Closing Time on Mueller Time?

If you heard the distinct sound of popping in your area, it’s not fireworks. It’s Leftists losing their minds over a news report from NBC that the Senate Intelligence Committee found no direct proof of collusion between President Donald Trump and Russia. And Leftists took this news with their usual maturity and introspection.

That’s right. They pretended the report didn’t exist.

Normally, I might pass this off as partisan wishful thinking on the Trump supporters’ parts, but other news reports prior to the NBC report adds weight to the notion Robert Mueller’s investigation is going to come up emptier than a Sandra Fluke campaign rally.

“But what about all the indictments of Trump campaign personnel?” Leftists scream. The indictments by themselves lead to the conclusion the President surrounds himself with bad actors, and it should be pointed out the indictments were for matters not related to Trump’s 2016 campaign. Put another way, it’s like trying to throw out a murder trial because the prosecutor had an overdue library book in the 3rd grade.

To any Leftists reading this (or having this read to you), we need to have a serious talk about this whole situation. All the fantasies you have about undoing the 2016 Presidential Election aren’t healthy, and they’re hurting you on several fronts. Just because you can point your fingers at some of Trump’s inner circle as being corrupt doesn’t mean Trump is corrupt. That’s call guilt by association, and it really doesn’t fly in criminal, civil, or even political court, i.e. impeachment. It means he’s a lousy judge of character, which isn’t an impeachable offense, nor is it illegal. It’s the deeds that make one guilty.

Obstruction of justice? Sorry, but that one won’t stick because of the fact Mueller still has an investigation pending. Not to mention, Trump could fire Mueller at any time for any reason, but has stayed his hand. If he wanted to, he could have appointed any pro-Trump stooge to head up the investigation and gotten further in less time.

Treason? Last time I checked (and according to the President before Trump) Russia was an ally of ours. Not a good one, I grant you, but an ally nonetheless. Sharing intel with allies isn’t uncommon, kids. On top of that, sharing polling data that the Russians could have gotten from, say, anywhere on the Internet simply by typing in a few keywords isn’t illegal, nor is it all that troubling.

Destruction of evidence? That one has the outside chance of sticking, but the key will be whether it can be proven Trump did it or ordered it done. And you might want to tread lightly if you want to go with this charge, considering his 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton is accused (and probably guilty) of destroying evidence using the same legal framework you want to use against Trump.

Once you get beyond these three arguments, there isn’t much there to justify impeachment, let alone continuing the Mueller investigation, and it doesn’t look like there are going to be any more bombshells to come out of anything. It’s time to face what I had to face back in the 1990s with Kenneth Starr: you pinned your hopes on a man who was destined to fail. In Starr’s case, it was because he was dealing with some of the most dishonest politicians ever to sully the White House. In Mueller’s case, it is because there isn’t enough evidence to even fabricate anything that looks even remotely like criminal conspiracy. And no amount of repeating squawking points from either side will change the outcome.

You Leftists are going to be angry at Mueller for failing to topple Trump, but he doesn’t deserve your wrath and scorn. Who does? The FBI, James Comey, the mainstream media who has pushed this narrative, those who decided to run with the Steele Dossier that has been discredited to the point of being useless, just to name a few. But you also need to take a little responsibility for the situation getting to where it is today. There are plenty of reasons not to like Donald Trump, but investing so much on so little evidence is folly at best. You were duped by your own ideological biases, so it’s best to own up to them now instead of writing another poorly-sourced tweet or angry blog post about how Mueller was in Trump’s back pocket all along.

Or maybe you can go back to protesting. That seems to have worked well, right?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

In a world of information, we seem to have access to all sorts of facts. Or at least, information we’re told are facts. Global climate change is a fact, according to some. The reporting on MAGA hat wearing teenagers in Washington, DC, was factual…kinda. Even CNN, the self-professed leader in cable news, tells us they’re committed to facts, even when they get facts horribly wrong. Many times, they’re too busy confusing their apples with bananas.

For centuries, philosophers have tried to determine what truth is, and Man has continued to question it in today’s landscape of 24 news programs, reporters as Leftist stenographers, and Internet and real life hoaxes becoming major stories. Do we even know what facts are anymore?

No, but at least there’s a topic for a Leftist Lexicon!

facts

What the Left thinks it means – information that supports the truth

What it really means – information that the Left thinks supports their truth, but doesn’t always

When it comes to facts, the Left isn’t always on speaking terms with them. Sure, they say they’re the “Party of Science” and “truth has a liberal bias,” but when science and truth clash with their ideology, more often than not they either pretend it doesn’t exist or find ways to talk around it.

Take abortion, for example. The Left denies a fetus is a human being, even though medical science confirms it. Instead, the Left calls the fetus a “clump of cells.” The funny thing is that description applies to pretty much every human being on the planet. And if the fetus isn’t human, what is it? A dog? A 1971 Dodge Charger in pristine condition? (Actually, if it were a 71 Charger, I’d be ecstatic.) In spite of the science, the Left wants to treat the fetus differently than, say, an endangered animal. Remember, some of these same Leftists who treat fetuses as clumps of cells got their collectivist panties in a wad over Donald Trump’s sons killing animals on safari.

Anybody want to try to square that circle?

The bedrock principle of a fact is that it’s based on what is, not what we want it to be. No matter how many flat earthers say the planet is as flat as a crepe sat on by Rosie O’Donnell, the planet is still roundish. A problem arises when dealing with humans, though. See, humans are about as logical as letting Ted Kennedy be the designated driver. (Because, well, he’s dead.) We bring our own baggage, blind spots, and ideological bents to any observable event, and that can make facts a little murkier than they should be.

I mentioned the Covington Catholic school kids in passing earlier, and this single event became the epicenter of a battle for truth. Even with a full video showing what happened, people took sides on what the facts of the case were to the point of inventing new narratives not based on the facts in play. Without even saying a word, one of the students was branded a racist, merely for wearing a red MAGA hat, which the Left says other racists have worn in support of Trump (who also happens to be a racist to the Left because he makes overt racism okay again, or something). Not only that, but a case of mistaken identity lead to death threats against the family of a student who wasn’t even there. Slight bit of an oops there, kids.

But these types of things are to be expected when we let emotions dictate what the facts are. Unfortunately, we’re in an age where emotions and perceptions create the factual baseline for our opinions, where “hot takes” that prove to be wrong are commonplace, and we emote first and ask questions never. It’s almost as if we feel we have to rush to tweet something without checking it out first because we get a thrill out of it or it gives us attention, which feeds our egos. Meanwhile, facts seem to be getting mugged in dark alleyways while pseudo-facts have become the gospel of the land.

But it doesn’t have to be that way.

The first key to dealing in facts is to patiently gather information from multiple sources. Over time, you’ll figure out which sources can be trusted and which are the factual equivalent of junk food. Looking right at you, BuzzFeed. By the way, Gawker called and they don’t want their business model back, so it’s yours to keep…at least until you get sued into oblivion.

Once you have determined what sources to trust, keep checking them. Just because you trust them doesn’t make them infallible. And check everything you see, read, and hear against a little thing the kids call Occam’s Razor. Simply put, Occam’s Razor states the simplest answer is usually the right one. Throw in a bit of Sherlock Holmes-style deduction (which is pretty much Occam’s Razor with a twist of acknowledging the possibility of an improbable answer being correct), and you have your network of facts.

And on a side note, don’t trust any fact checking websites without visiting them. Most of them are partisan garbage and will insult your intelligence. If they have to tell you they’re fact checkers, they’re peddling themselves, not the truth. (Insert obligatory Bill Clinton/Anthony Weiner/Pee Wee Herman joke here.)

The most important thing to remember when fact checking on your own is to be patient. Very rarely will the truth appear to you with flashing neon lights with arrows pointing towards it. That’s only happened to me once or twice in my life and I think it was the NyQuil more than anything else that made it happen. Anyway, don’t jump on a bandwagon of information because someone else is doing it. The truth takes time to uncover, and a delayed factual response is better than a quick flawed one.

Just ask Gawker. Oh, wait…

Shut Up About the Shutdown

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…

State of The Onion, or Journalism Dies in Dumbness

journalism as it’s being practiced today. There are some who excel at their profession, but there are far more who stink up the profession. (I’m looking right at you, Jim Acosta.)

Since we’re getting close to the State of the Union Address, I figured I’d give my own twist on it focusing on the state of journalism today.

Hey, media knuckleheads. I’ll bet you weren’t expecting someone to insult you right out of the gate like that because you’re important, but let me tell you something. You’re not as important as you think you are. If anything, you’re becoming more and more irrelevant by the day.

And it’s not a new phenomenon, either. For eight years, you rolled over like faithful lapdogs at everything President Barack Obama said or did and held him about as accountable as Massachusetts held Ted Kennedy. Now that there is a Republican in the Oval Office, and one that you find particularly nasty, you act like the watchdogs and guard dogs you claim you’ve always been. That notion may fly with your fellow talking airheads, but not with me. You have let your personal opinions poison your profession. Well, that, and you’re pretty much dunderheads.

By this time, you’re probably ready to write scathing responses to my statements. Good. It will give me much to laugh at while you fume. As brave as you think you are, it takes no courage to stand up against someone you hate. It takes courage to stand up against someone you love. And, yes, I know you’re fond of saying you don’t take sides, but you do.

Just take at look at how you’ve covered the border crisis. If your reporting were more ham-fisted, it wouldn’t be kosher or halal. And before you get indignant, let me point out you were caught trying to pass off photos from 2014 as photos from last year. And who was President in 2014? Why, it was Barack Obama! You know, the President you fawned over like women at an Ed Sherran concert while he was implicated in crimes and general incompetence that you should have reported? Please, go on about how you’re the real deal when you spent time covering Obama’s NCAA Final Four picks.

That’s one of the reasons people don’t trust you to report the facts: you’re dishonest. If you tell lies enough times and get caught, people stop listening to you. And, news flash kids, fewer and fewer people are listening to you for that very reason. Granted, some might stop listening because you’re not telling them the truth they want to hear, but most people stopped listening when they realized you lied about something meaningful to them. When the people charged with telling the truth get caught in lie after lie over trivial matters, they tend not to listen when the real news hits.

I know why you lie, and it’s not hard to figure out. You let your desire for fame, ideological purity, and egos get in the way of your job. You’re basically like Congress, only you have to pay your own bar tabs. You think you’re one story away from being the next Woodward and Bernstein, but you’re closer to Joanne and Leonard than you are to Bob and Carl. A huge part of that is you went into journalism for the wrong reasons. Journalists are not supposed to be the centers of attention on a story, or ever for that matter, because they are supposed to work behind the scenes to keep those in power in check. When you trade in the role of watchmen for that of media darling, it gets harder to keep the powerful on their toes because you think you become one of them. They will let you into their circles and talk you up, but only so long as they think you’re useful to them in some capacity. And no matter what kind of crap they do to you, you will go along with it because you like being noticed. But know this. They won’t lift a finger to help you if you can no longer help them. To them, you are just the hired help.

So, why keep doing it? Do you like to be treated worse than Louis Farrakhan at a bar mitzvah? Are you still struggling with self-image issues from high school because you weren’t one of the “cool kids”? Or are you so delusional as to think you can be the one to become one of the elite? Whatever it is, it’s not working. You are writing checks your egos can’t cash, and justifiably so. Whatever worth you once had is waning, and you’re stuck looking for answers.

Here’s a helpful hint from your ole pal Thomas. Instead of chasing celebrity, chase leads. And, no, whatever Beyonce and Jay Z are doing/wearing/hawking. Do some real reporting for a change. If you think there’s something to the Trump Russia story, do some digging and figure out where the bodies are buried, regardless of whether you agree with the outcome. There are some things more important than being allowed into exclusive parties, and one of those things is the truth. The reason Donald Trump keeps outmaneuvering your best efforts to bring him down is because he’s spent enough time around you to know your habits. Break those habits and hit the beat for a change, and you’ll find out more information about him and his political fans than you ever could by attending elegant dinner parties with celebrities and collectively looking your nose down at the rest of the country, as you are wont to do.

And as far as your haughty attitudes, dump those, too. You’re not better than us because of where you work or who you cover. You’re basically history’s steno pool, and you’re not even doing that right (which is ironic given how concerned you are about being on the “right side of history.”) Try being on the right side of the factual divide for a change. Write stories with actual facts and actual sources, not the scuttlebutt you might hear around the office water cooler, and people might start trusting you again.

Something else that will go a long way with people is to honestly apologize for your screw-ups and show them you’re working to fix them. And, yes, that means being willing to show multiple sides of an issue. Even if you think that side is bat-crap crazy, you owe it to your audience to show us that side and let us make up our own minds. We may not have gone to Columbia Journalism School, but we’re not dullards. Okay, some of us may be dullards, but that doesn’t remove your responsibility to deal straight with us as people, not as mindless sheep.

In closing, the state of journalism today is sorrier than a televangelist getting caught using church funds to get hookers and blow. The only way to fix that is to get better at what you do, and that starts with you. You tell us you’re only reporting on what we want, but that’s not exactly true. You’re reporting what you want us to think we want. That power corrupts absolutely, and you’ve abused that power like Ike abused Tina. Don’t shape our opinions for us; let us shape them.

And put a muzzle on Acosta, would ya?

You Really Don’t Like Me! You Really, Really Don’t Like Me!

Elizabeth Warren has been toying with the idea of running for President since at least 2016, but recently she announced in a cringe-worthy video she started an exploratory committee for 2020. This has media types asking the most important question they can think of.

Is Elizabeth Warren likeable?

Seriously. That’s the idea they’re going with, and Leftists are up in arms over it. To them, Warren is accomplished, articulate, intelligent, and many other things these same folks said Hillary Clinton was in 2016. Any criticism of her, legitimate or otherwise, is written off as sexist, racist, unintelligent. You know, the same things said when any criticism of Hillary was made in 2016 (and oddly enough descriptors that apply to her as well). Some have gone so far as to say asking if Warren is likeable or relatable is offensive.

Let me field this one. No, no it’s not. Politics is a game of style over substance, so likeability/relatability is a legitimate concern, and when it comes to it, Elizabeth Warren isn’t that likeable or relatable. She’s more awkward than John Kerry on a hunting trip. I’m not sure she’s up to Dukakis in a tank level yet, but the election season is still young. (On a side note, why are Presidential candidates from Massachusetts so bad? Must be something in the imported spring water….)

I will admit I am not a fan of Chief Running Mouth, mainly because of her creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which from personal experience has little to do with consumer protection and everything to do with financial bureaucracy. Since it’s existence, the CFPB has accomplished very little for consumers while raking in federal dollars to do the job they’re doing at a frozen snail’s pace. The only federal program who does less with more is Super Fund, but give the CFPB time and they’ll make Super Fund look thrifty.

But this tangent cuts into one of the reasons Warren isn’t likeable. She thinks she’s smarter than she actually is and her attitude reflects it. Watch her when she’s presiding over a Senate hearing or in an interview. She thinks she is the expert whenever a subject comes up for discussion, just like your typical Leftist. This may win her Leftist hearts and minds, but it can be off-putting to someone outside of the Leftist hivemind. And before you Leftists reading this say “You’re just intimidated by a strong, intelligent woman,” let me point out if that were the case, I wouldn’t be married to my wife. And, unlike Warren, she doesn’t need to show off how smart and capable she is.

Warren is having the same trouble Hillary did in 2016 in that she’s trying too hard to fit in. When that happens, people see right through it and it hurts the tryer’s credibility. This is especially true in the Midwest, where I’m from. We can spot a phony a mile away and tend not to give them a chance to burn us once, let alone twice. No matter how many corn dogs she can wolf down or how many visits she makes to the Iowa State Fair, she will be seen by enough as a phony.

If Elizabeth Warren does decide to throw her 1/1024 of a hat into the ring, the likeability issue will need to be addressed. Instead of trying to tiptoe around it or dismiss it out of hand, let me give you a piece of advice: be honest with us. I know you think you are, but you’re not. Just come out and tell us what you want and let us decide if we’re in favor of your vision of the country. Trying to appeal to different groups and failing only makes you look foolish.

But if you want to stay on the course you’re on, at least make it an entertaining dumpster fire! Sure, you’ll go down in flames like the Hindenburg, but at least you’ll bring joy to millions of Americans like me and you’ll be liked for being brave (if you’ll pardon the expression) enough to take this tack and crazy enough to have agreed to it in the first place. Ross Perot and Ron Paul tapped into this and they’re still beloved today.

You’ll thank me later.

Your Move, Leftists

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.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Can you believe it’s been a year since the first Women’s March? I can’t! Why, it seemed like it was only yesterday when women wore knitted pink hats representing a part of the female anatomy and took part in a march partially organized by a known anti-Semite and attended by a former pop star who thought it was a good idea to publicly admit she wanted to blow up the White House. Ah, memories.

A year later and the Women’s March is experiencing a little trouble. Attendance is projected to be down because of lack of interest and complaints by women of color that there are, get this, too many white women involved. This march went from excluding pro-life women from marching with them because they were pro-life to excluding people based on race? And we haven’t even gotten to the anti-Semitic statements made by two of the prominent leaders of the march yet!

Let’s take another look at the Women’s March and see if we can puzzle out where they went wrong.

Women’s March

What the Left thinks it means – a march for women to be heard and respected for taking a stance against the Trump Administration and sexism everywhere

What it really means – a group trying to be all things to a few people

Feminists have a concept called intersectionality that permeates their ideology. Basically, intersectionality posits oppression overlaps. A woman of color might experience sexism and racism simultaneously while a white lesbian might experience sexism and homophobia while a black lesbian lumberjack might experience sexism, racism, and homophobia. On the plus side, she’s a lumberjack and she’s okay. The intersectionality creates a Venn Diagram of oppression in theory, but in practice it creates a hierarchy of oppression. White women can’t be as oppressed as the aforementioned lumberjack, so the latter’s oppression is taken more seriously.

And remember, kids, we’re not dealing with actual oppression in most cases. It’s perceived oppression. I’m not saying women aren’t the victims of oppression because they are. Most of the time, though, it’s not here. Think the women in countries run by radical Muslims give two craps about the wage gap? Nope! They’re too busy living in fear for their lives. Their intersectionality oppression Venn Diagram is a freaking CIRCLE.

And who do we have leading the charge in the Women’s March? One woman, Linda Sarsour, wants us to believe Islam is progressive when it comes to women, even after she wanted women who disagree with her to undergo female genital mutilation. (Pro Tip for you, Linda. Forced FGM isn’t politically or socially progressive.) Then, there’s Tamika Mallory, who not only has said some anti-Semitic things, but also is a fan of and met with Louis Farrakhan. Hmmm…I’m sensing a pattern here…Nah. Nobody with any sense would lead a national organization and have clear and provable ties to a raging anti-Semite like Farrakhan.

Wait. These are two of the organizers of the Women’s March we’re dealing with here. Nevermind!

With this year’s edition of the Women’s March including racism, anti-Semitism, lack of participation in some cities, and a general lack of leadership, we could be seeing the end of the Women’s March as a social construct. That is, assuming it actually was a social construct in the first place. It’s not, of course. The same issues the Women’s March claim to want addressed existed before Donald Trump was elected President (except for the wage gap, which is bullcrap to begin with), but it only became a thing after Trump was elected. Why, it’s almost as if…these women didn’t care about these issues until a Republican became President!

Ah, we’ve hit upon the real motivation behind the Women’s March. It’s not about women’s issues; it’s about women’s votes, especially if those votes swing Left. Looking at the list of sponsors for the Women’s March, down to a one you find Leftists. Even if women overwhelmingly vote Democrat, to wrap yourselves in the cloak of speaking up for women while only listening to one side of the ideological argument is dishonest. Believe it or not, there are conservative women who care about women’s issues, too. But since that doesn’t align with your ideological bent, these women get ignored. Now, white women may be getting the boot, too. What’s next? Only bisexual albino midgets with limps can march? Keep this up and the Women’s March will be a Woman’s March and it will be less crowded than an elevator after someone farts up a triple bean burrito from Chipotle. Or any dish from Chipotle, for that matter.

If you’re a supporter of the Women’s March reading this, do some serious soul-searching and determine if the movement is what you were lead to believe it was. If you still agree with the movement, then be part of it. If you don’t, you don’t need them as much as they need you. Numbers give the Women’s March the perception of power and majority. If enough of you tell the leadership to shove it where the sun don’t shine, maybe they’ll get the hint. Then, either start your own movement or work individually on the issues you find important. Activism only works through honesty and transparency, and the only thing transparent about the Women’s March is the lies needed to keep it going.

Besides, who wants to be associated with Louis Farrakhan?

A Year to Dismember

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

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

During the heady days of the 2016 Presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump promised to build a wall on our southern border and have Mexico pay for it. Leftists and the media (who are pretty much Leftists) scoffed at the idea and dismissed it as folly. Well, they’re not laughing much now because there may be a government shutdown unless Congress authorizes funding for the wall. And, if now-President Trump is to be believed, Mexico is paying for it indirectly.

In either case, what started out as an over-ambitious DIY project has turned into a controversy involving accusations of racism, questioning of the President’s manhood, and the impact of illegal immigration on our country. Not since Pink Floyd has a wall been such a source for symbolism. And, like the aforementioned Floyd film, we might need some drugs to fully appreciate it.

Absent the chemical components, though, you have me. May God have mercy on our souls.

border wall

What the Left thinks it means – a racist structure designed to prevent immigrants from seeking asylum in America, a structure to show off Trump’s manliness to compensate for other areas

What it really means – an idea that sounds good on paper, but has issues that need to be addressed to be effective

That’s right, kids. The wall is a great idea on the surface because it is believed to be a strong statement America is finally ready to defend her borders. The problem is a wall is only as strong as the will of those who want to circumvent it. No matter how high we build a wall, there are still tunnels underneath it that will allow illegal entry into our country. Instead of looking up, our leaders need to be looking down and shoring up the tunnel situation.

Now that we’ve discussed the serious matters surrounding the border wall, it’s time to move into the silly matters, namely the Leftist outrage over it.

Leftists have built a narrative that Trump is a racist, and everything he does (in their eyes) only proves it. That’s what is known as confirmation bias, folks, but I digress. To the Left, building a wall is racist because it prevents Mexicans and other “brown-skinned people” from entering our country. Wellllll…that’s a vast oversimplification of the issues at hand, and the devastation is in the details. First, the wall in and of itself isn’t racist because…now follow me here…it’s an inanimate object with no self-awareness. You know, like Chuck Schumer. You can ascribe racist notions to it, but that doesn’t make it racist. Racism requires the ability to hate another race or deem your race superior.

But is the border wall proof of Trump’s racism? That’s hard to say without knowing what’s in the President’s heart, you know aside from blood and muscles and stuff. Although he’s said and done some questionable things both before and after he became President, I don’t have enough information one way or another, and anyone who claims otherwise is trying to sell you something. In this case, I have to give the President the benefit of the doubt and come down against the wall being a racist idea. If anything, it’s a sign of his lack of racism and desire for all Americans to be seen as Americans first. (Which leads Leftists to scream about him being a racist Nazi, but that’s a blog post for another time.)

Then, there’s the Left’s attempt to whitewash the illegal immigration element of the border wall by turning every illegal immigrant into a monolith. Two tiny problems with that: 1) not all of them are seeking asylum, and 2) not all of them are innocent women and children. Over the past several decades, our political leaders have opened the gates and pussyfooted…sorry, front-hole-footed around the issues that came from our benevolence and compassion. It’s not a coincidence scam artists use both of these to get what they want from their marks, and it’s the same thing with illegal immigration. We have created an incentive-rich environment for people to come here, and that has in turn created an entire underground market for people looking to skirt the law to do just that. Of course, this is the same government that gave us the War on Drugs, so it’s not out of the question for them to apply the same losing strategy to illegal immigration.

Speaking of losing strategies, Leftists also love the point out the wall won’t work, using some of the same ideas I mentioned earlier. Does this mean I’m turning into a Leftist again? Nope. Been there, done that, still smell like patchouli and failure. What they’re missing is the idea that a wall can be effective when enforced vigorously. Look at Israel. They have a fence that makes the Maginot Line look impressive, but they make it work because they care about keeping their country secure from unwanted guests, albeit unwanted guests with bomb vests and death wishes to beat the band. Closer to home, though, take a moment to document how many Leftists are against the border fence. Then, see if they live behind a fence or in a gated community. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say there are enough to render the Left’s “fences don’t work” arguments null and void.

Now, let’s delve into the more puerile element of the Left’s anti-wall sentiments. I’ve seen teenage boys with more restraint than the Left when it comes to sexual matters, and current House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s statement about the wall being a symbol of Trump’s manhood is no exception. Believe it or…well, just believe it, Leftists are obsessed with sex on a level that makes Larry Flynt look like a Puritan. Their ideology is built around who is doing what to whom and how it benefits them in the short term, so it’s not surprising Pelosi would try to turn the border wall into something phallic. Well, soon-to-be-Madame Speaker, to paraphrase Sigmund Freud, “Could you lay off the sex talk for once, please?” Oh well, sometimes a wall is just a wall.

More to the point, Pelosi’s statement and its subsequent repeating within the Left detracts from their message because it makes them look silly and immature. You could have said Trump was a doody-head and at least retained some gravitas, but as it stands you look like you’re not serious about addressing the issues. (You’re not, of course, but that’s not what you need to broadcast right now.) Plus, you gave the President the ability to strike back just as poorly as you did and look like a victim in the process. Brilliant!

The border wall is a lightning rod for controversy, both real and ginned up for publicity, and it won’t do what is promised, nor will it get at the root of the illegal immigration problem. It’s going to be a multi billion dollar Band Aid that we’ll pay for and always feel the pain no matter when it gets pulled off.