaming whites for all the evil in the world. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t maligning a group of people based on skin color…racism? Why, yes…yes it is!

To make the claim the Left has no racism while finding racism under every rock on the Right is pure tribalism, not to mention utterly delusional. Granted, it was said on MSNBC, which is pretty much Tribalism Central on the Left, but the point remains. The fact Wallace couldn’t find a single racist in a group where race is one of their primary talking points shows one of the major dangers of tribalism: it forces you to rationalize behavior you wouldn’t stand for normally because of who acted. Maybe I’m just old fashioned (or just old for that matter), but I grew up believing wrong is wrong, no matter who does it. The Ku Klux Klan is just as racist as the Black Panthers, white nationalists are just as bad as black separatists, and the Westboro Baptist Church and radical members of the gay rights movement are singing from the same hymnals. They just don’t know it yet because of tribalism.

I will admit I used to be tribalistic when I was younger, mainly because I was young, immature, and a dumbass a good chunk of the time. Eventually, I got to a point where I couldn’t keep justifying bad behavior on one side while blasting it on the other. I’d rather be hated for being honest than loved for being dishonest. I’ve seen too many otherwise good people get caught up in the moment and go along to get along without considering there might be a different course to take. There’s a rule of thumb I live by: if it doesn’t feel right, it’s not right, and you have no obligation to ignore your instincts because everyone else decides to do what you feel is wrong. You do, however, have an obligation to yourself to be an individual, think freely, speak freely, and above all else live the life you want to live irrespective of the whims of the crowd. If they aren’t paying your bills, they have no say in your life unless you let them.

So, reject tribalism when you can. Question authority, even the authority you trust. Reevaluate your ideas and arguments to make sure you’re getting the full picture, and don’t be afraid to adjust them as needed. The worst that will happen is you come away with a broader perspective and maybe make a friend or two along the way.

Plus, you won’t be stuck with a whataboutism defense. But more on that another time…

Shut Up About the Shutdown

89 Views

As we enter another week of the government shutdown, I’ve noticed more and more talk about it and its potential impact to our economy and to the furloughed government workers and service members and their families. Since we haven’t devolved into Thunderdome yet, I’m thinking we’re doing okay, but the media seem ultra concerned about the shutdown as though we’re one story away from total anarchy.

As both a freedom-loving individual and a lower middle class wage earner, I see both sides of the equation. On the one hand, living paycheck to paycheck is subsistence, not living. On the other hand, not having government worm its way into my life (and my wallet) as much is a good thing. Somewhere in between, there is a happy medium.

But since we have toddlers in Congress, we can’t have that. Republicans blame Democrats for not agreeing to $5 billion to fund a wall/barrier/fence/garden wall that President Donald Trump wants. Democrats blame Republicans for not doing anything about it when they had control of the House and Senate. Trump is blaming Democrats for not wanting to come to the table about the wall, after saying he would take full responsibility for shutting down the government.

Is anyone else tired of the shutdown talk?

Yes, I see the irony of writing a blog post talking about not wanting to talk about the shutdown, but the point is still the same. People are tired of the back and forth between sides that don’t want to be the first to blink. Take ideology off the table for a moment, folks, and look at what the core of the matter is. It’s not national security. It’s not amnesty. It’s not separating families or curtailing crimes committed by illegal immigrants. It’s not an allegedly racist President wanting to stroke his ego or a Congress whose approval ratings are lower than a snail’s belt buckle.

It’s about a wall. Period.

All of this macho posturing over a damn wall that won’t mean a thing unless there’s real change in the way we address illegal immigration. And, spoiler alert, only one side of this shutdown debacle is even talking about matters beyond a wall, and rarely at that. Meanwhile, the other side has members who want ICE abolished because reasons. Actually, they want ICE abolished because doing so allows more illegals into the country…to vote for Leftist candidates.

Put simply, the wall is a metaphor for the political aspirations of two sides who really don’t give a damn about us, but they care enough to shill for our votes and take our campaign donations. It’s political theater where you pay out the nose for a bag of popcorn and watch the crappiness play out. Wait. That’s the current movie-going experience. Nevermind!

You know what might stop the posturing and jockeying for position? If we stop paying attention to it. Fire doesn’t last if it’s deprived of oxygen, and so do political shenanigans like the shutdown/wall controversy. There are a lot better things out there to be spending time on than rehashing the same tired arguments about why we need/don’t need a wall. Like, and I’m just throwing this out there, reading a thoughtful, occasionally humorous, and well-written blog like mine. You know, if you’re into that kind of thing…

Your Move, Leftists

91 Views

It’s the start of a new Congressional term, and before you can say “We elected who?” Democrats are already racing to file articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. Why, it’s almost as if they were going to do that anyway once they got control of the House of Representatives again!

Actually, this wasn’t much of a surprise, given how the Left has wanted to impeach Trump for everything from having two scoops of ice cream to alleged ties with Russia. What may be a surprise is my response to these House Democrats.

Go for it.

No, I haven’t gone back to being a Leftist, nor do I hate President Trump. The latter requires too much effort, and the former is impossible because I don’t think I can fit my head up my ass anymore. Instead, I want Leftists to go all in on impeaching Trump because it will be a spectacular failure on several fronts.

First, let’s look at the political aspects of a Trump impeachment, since impeachment is a political action. The Democrats came into power in part because Republicans didn’t seem to fight as hard for their offices as their Democrat rivals did. In other cases, Democrats ran unopposed, such as with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. If the Democrats and Leftists see the 2018 midterm election as a mandate to impeach Trump, I would beg to differ. Sure, the possibility of impeaching Trump was high on Leftist voters’ priority lists, but outside of that group, I don’t think there’s enough of a drive to follow through on such a promise.

What do non-Leftists think is important? As James Carville once famously opined, “It’s the economy, stupid.” People are more focused on their pocketbooks rather than the political kabuki theater of a Trump impeachment because the latter doesn’t matter to them as much. Public opinion and approval ratings aside, most people do not care what Trump does or doesn’t do because it doesn’t affect them financially or because they’re tired of hearing about it. And who might be responsible for the latter? Maybe it’s the Leftists screaming for Trump’s impeachment non-stop? Ponder that for a second.

Democrats can’t be seen as the Party of Impeachment right now. Their focus needs to be on the economy where they may be able to convince Trump voters and Independents that they have a plan to make the economy better. Out of all the Democrats talking, most are silent or shouting about impeachment. That leaves the aforementioned Ocasio-Cortez as the Democrats’ economic wonk, and if you’ve seen her talk about it, it’s clear she doesn’t have a clue even with an economics degree.

Then, there’s the legal side to consider. The standard for impeachment is high crimes or misdemeanors, which covers any crimes a President might commit. The problem Democrats face is the seeming lack of criminal activity. What we have is a bunch of accusations of shady dealings without much along the lines of evidence. Also, we have to take the timeframe of these alleged crimes into account. Collusion with Russia? Happened prior to Trump becoming President. Lying? Unless it’s under oath or in a Congressional hearing, it’s not a crime. Getting rich because of his office? I’m going to need some proof of that. His advisors got indicted, so Trump must have known? So far, none of Trump’s advisors have been linked to direct criminal activity related to his Presidency, and remember this is the same President Trump you claim is so dumb, but yet he’s a criminal mastermind behind the most feverish of Leftist fever dreams. You’d be better off hoping for the 25th Amendment to be invoked.

From a numbers standpoint, the House could vote to impeach Trump if all Representatives voted along party lines. That may be a bigger assumption than the Left wants to admit. With 2020 right around the corner, a good chunk of Representatives from both major parties will be up for reelection, which means these folks have to pay attention to what their constituents want or need. And in those districts where Trump remains popular, a vote to impeach (especially without hard evidence) is a one-way ticket to unemployment. And we’re not even getting into the Senate, controlled by Republicans. Any impeachment efforts are going to run into resistance from Senate Republicans, who most likely won’t break with the President or his party. Sooooo…what’s the Plan B, kids?

That’s just it. They don’t have a Plan B. It’s either impeach Trump…or keep trying to impeach him until something sticks. In other words, they were like House Republicans in the 1990s, only with less of a legal leg to stand on. Which is precisely why I want Democrats to go ahead with impeachment. The more they focus on the task of removing Donald Trump, the less likely it is they will move ahead with their real agenda.

That’s a win-win in my book.

A Year to Dismember

86 Views

The Chinese uses animals for their calendars to mark the different years in their cycles, such as the year of my birth, the Year of the Cock. (But I always seem to write the Year of the Boar on my checks.) Sometimes the media bestow a title upon a year, such as the Year of the Woman. In these traditions, I am starting off 2019 by christening it…the Year of Bad Decisions.

I came up with this idea after reading a piece on Twitchy about a pro-choice activist writing a children’s book about abortion to be released in 2020, and then posting a video about it on her Twitter feed. You read that right. Someone wrote a children’s book about abortion. Talk about not knowing your target audience!

Some might be saying “But that’s just one person on Twitter. Surely not everyone on it can be that misguided.” I assure you not everyone on Twitter is that tone deaf, but there are enough on both sides of the political spectrum to justify my boycott. As I’ve said, I won’t join Twitter because there are too many twits on it.

And when I think of something with too many twits, I think of Congress. Funny how that works out, huh? Anyway, Democrats take back control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 2011, and one of their first orders of business will be promoting Nancy Pelosi to Speaker of the House again. And what a bang-up job she did last time! This time will be different because Pelosi will be butting heads with a Republican Presi…oh, wait. She did that last time and was booted out of the Speakership within 4 years. Not to mention, she now has a whole caucus of Leftists to her Left who think she’s a corporate sell-out. And guess who is demanding the loudest for House Democrats to investigate President Donald Trump for everything short of jaywalking.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans, especially those loyal to the President, are experiencing their own issues with bad decisions. Supporting higher tariffs, not addressing some of the major issues with the wall while settling on metaphors above literal concrete, and not speaking out when Trump says or does something stupid (often on the aforementioned den of stupidity known as Twitter) while attacking those who do have left the Right on shaky ground. At a time when party unity is imperative and after a preventable loss of the House, Republicans are too busy trying to placate the President and his supporters (thus trying to get reelected) to take a hard look at the possible reasons why they lost the House in the first place. Spoiler Alert: it might be because Trump spends more time Tweeting than leading. And with the possibility/probability/guaran-damn-tee Democrats will be investigating Trump and calling out Republicans for standing with the President, there may be a shortage of popcorn in the DC area and both coasts.

Outside of politics, the media, activist groups, and celebrities keep making bad decisions. This begs the question of what these bad decisions have in common. The answer: a lack of a filter. In recent years, people have decided to go with their gut instincts before posting anything online or going to the press with it. However, these decisions to go public are often met with scorn and ridicule because they’re planned out about as well as a murder mystery written by Kathy Griffin, last year’s recipient of the Dumbest Idea Yet Award. With a little thought, many of these bad ideas might never have seen the light of day, which is both good and bad. It’s good because then we wouldn’t have to suffer through the half-hearted apologies and twisted explanations of why the idea wasn’t that bad. On the other hand, it’s bad because it would deprive us of something to laugh at. Speaking personally, though, I encourage people to think before they speak or act because once that genie is out of the bottle in today’s media, it’s impossible to put it back in.

Failing that, invest heavily in popcorn because that industry is about to…pop.

I’ll see myself out.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

81 Views

Welcome back! I hope you all had a wonderful Christmas full of merriment and joy (or failing that a lot of cool presents). Right around Christmas, our friends on the Left were lamenting that some of our fellow citizens weren’t going to have a Merry Christmas because that mean ole Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress demanded a border wall and would allow the government to shut down if the wall wasn’t funded. Yes, everyone from our military to Memaw and Pepaw were going to feel the pinch of Republican greed, all for a wall nobody wants or needs. If the shutdown lasted more than a few hours, America would be turned into a post-apocalyptic hellscape where cannibalism, anarchy, and (God forbid) another season of the “Murphy Brown” reboot would be on the air.

Thankfully, none of that happened, but one has to wonder about the Left’s concern over whether the government shut down. And I might just have the answer. Or at least, I can ramble for a few hundred words and sound like I have the answer.

government shutdown

What the Left thinks it means – a horrible condition that threatens the very fabric of our country

What it really means – the best possible example for why small government works best

If you paid no attention to the media around Christmas, count your blessings. And you wouldn’t have known there was a government shutdown threatened or going on. That’s because government shutdowns typically don’t affect that many people outside of the government. The mail still came more or less on time. Gas prices didn’t skyrocket. Our lives were pretty much untouched.

But that doesn’t make for a good story. So, every good Leftist does what he/she/it does in a situation like this: stir up as much fear as he/she/it can. Usually, this tactic works because the party that is deemed responsible for the shutdown (i.e. Republicans) gets lambasted, which causes them to cave in under public opinion. Then, government gets funded and Leftists are happy until, well, they get outraged about something else, which is usually within microseconds.

So, why all the fear-mongering? The Left derives a lot of its power from government. They need to since their ideas tend to suck more than a Dyson being operated by Michael Bay at the center of a black hole. Once they have the force of government behind them, though, their ideas are the best things out there, mainly because they tend to be the only things they allow to be released. Strip the force of government away, and the Left has to argue the merits of their ideas, which turns out about as well as any Michael Bay movie.

Along with this is the fear the Left has that people will realize how little government they actually need in their lives. When you really think about the government shutdowns we’ve had in the past 20 years or so, the country got along pretty well without our “leaders” in Washington telling us what to do. Some parts of our lives, such as national defense and road construction, do need to have state and federal government involvement. As cool as it would be to own a fleet of warships, the maintenance costs are a bit on the hefty side. Ditto with the cost of training and maintaining police and fire departments. But a lot of what the federal government does either impedes innovation, causes unnecessary hoops to jump through for simple tasks, or duplicates work. Or, in some cases, does all three simultaneously, showing a level of government efficiency that boggles the mind and breaks my Irony Meter.

This brings us to a logical question: why are there government shutdowns in the first place? You can thank both major parties for that. Since 2007, Congress has not submitted an actual budget for the President to sign. Instead, the House and Senate have been passing Continuing Resolutions in lieu of an actual budget in order to keep the government’s doors open. Each one is only good for a certain amount of time, so unless they get approved repeatedly the government shuts down. Funny that an entity that thinks $400 is a reasonable price for a hammer would be that bad with money…

The Continuing Resolution also makes things easier for Congress. With a budget, Congress has to spend money in the ways outlined in the budget, so additional expenditures require additional work, and they’re already pushing themselves, what with only working about half the week, if that. With a Continuing Resolution, however, there aren’t as many restrictions. Basically, it’s the government blackmailing itself to pay for stuff. So, instead of having to allocate funds so every member of Congress gets a pony or propose a spending bill that allows Congress to buy a pony for each member, the Continuing Resolution gets the job done in a fraction of the time, which leaves Congress more time to…do nothing.

This is the point in my Leftist Lexicon blog where I try to offer up a suggestion of what we can do to fix the situation. Unfortunately, short of a wholesale purging of the House and Senate, there isn’t much we can do. We’re stuck with the bozos in office until they’re up for reelection, and Helen Keller was a better listener than the majority of Congresscritters out there. However, there is one thing we can do: enjoy our freedom from government while it lasts. Eventually, a Continuing Resolution will get passed and government will get back to making our lives more difficult and frustrating than they need to be.

So, Happy New Year!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

78 Views

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

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

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

Election 2018

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

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

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

Okay, scratch that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

78 Views

We’re entering into the home stretch of the 2018 midterm elections, and it couldn’t come soon enough. I was tired of this year’s midterm elections in, oh, 2016. And with the Left, this could be the most important election in our history because, as they put it, “Trump is a doodyhead.” (Actually, it’s not that reason in so many words, but it boils down to that.)

To help the cause to elect more Democrats, the Left has once again jumped to social media to start a new hashtag, #VoteThemOut, referencing a desire to vote out Republicans. Because, as we all know from the previous Administration, hashtags make people DO something.

Well, in this case, it’s inspiring me to do something: write this week’s Leftist Lexicon!

#VoteThemOut

What the Left thinks it means – an online movement to vote out Republicans and replace them with progressive Democrats

What it really means – a hashtag that will accomplish nothing

Every couple of years, we go through the same tired dance. One party wants to keep power, and the other party wants to strip power away from the other party because the other party is evil incarnate. The only way for the latter party to fix the problems caused by the evil party is to elect more good people. And every couple of years, nothing changes in a significant manner, no matter who wins the election.

Blather. Rinse. Repeat.

Although the Left has a ton of motivation to vote for Democrats and progressives this year, their use of a hashtag to promote it doesn’t exactly scream “Vote for us because we have ideas.” It’s closer to “Vote for us because the other side sucks.” Enter the hashtag #VoteThemOut. It sends the same message as “Vote for us because the other side sucks,” but does it in a way that is short, memorable, and catchy. It’s the social media equivalent of a bumper sticker, but without the need to find space on a vehicle to stick it.

And you might be able to guess what else I feel can stick it.

Hashtags may be what the cool kids do, but it makes for poor political strategy because it doesn’t necessarily create action. Remember #BringBackOurGirls? It was a valid sentiment that hoped to garner positive results, but it worked as well as CNN’s fact checking department. It brought attention to the situation and did…absolutely nothing.

Just like the ribbons worn on the red carpets in Hollywood, hashtags are a great way to show you care about an issue and they seem to absolve the person using them of the responsibility of actually doing something about it. After all, they did the hard part by telling people know about an issue. It’s up to others to do the easy stuff and make things happen!

And, yes, I’m being sarcastic here.

In order for hashtags to become more than just words in the cyber-ether, someone has to act on them. But the problem with the midterm elections is only a limited number of people can act on them since we’re dealing with state-level elections, albeit with national implications. A Leftist in California tweeting #VoteThemOut can have it go global, but the impact it has is limited to the voters or potential voters where Democrats want to take Republican seats. Further diluting the impact is the fact #VoteThemOut will only garner support from people already leaning towards that idea.

Can you say “echo chamber,” kids? I knew you could.

Let’s say for the sake of argument the hashtag catches on and results in the “Blue Wave” the Left keeps saying is going to happen. What then? Given the fact most Leftists see it as a chance to impeach President Donald Trump, not much will get accomplished. Oh, there may be some other progressive ideas that may get proposed and maybe even voted on by the House and Senate, but unless impeachment is on the table, the Left won’t be happy. (Mainly because they think they can remove Trump and everyone else in the line of succession, force the country to hold a new election, add more Justices to the Supreme Court, and other wild conclusions devoid of Constitutional grounding. But, hey, why let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way of getting what the Left wants, right?)

Surely this time will be different, the Left will say. And they will be wrong. When there is a seismic shift in political power, rarely is it followed by a flurry of positive results that benefit the country. Why, it’s almost as if…politicians promise the moon, but only deliver green cheese!

That’s because government isn’t in the problem-solving business. I’ve noted it before, but the short version is current government needs there to be constant problems to retain power, money, and control. If Democrats sweep into power in 2018, all the problems they say are caused by Republicans will either be “forgotten” or found not to be as big of a problem as they claimed they were. And if the “Blue Wave” happens, a “Red Wave” will come after that and then Republicans will be the ones to “forget” problems or go along to get along.

The fact we still have a Department of Education in spite of Ronald Reagan’s promise to eliminate it back in the 1980s is proof of that.

If you want to vote out Democrats and/or Republicans because you feel things will be better without them, go for it. Just try to act surprised when nothing comes of it.

Concise Conservative Comebacks for Loony Leftist Lines

74 Views

With the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace the retiring Anthony Kennedy, Leftists have been throwing out all sorts of arguments why we (meaning they) can’t allow this to happen. Don’t you wish you had a handy dandy guide to help you refute those arguments?

Well, I’m going to try to provide one. Granted, I try not to think like a Leftist for too long because it makes my head hurt and I might not come back, but for you, I’ll make an exception. Let’s take a look at some of the Left’s arguments (which I have put in bold to separate them from my responses) and some of my responses (which I have not put in bold to separate them from the Left’s arguments). Yes, I know that last one was redundant, but when dealing with Leftists, it’s best to make absolutely sure. Where applicable, I have tried to make it into a back-and-forth conversation, but if the Leftist jumps to a different argument than the order in which I have written responses, just jump to the appropriate response and go from there.

Ready? Here we go!

Donald Trump shouldn’t be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice while he’s under investigation.

What investigation is that?

That he conspired with Russia to help him win the Presidency.

Oh, that investigation! Seems former FBI Director James Comey and special prosecutor Robert Mueller, both of whom you’ve lauded in the past, have both said Trump is not under investigation. In fact, of the indictments to date, none have been against Trump, nor have they been linked to Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign. All the accusers have at this point is guilt by association, which doesn’t stand up to legal scrutiny.

But what about all of those connections between Trump and Russia? Surely they prove collusion!

Not quite. Much of what you’re focusing on occurred before Trump was President. It could be argued the terms of impeachment spelled out in the Constitution, along with Article 1 Sections 9 and 10 which prohibit actions that punish an individual retroactively (a little thing the kids call ex post facto), mean Trump’s alleged actions would not be legal grounds for impeachment. As a private citizen, which Trump was at the time of the alleged collusion, Trump could conduct business with anyone he chose, even the evil Russians (which people like former President Barack Obama defended against allegations they were bad folks). And, on top of all that, collusion isn’t expressly illegal. That’s where the bar of “high crimes and misdemeanors” comes into play. If no laws were broken, impeachment isn’t a good and true option.

So what? If Trump gets to pick the next Supreme Court Justice, he could be picking someone who would rule on any case involving him!

Strangely enough, you have half of a point here. Appointing a Supreme Court Justice means that Justice might have to hear cases involving the President who appointed him or her. That’s why it’s expected any judge with conflicts of interest recuse themselves from any case that they have a personal stake in the outcome.

See? You’ve just made my point for me!

I’m not finished. Just because you should recuse yourself doesn’t mean you will. In my lifetime, there have been cases where a Justice should have recused himself or herself and didn’t. Clarence Thomas should have recused himself during cases involving health insurance since his wife works in that industry. On the other side, Justices Kagan and Sotomayor should have recused themselves from any rulings on Obamacare because both had direct impacts on it. And let’s not forget Justice Ginsburg, who officiated a same-sex wedding before she ruled on a Supreme Court case involving same-sex marriages. If you’re afraid of a Justice being influenced to vote a certain way because of who appointed him or her, you’ve had plenty of opportunities to say something.

But Kennedy’s son was Trump’s banker!

So what?

So that means Trump could have put pressure on Kennedy to retire early! Doesn’t that trouble you?

The operative words are “could have.” Trump could have talked Kennedy into retiring, or Kennedy could have come to that conclusion on his own. Without plausible evidence to confirm the President pressured Kennedy into retiring, we have to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Well, that and the fact further evidence shows Kennedy’s son did not do business with Trump directly. The bank he was working for at the time did. That’s like blaming Ford for having trouble with your Chevy Volt.

Let’s go back to the appointing of the Justice ruling on a case Trump’s involved in. How can you reconcile that?

Easy. Precedent states the President cannot be charged legally with a crime while in office. That leaves impeachment as the means to remove Trump, and of all the Supreme Court Justices that would be involved, it is only Chief Justice John Roberts who would be involved, since the Constitution states the Chief Justice presides over the Senate portion of impeachment. And since Roberts was appointed before Trump was even a nominee, there is no conflict.

What about Mitch McConnell denying a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland? Shouldn’t we wait until the elections are over, as McConnell said in 2016?

There’s a big difference between a Presidential election and a mid-term election. In 2016, McConnell relied upon what is loosely called “the Biden Rule”, but one that is backed up by Senate history. Traditionally, no Supreme Court nominations are made in Presidential election years since there is a chance the incoming President would not get to choose a nominee, which undercuts the power of the Presidency as outlined in, surprise surprise, the Constitution.

This year, there is no Presidential election; only the election of House and Senate members. There is no affect on Presidential powers, so there is no reason to hold off on the process. Not to mention, there is a current Supreme Court Justice who was appointed in a mid-term election year. Elena Kagan was appointed in 2010…with support of Republicans. Not liking who is President is not an excuse to delay the process.

Okay, okay, but shouldn’t Merrick Garland get a hearing, given how Senate Republicans sat on his nomination?

I actually have no problem with this, mainly because it’s pretty much a guarantee Garland wouldn’t get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But Garland never got a hearing! That’s a stolen Supreme Court seat!

In order for something to be stolen, it must first be owned. The Supreme Court is not owned by any one President or political party, so President Obama didn’t get an automatic appointment because he was President at the time the vacancy occurred. Thanks to a bit of Senate history, Supreme Court Justices aren’t nominated in Presidential election years. Only when that bit of history comes back to bite the Left in the ass does it become an issue.

To go even further into this, the Constitution states the Senate gives “advice and consent” for judicial nominees. Nowhere is there a requirement for any nominee to go through a confirmation hearing. Really, the hearing is for grandstanding politicians to look like they’re doing something when they’re acting like hams.

Well…okay, but what about Brett Kavanaugh? Don’t you right wingers want Roe v . Wade overturned?

First off, Kavanaugh said he considers Roe v. Wade to be settled law and would not consider overturning it. Even if he’s changed his mind, there would need to be a legal challenge to Roe that would need to get through multiple judicial layers before it would even reach the Supreme Court. Will that happen? We don’t know.

Even if Roe gets overturned, the decision to allow abortions would go back to the states. We can argue whether that’s good or bad, but it’s a discussion that should be welcomed by all parties involved. Until Roe comes back before the High Court, though, it’s still just theoretical.

But Kavanaugh is a practicing Catholic! Don’t they want abortion outlawed?

Nancy Pelosi is a practicing Catholic, and she doesn’t want abortion outlawed.

Kavanaugh’s faith plays no role in determine whether he’s fit for the Supreme Court. Remember, the Constitution states there is no religious test to serve, so he could be an atheist and still not be disqualified.

What about gay marriage, civil rights, and other important issues? Kavanaugh will set us back on those and a lot more!

Again, there has to be a legal challenge that makes its way through the courts before it even gets heard by the Supreme Court. And that process isn’t quick, kids. It might be years before such a challenge gets heard.

Didn’t Kavanaugh say a sitting President shouldn’t be indicted or tried?

He did.

So, why should he be a Supreme Court Justice if he feels that way? No President should be above the law.

Because in that same piece you’re quoting from, he goes on to say Congress should change the law. In other words, Kavanaugh feels the current system needs to be changed and wants the body charged with making laws to do it, just as the Constitution dictates.

You keep talking about the Constitution. That’s outdated and should be revamped to reflect current values.

The Founding Fathers already accounted for that. If you can get enough support for your ideas, you can call for a Convention of the States and have the Constitution changed. With today’s political climate, I wish you the best of luck.

Even if you don’t want to go through the trouble of amending the Constitution, it should be pointed out the Constitution has already been interpreted to address many of the issues you hold dear. You may not feel like it’s progressive or conservative enough, but the judicial branch can be persuaded. How far those interpretations deviate from the source material may be an issue, but to call the Constitution outdated is to ignore the framework it provides us to change with the times.

Well, the Constitution doesn’t say how many Supreme Court Justices there need to be, so we should add more Justices so there is a better balance of ideologies.

That is a good point, actually. However, that has the potential to backfire. Remember, when you allow one President to do something, future Presidents can pick up that permission and run with it. Want to see 25 Antonin Scalia-type judges sitting on the High Bench?

Well, maybe we should put term limits on Supreme Court Justices.

Although it might seem like a good idea to limit the terms of Justices, the reason Justices have lifetime appointments is to avoid political favoritism. And when we look at the current Supreme Court makeup, the Justices who lean Left put their ideology above the Constitution. The Justices who lean Right tend to do the opposite. Besides, if we put term limits on Justices, we might be looking at another Merrick Garland situation, especially if the terms are to be 19 years, as is what is being suggested. Then, we might be right back where we started from and nothing will be solved.

Stop talking to me you racist/sexist/homophobe/bigot/Trumpster/insult-du-joir!


And there we have it. Use this as a guide, and may the fates be ever in your favor!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

103 Views

To hear the Left talk about the upcoming midterm elections, it’s a lock. They will take back the House and Senate and finally put President Donald Trump in his place (and out of the White House, if they have anything to say about it). Yet, with all great plans, there is a fatal flaw.

And this one starts with a hashtag because why not.

Started by a former Democrat, #WalkAway has caught on among people who saw their party get nuttier than squirrel poop and no longer represented their views. In response, current Democrats acted as they normally do…and started calling the #WalkAway movement names.

Unlike Leftists, I’m willing to give them a fair shake (and a little publicity, perhaps) by exploring their movement in greater detail than the Left can be bothered to muster.

#WalkAway

What the Left thinks it means – a hashtag movement created by Russians, Republicans, and/or Trump to cost the Democrats the midterm elections

What it really means – a group of former Democrats and Leftists who are finding their way out of the Leftist morass

I truly understand what the #WalkAway movement is about because it wasn’t that long ago I was just like them. I was a proud Leftist, believing every word, fighting for every cause, and generally living my life according to the Leftist model. And it sucked. Imagine the worst day of your life, a day when you were at your lowest and most touchy. Now, imagine living that same day over and over again. That’s what being a Leftist feels like.

Eventually, it got to a point where I couldn’t be a Leftist anymore and I struck out on my own politically. It’s not easy by any stretch of the imagination. It’s like being the black sheep of the family, only with a lot less wool. Moving away from the Leftist promises of utopia and into an uncertain ideological world was one of the toughest things I ever chose to do, but it was also one of the most fulfilling.

To put it mildly, Leftists hate free thinkers more than Hillary Clinton hates the Electoral College. They need people to believe only what they’re told, no matter how bizarre or out of character it seems to be. They don’t start right with normalizing extreme positions; they try to get you to build up to it (with their “help” of course) so you can’t back away from the end goal. If you deviate even one micron from the script, they will harangue until you conform or get cast out.

Guess where the Left is right now with the #WalkAway movement, kids. That’s right! They’re in the haranguing stage. Art Bell couldn’t come up with the sheer number of conspiracy theories the Left has devised to explain the movement away. They’re connected to Russia. They’re not really Democrats. They’re Republican plants. They’re angry Bernie Sanders didn’t win. They’re turning frogs gay. (Sorry, that last one was from Alex Jones, but I was on a roll.)

Many people put in that situation crack under the pressure, but some use that hardship to stiffen their backbones and stand up. Granted, everyone has a different “trigger” as it were, but a lot of accounts I’ve watched and read come down to one central event: the #WalkAway folks got turned off by the current crop of Leftists running the Democratic Party. When your party’s freshest face is a 28 year old former bartender turned fully avowed “democratic socialist”, you know your party’s taken the bullet train to What Can We Advocate That Will Guarantee We Will Lose Elections-ville.

But that’s the beauty of the #WalkAway movement. It’s not about politics as much as it is about wanting a better America. Many have become Trump supporters, while others are still deciding what their next ideological step might be. But their stories have a similar ring of truth to them. They all got turned off by the direction of the party they supported and decided to stop chasing broken promises of Leftist utopia and start chasing their version of the American Dream.

Time will tell if #WalkAway becomes a driving force in politics or if they fizzle out like Err America. But one thing is for certain: the Left is scared. That means they’ll throw everything they can at them to make the #WalkAway movement submit or be so discredited as to become pariahs. Ask Alan Dershowitz about his last trip to Martha’s Vineyard. Eye-opening stuff.

While the Left seeks to consolidate its power before the midterm elections, it is starting to look like an exclusive party where only some people are let in and given power. And although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 by around three million votes (just ask her), that number is starting to contract at the worst possible time for the Left. They need every single vote (even the posthumous ones) to try to check President Trump legislatively and seek revenge for the ultimate sin: making Leftists look like the unhinged asshats they truly are.

As much as I disagree with the President, it cannot be understated how his election to the Presidency created the environment that gave us Maxine Waters becoming a national figurehead for the Democrats and the #WalkAway movement becoming a real threat to the Party of Aunt Maxine. The road ahead will be dangerous for both sides of that equation, but moreso for those who have chosen to walk away. Coming out as a recovering Leftist can be more harrowing than coming out as gay or letting Anthony Weiner use your laptop, and with the kinds of things Leftists are known to do and justify doing to Trump supporters, that danger is real.

But, I urge the #WalkAway movement to be fearless, for the greatest weapon the Left has against you is your emotions. They will make you out to be only slightly more popular than jock itch as a means to bring you back in line. Threats of violence, doxing, or other modern tortures await you if you choose this path.

But you won’t travel alone. As long as I have breath in my body, I will #WalkAway with you. J

ust not so fast. I’m not as young as I used to be and I have missed my cardio workouts for, oh, the past 3 decades.