Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As the seasons turn from summer to fall, there are some things we can depend on. Kids going back to school. Leaves turning colors. And discussions about the debt ceiling.

Recently, President Donald Trump spoke to House Minority Leader Nancy “Joan Rivers Was a Piker Compared to Me” Pelosi and Senate Minority leader Charles “Don’t Get Between Me and a Microphone” Schumer and agreed to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for concessions on disaster relief. Yeah, I know. Debt ceiling talk is so sexy, right? Well, get ready to get really hot because here we go!

debt ceiling

What the Left believes it means – a budgetary procedure to ensure the government can pay its debts without shutting down

What it really means – giving the least fiscally responsible entity on Earth a pass on bad spending.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to pay the debts of the country, including the debts they themselves rack up allegedly representing the county. Usually, this gets done through the budget process, where the House, the Senate, and the President try to hammer out a vision for what needs to get paid and by whom. There’s a tiny snag with this currently: we haven’t actually had a budget since 2006. The way Congress has done around this detail has been to raise the debt ceiling, which allows the government to pay debts. A necessary evil, right?

Not quite.

Let’s say you have a credit card that you max out on a trip to Las Vegas. You may be able to skate by for a while, but eventually you are going to have to make a payment. Then, instead of making a payment, you request raising your credit line. The credit card company agrees, and you go back to Vegas to max out your card again. Then, payment time rolls around again, and you request yet another credit line extension. The credit card company agrees, and the process continues.

There’s no way this can end badly, right?

Actually, there is no way this can’t end badly. With a budget, Congress has a framework for how to proceed. Without a budget, Congress can spend and spend without much oversight. Wait…did we just stumble onto the reason we haven’t had a budget in 11 years? Why, yes, yes, we did!

Under the typical budget process, the House comes up with a budget and gives it to the Senate to look over and either approve as-is or offer changes. If there are changes, the House and Senate come together and work out the differences before sending it to the President to sign. Then, if the President vetoes it, the budget proposal goes back to Congress to either fix the proposal or override the veto. In short, there are checkpoints at every stage of the budget process to prevent one side or the other from running roughshod over the other and to put limits on what is to be spent. By simply agreeing to forego the normal budget process and raise the debt ceiling, those safeguards are as reliable as the TSA.

If America had her financial house in order, raising the debt ceiling might not be an issue. After all, we’ve accrued debt in the past for noble purposes, like fighting a war. However, America is spending like a drunken sailor these days. Okay, that may have been out of line. After all, drunken sailors have a bit more fiscal responsibility than the average Congrescritter. I mean, when was the last time you saw a drunken sailor spend money to watch shrimp on a treadmill?

Complicating matters further is the fact America doesn’t own all of its debt. We have issued bonds for our debt for various parties to buy. And guess who owns a good chunk of those bonds. China. Yeah, that country that hasn’t quite gotten over the Cold War and has a penchant for trying to handicap America whenever it can. And we gave them Most Favored Nation status in the 1990s! And how do they repay us? Sending toys with lead paint and dog food that actually kills dogs.

But I’m sure they’ll do us right this time!

All it takes for our fiscal house of cards to come tumbling down is for China to say, “Yeah, we kinda want our money back because we don’t think you can pay us back.” If you thought the financial crisis in 2008 was bad, this will make that look like “Heidi.” (For you Leftists out there reading this, that is a bad thing.) And if that happens, we have Democrats and Republicans to blame. Our representatives decided that spending money is more important than fiscal security. Even when we get representatives elected who promise to keep us on budget, those voices are either drowned out or sold out by those who think we can print enough money to keep ourselves afloat. Spoiler Alert: we can’t. The more money we print, the less valuable the money we have becomes. That isn’t a recipe for success, kids.

So, how do we fix it? Outside of a Congressional enema, we’re stuck until our representatives figure out raising the debt ceiling without a reason will cost us more than the ability to spend money we don’t have on crap that has no real purpose.

Like shrimp on treadmills.

Share This:


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Happy Labor Day weekend, kids! As we take our first tentative steps into fall, Labor Day elicits quite a few memories and emotions. Anticipation for the leaves to start falling, as well as the temperatures. The knowledge we’re not supposed to wear white until spring, unless you’re a Klan member. And remembering the hard work of the men and women who comprise the working class.

The demographics of the working class may have changed throughout the years, but they still represent a vital voting bloc for the Left and the Right. If you persuade the working class to vote for your candidate, you stand a good chance of winning an election, or at least doing better than Evan McMullin in 2016. In honor of Labor Day (and because I really didn’t have anything else to write about this week), let’s take a closer look at the working class.

working class

What the Left thinks it means – a vital group of voters who need Leftists to be their champions against Big Business

What it really means – a group of people who have been jerked around by both sides of the aisle

As a working man myself, I am on the front lines of the struggles the working class faces. Whether it’s fighting traffic to and from work, trying to make each dollar we earn stretch as far as it can, or even just trying to get through the day without getting written up, fired, or, worst of all, being asked to stay late because everybody else went home already, the working men and women of America are being asked/told/demanded/expected to grind it out day after day without complaint. Put on a happy face and eat that crap sandwich like it was your last meal.

That’s why I find it laughable that the Left and the Right try to get us to believe they represent the working class in Washington, DC. The political class, most of whom have never done anything more physical than blocking someone on Twitter, have zero clue of what John and Jane Doe of Everytown, USA, have to put up with just to try to keep a roof over their heads. After all, Congresscritters get tons of perks for being elected, so even if they’re from the smallest of small towns in the states they represent, they quickly forget what it means to work hard most every day.

But when it’s time for reelection, you can count on them to show up and shake hands and kiss babies (just don’t get those two mixed up) in an attempt to “reconnect with the great people of [insert state].” Once their reelection is sewn up tighter than a XXXS corset on Roseanne Barr, they promptly forget about those great people and head back to Washington to live their lives of luxury.

Gee. I wonder if that might be the reason I think the working class is getting screwed over by the political class…naaaaaaah!

The Left claims to be the party of the working class (mainly because they get tons of money from labor unions who are often as out of touch as their Leftist masters), but this claim is as baseless as a news story on MSNBC. When you boil it down, the Left doesn’t care about anything about the working class and merely gives them lip service. Take a look at how much disdain they heap upon WalMart, for example. The Left wants WalMart eliminated from the economic equation for one reason: WalMart doesn’t have a union. Sure, they’ll give you a ton of other reasons ranging from alleged lower pay and importing products from China, but it comes down to the lack of a union. Yet, WalMart makes products and services affordable for people in the working class because they’ve figured out something the Left can’t seem to grasp: you can’t keep your doors open if you don’t have customers. WalMart isn’t perfect, but they do enough right to keep people coming in (usually after making highly questionable fashion choices). By going after WalMart, the Left has made it clear they don’t care about the actual working class, just about their money and votes.

The Right isn’t much better. They have the image of being in the back pockets of Big Business to the point they have permanent disfigurement from the stitching in said back pockets. And why is that? Because they haven’t fought back against the image. The Right reaching out to the working class is often as cringeworthy as Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry in hunting gear, or Debbie Wasserman Schultz any time. And this is disappointing because the working class needs people fighting for them in Washington, and it’s clear the Left is like Pee Wee Herman boxing MIke Tyson.

But there is a glimmer of hope for the Right in the form of Donald Trump. Trump for all of his faults has a grasp on both the corporate and the working world, which came out during the 2016 election. And the working class rewarded him with their votes, much to the consternation of Hillary Clinton and the DNC. If the Right can pick up what Trump did in the campaign and build upon that by convincing the working class they can coexist with the business class, that will be beneficial to both. The working class will have their champions on Washington, and the business class will have an in with their workers.

In the meantime, the working class will have to keep plugging away, doing what it needs to do to survive. Just like they always seem to do.

Share This:


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To say President Donald Trump’s relationship with the press is hostile is like saying the Hatfields and McCoys had a minor tiff. A particular thorn in Trump’s side is CNN’s Jim Acosta, who is one part Eddie Haskel and one part Sam Donaldson (or at least the way people saw Donaldson during the Reagan Administration).

This hostility came to a head recently during a press conference where White House senior policy advisor Stephen Miller and Acosta over a proposed cut to our immigration policy introduced by Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue. During this exchange, Miller referred to Acosta’s “cosmopolitan bias”, which has made the Left go completely over-the-top cray-cray. (In other words, they way they act on any day ending in a Y.)

Strap in, folks. We’re in for a weird one.


What the Left thinks it means – sophisticated and intelligent, people targeted by white supremacists for being sophisticated and intelligent

What it really means – a bunch of people who think their farts don’t stink

If there is one thing the Left excels at, it’s being egotistical. (That, and not being on speaking terms with reality.) They also are great at pretending to be victims, as we can see from Acosta’s actions and statements. To them, being cosmopolitan is not an insult because it speaks well of them. And everyone in their social circles is just like them, thinks like them, speaks like them, and is generally a carbon copy of them.

In other words, they wouldn’t know what to do if they actually had to interact with someone who isn’t one of them. It’s like they’re all Eva Gabor’s character from “Green Acres.”

It’s this kind of thinking Miller was criticizing and Acosta was reflecting. It’s also this kind of thinking that prevents reporters from being as informed and effective as they need to be in today’s media landscape. People rely on reporters to keep them informed on the news of the day, but when the reporters are dumber than a bag of hammers, that trust is violated. Of course, the public trusts the media less than the Weekly World News these days, so maybe they’re coming to realize reporters aren’t that smart.

Exhibit A: Jim Acosta

Acosta’s attempt to take a portion of the inscription on the Statue of Liberty and turn it into immigration law shows he’s ignorant of both. But to hear him describe it (and, believe me, you can’t get him to shut up about it on Twitter), he was defending the rights of those trying to come into this country. Of course, Acosta doesn’t want us to think about the distinction between those trying to come to America through legal channels and those wanting to sneak in because that would ruin the narrative. And in Acosta’s world, if you try to make that distinction as the Trump Administration is trying to do, that’s racist.

I told you he wasn’t that smart.

Adding to this stupidity is the Left’s attempt to paint “cosmopolitan” as secret code for white supremacists because they say Hitler expressed some of the same sentiments about the sophisticated and intelligent. Yeah, and Hitler wore pants. Using that logic, any Leftist who wears pants is literally Hitler. Using real logic, there is a big difference between echoing sentiments and being 100% behind a person’s agenda. And considering Hitler actually leaned more left than right, the Left might want to think carefully about using such flimsy logic to compare people to Hitler.

Now, for the funny part. (And I’m sure some of you readers are saying “Finally!”) Acosta’s outburst was over…a bill. Not a law. Not a platform plank. Not even a sternly-worded memo. A bill. As fans of “Schoolhouse Rock” can attest, that means it’s not a law yet, and…it can be changed.

You know, for people who claim to be cosmopolitan, Acosta and his fellow Leftists are quite unsophisticated when it comes to vital concepts.

To take Miller’s point a bit further, the Left is insulated from the rest of the world, and that’s by choice. Yet, they seem to think they’re so much smarter than the rest of us because…reasons. That’s a bad situation. Picture if you will a scientist whose expertise is in one area of science and decides to comment on a completely different area of science because he or she is considered to be an expert on science by people who don’t understand it. Wait, we already have Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Let’s try another analogy. Let’s say you have a plumber and you need your roof fixed. Unless your plumber also does roofing, you wouldn’t go to him or her for advice. But we’re being told people who rarely leave their urban settings have their fingers on the pulse of the nation outside of their urban settings. Nothing could be further from the truth. That’s the problem with living in an ideological echo chamber: you don’t hear anything outside of it.

The biggest problem with the Left’s reaction to Miller’s comment is it let their mask slide a bit more to show just how much they disdain people outside of their cliques. The media by and large don’t know what life is like between the East and West Coasts, and few are willing to put in the effort to find out. Whether it’s reporters from the Huffington Post or Dan “Fake But Accurate” Rather, Leftists keep being mystified there are people who live between the East and West Coasts and may have a different perspective than they do.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, was Miller’s point.

And Acosta and the Left completely missed it.

By calling out Acosta’s cosmopolitan bias, Miller wasn’t trying to blow a Nazi/white supremacist dog whistle. He was making a point about how out of touch the Left is, and given how many column inches have gone into finding more conspiracy theories than Art Bell and Jesse Ventura hooking up with the guys from “Ancient Aliens”, it’s clear they haven’t figured it out. But you do you, kids! You may not think much of me, but that’s fine. At least I can tell the difference between a poem and immigration law.

Share This:


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

People have handled the election of Donald Trump in different ways. Some have been happy. Others have been sad. Others have been more unstable than a house of cards on a wobbly card table on the San Andreas Fault.

Then, there’s California. (Granted, the lawmakers there might fall into that third category, but work with me here.) There has been a movement in California for the state to break away from the United States in the same vein as England’s Brexit movement. They’ve even come up with a totally original name, too: Calexit. Those Leftists are so creative!

Let’s take a look at the Calexit movement, shall we?


What the Left believes it means – a movement for California to leave the United States and stand on its own

What it really means – the Mirror Universe version of Galt’s Gulch

If you’re not familiar with Galt’s Gulch, it’s a reference to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged which deals with productive members of society deciding to drop out of sight and start life in a society where one’s efforts and productivity are championed instead of derided by those who are less productive than Keith Olbermann. In other words, the opposite of California right now. And, if Calexit proponents get their way, they will get to live out their Leftist version sooner rather than later.

On the surface, Calexit has merit. California is said to have the sixth largest economy in the world. Not in the US. The whole fraking world! And let’s not overlook the fact the global film industry is centered in Los Angeles, or the fact Silicon Valley is still pumping out global technology that we use (usually at least a year or two after Japan had it). Agriculture is still a major force there. So, why shouldn’t California break up with us?


For a number of years, Leftists fawned over how Hugo Chavez ran a seemingly successful economy based around oil. (Also, Chavez mocked George W. Bush repeatedly, so Leftists loved him for that almost as much as his economy.) Chavez spent a lot on Leftist-approved causes.

Then the oil market crashed like the Exxon Valdez.

Suddenly, all those Leftist programs became unsustainable. As a result, their economy went into a nosedive, their currency became less valuable than a Hillary Clinton political endorsement, and widespread poverty has hit Venezuela hard. Now, who could have seen that coming? I mean, aside from anyone who has studied socialism for any length of time and realized the fundamental flaws. And it’s not like we haven’t seen the failures of socialism throughout history, either! If only there were a country that called itself socialist and even had “socialist” in its name…oh, wait. Try the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics!

What the Caliexit folks don’t realize is they are setting themselves up for the same problems Venezuela is experiencing right now. What happens to your economy when you can’t afford to keep illegal immigrants and poor citizens on the public dole? How high will your taxes have to be in order to keep your dreams of high speed rail afloat while people leave the state in droves? And how much pot will you have to smoke to make these problems go away?

The problems with Calexit go beyond the economic. If California leaves the US, they will have to give up the military bases within the state because those bases, equipment, and manpower technically are part of the United States. That leaves the California National Guard, and a good case can be made that the federal government can lay claim to those folks, too. If you strip away those two layers of national defense, you’re left to citizens with guns. Oh, wait, California has strict gun laws that only the law-abiding follow in the first place. Looks like you’re screwed, California!

Going back to agriculture for a moment, we see another major problem. Since California tends to be a bit on the arid side, they need irrigation to keep their crops (and rich people’s lawns) growing. That wouldn’t be a problem normally, but California tends to get a lot of water from neighboring states. Guess what happens if California leaves the US. Yep, that water goes away! And when you consider the state hasn’t figured out how to make desalinization a thing when they are literally on the ocean, it’s going to be a lot harder for crops to grow if Calexit becomes a thing.

There are a ton of logistical issues with Calexit (whether marriages in their state will be recognized elsewhere, whether people will need a passport to visit California, whether the state will get Congressional representation, just to name a few), and I’m not sure the Calexit fans have thought this out far enough. It reminds me of the time I decided to run away from home after I had an argument with one of my brothers. I packed up what I thought I needed, slammed the front door, and started heading for the street. Of course, I was too young to even go out on the street or go through neighbor’s yards without permission, so I wound up coming right back. Then, I turned 30, and my parents said I was mature enough.

If Californians want to leave the United States after electing Donald Trump as President, I have two words to say to you, courtesy of Curly Bill from “Tombstone.”


Share This:


It’s Not My Fault!

We are totally living in a police state, kids! How do I know?

A college professor got fired for expressing an opinion. Granted, that opinion was that President Donald Trump should be shot, but it was totally because we’re living in a police state!

The former professor in question is Kevin Allred, a women’s studies professor formerly of Montclair State whose claim to fame (prior to wanting the President to be shot, that is) was teaching a class about…Beyonce. Think of all the brilliant young minds cut short without Allred’s class. I’m sure all 2 of them are greatly disappointed.

There is a reason behind this blog outside of having a Schadenfreude-palooza. Allred took to Twitter complaining about how his free speech rights cost him his job, a job he got fired from before he actually started teaching at Montclair State, and how he got fired because of “Trump trolls.” Yep, it wasn’t the fact he threatened the sitting President repeatedly on Twitter, it was because people got upset at what he said.

In case you haven’t noticed, the Left isn’t big on accepting responsibility for their mistakes. Whether it’s Allred or Hillary Clinton or Kathy Griffin, the Left is quick to point fingers at everyone else, but slow to consider they might just be the only ones to blame for their missteps. This can easily be explained by one three letter word: ego.

It may be hard for people who haven’t been Leftists to understand, but a lot of their political ideology involves their belief they are the smartest people in the room at all times, even when they’re in a room full of people far smarter than they could ever dream of being. Naturally, this creates an exaggerated delusion of grandeur to the point Narcissus would look positively Amish. Combine this with the Left’s self-imposed sense of superior morality, and you have a hubris cocktail devoid of self-awareness.

Now, remember this isn’t based on Leftists being smarter or more moral than the rest of us. This is all them. They hang out in the same circles, hearing the same rhetoric regurgitated ad nauseum, and thinking the same thoughts. When you’re in an echo chamber, it’s easy to mistake volume for sensible agreement. And when someone dares to disrupt the echo chamber, the Left doesn’t consider it a possible opportunity to defend their position; they consider it a personal assault and react accordingly.

That is to say they go on the attack.

If you want to see a prime example of this, check out the recent debate between conservative Ben Shapiro and Leftist Cenk Uygur. During the debate, Cenk decided to insult the audience when he thought they questioned his intelligence. In fairness to Cenk, though, it was wrong of the audience to question his intelligence when it cannot be confirmed he has any. Bad crowd!

By talking down to the audience, Cenk cemented his image as a condescending know-nothing, which apparently is a resume enhancer to the Left. But to those of us not in the Leftist bubble, it comes off just as it sounds and looks, and it doesn’t help win friends and influence people. And if these Leftists want to make gains in the 2018 and 2020 elections, they need to cut it out.

Of course, they won’t, so it will give birth to more fingerpointing at everyone but themselves. Plus, it will give me a lot more material to work with for future blogs, so it’s a win-win. Yay me.

Share This:


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Sometimes the topics for the Leftist Lexicon take a bit of time to develop, while other times the topics just fall in my lap. Thanks to two news stories this week, the topic was a Rose Parade float complete with fireworks, dancers, and lasers.

Earlier this week, the Huffington Post published a piece about a transgender activist attempting to get people to believe men can get periods, too. Then, President Donald Trump tweeted a sentiment saying transgendered people should not serve in the military, which came as a surprise to the Defense Department. So, what’s the topic?

Stupid media, of course!

Seriously, I suggest you grab a cold drink and some food because this one’s going to be a long one.


What the Left believes it means – people whose gender identity does not correspond to their birth gender, which exposes them to discrimination and oppression by the straight world

What it really means – it’s complicated

I will fully admit I’m not an expert on transgendered issues (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), so I will entertain the possibility I am wrong. Currently, I see three different factions within the transgender movement: the political transgendered, the social transgendered, and the “average” transgendered. Although these descriptors seem pretty self-explanatory, I want to explore them in greater detail, mainly since this blog post would be a lot shorter if I didn’t.

Let’s start with the political transgendered. This is the activist wing of the movement, seeking to create a more inclusive environment by forcing people to accept their way of life through judicial and governmental fiat. This group is closely tied to the activist gays because they have the same goals and enemies, hence their inclusion in the LGBTQAEIOUSOMETIMESY movement. Although they preach tolerance, they are anything but. If you stray from the script even a little bit, you may find yourself on the wrong end of a shunning that would put the Amish to shame.

This brings us to the social transgendered. There are some people who dress androgynously, not because they have gender identity issues, but because they crave attention or they think it’s cool. Many of these people don’t actually want to transition from male to female or vice versa, and they are open about that. Does that make them transgender? They say so, but I’m not sure I agree. If I put on a dress (because I have the gams for it) and say I’m a woman, does that make my frank and beans disappear? Not in the times I’ve done it…I mean, not that I know of.

This is where the transgender activist who says men can get periods comes into play. You can dress, talk, act, walk, and look like a member of the opposite gender, but you are still the gender you are when you were born. In my 47+ years of life, I have never once had a period, and I’m going to bet I won’t anytime soon because…how can I put this delicately…I don’t have the right plumbing. If you’re a woman, more likely than not, you will have a period at some point in your life. That’s not a gender identify issue; that’s biology. You know, science? To have the self-described “Party of Science” get behind a concept so anti-science speaks volumes, and none of it good.

Finally, we have the “average” transgendered people. If you are trans and reading this, I apologize for not coming up with a better descriptor, but I couldn’t find any other term that I felt encapsulated what I see as the bulk of the transgendered community. If you have a preferred term that better fits the community, please let me know.

Now, onto the meat of this particular part of the blog. It’s been my experience many trans people (as well as gays, lesbians, and queer folk) just want to be left alone and treated with the respect you would give to anyone else. That’s it. And, I am perfectly cool with that. All I ask is the same consideration. I won’t try to convert you to my Lutheran faith (at least not without providing a hot dish), and I ask you don’t try to get me into a leopard skin miniskirt. I mean, I have the gams for it, but still.

Although I’m not an expert on the subject of transgendered people, I don’t come into this discussion without knowledge. One of my favorite YouTubers is Blaire White, who is a trans woman and offers interesting insights into being trans. If you haven’t checked her out, do so. I will defer to her knowledge on the subject, and all I ask in return is to go into her channel with an open mind and don’t be mean to her.

With the three groups I’ve mentioned, I feel the most for the “average” transgendered group because the political and social transgendered groups are unwittingly making it harder for them to be fully accepted. Granted, there are some pockets out there who will fight back against any and all variations on the human theme, but I genuinely think most people today would be open to trans people were it not for the aforementioned groups gumming up the works. It’s okay to be trans and proud, but if you’re scaring off people who would be your allies, you’re going to drive people away faster than a David Duke stand-up routine at an NAACP convention. It’s all about finding a balance.

As far as the political and social trans folks out there, I have one piece of advice for you: stop trying to help because you’re not. Your actions and machinations are creating an environment where trans people can’t be seen as real people. When you put your own selfish needs and wants above the needs and wants of those you claim to represent, you undercut the trans community.

With “friends” like that, the trans community doesn’t need any more enemies.

Share This:


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week – 1 of 2

For the first time in Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week history, I had a hard time deciding on a Word of the Week. There were a couple of news stories this past week that caught my attention, and both involve words that the Left seek to use as a means to advance their agenda. After careful deliberation (i.e. a coin toss), I decided on a word. Oh, and the Minnesota Vikings have elected to defer to the second half.


What the Left believes it means – an illegal secret agreement between two parties where vital information is shared with an enemy, grounds for impeachment

What it really means – a secret agreement between two parties that may or may not be illegal or grounds for impeachment

Thanks to Donald Trump, Jr. and an email practice arguably worse than Hillary Clinton’s, the Left have glommed onto collusion their latest word to throw around without actually knowing what it means. On the plus side, Mr. Trump didn’t send out pictures of his…shall we say Little Junior…to underage girls. Still, the Left is having a field day accusing President Donald Trump of having a secret agreement with Russia to take down Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election.

Let me bring up one slight bone of contention here. As of right now, Russia is still considered an ally. A scummy ally, I grant you, but an ally nonetheless (or at least they were during Barack Obama’s Presidency, as former Secretary of State Clinton can attest if she’s being honest. I know, it’s less likely than Bill remaining faithful.) As a result, the information shared with Trump or any of his campaign team may or may not be illegal to obtain.

And that’s where the Left’s ideas about collusion get messier than Jackson Pollock painting on the San Andreas Fault during a 6.9 on the Richter Scale. If there is alleged collusion as the Left defines it, then the information provided must be illegal in some way. So, what was it?

Enter the mess. No one really knows what the Russians had that they were willing to give to the Trump campaign. Through some investigation, it was determined a Russian lawyer with ties to Vladimir “Rudy” Putin offered damning evidence of possible unethical/illegal activities by Hillary Clinton. Is that illegal in and of itself? That’s the problem: we don’t actually know, and Donald Trump, Jr., isn’t giving specifics that would help us determine the legality of the information. Put another way, we have the word of someone with a vested interest in downplaying the potential illegality of his actions versus the presumptions of people with a vested interest in hyping the potential illegality of his actions. Until we learn more about the information in question, I have to opt for Donald Trump Jr.’s version of events with the possibility of future revision upon receipt of new information. You know, the whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing?

The collusion allegation is the latest in a long string of double standards the Left has for the Right. Whenever a member of the Right does something as serious as…dare I say it…having an overdue library book, the Left says that person has lost all moral authority to speak, act, or lead and should step down from any leadership position he or she holds. Of course, when a member of the Left does something as trivial as…let’s just create a hypothetical offense…leaving a young woman to drown in a car overnight while he went home and slept (again, it’s completely hypothetical because I’m sure the Left would come down hard on someone as horrible as the guy in this purely hypothetical scenario), the Left screams “witch hunt” and complains about how nasty and partisan politics has gotten. Notice the Left never admits their people do anything wrong while accusing the Right of making Adolf Hitler look like an Amish Boy Scout? That’s by design.

The Left operates under the notion that if you can’t beat them, make them beat themselves. (Get your minds out of the gutter, you cheeky monkeys!) This idea may not have originated with Saul Alinsky, but it was certainly documented in his “Rules for Radicals” when he wrote, “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” This is particularly effective against the Right because they tend to hold consistency and doing the right thing in high regard, unlike the Left whose standards are often double, triple, and quadruple depending upon the situation.

To put it in the context of the Donald Trump Jr. situation, the Left wants President Trump to hold his son to the standard he held Hillary Clinton to during the campaign. And if President Trump were a typical modern Republican, he would capitulate faster than a Frenchman in Berlin in 1942. Or today, for that matter. But, Trump isn’t a typical modern Republican. He isn’t afraid to play by the Left’s rules and expose their hypocrisy, which makes it harder for the Left to score points. Not to mention, Trump hopefully learned his lesson after the Left got him to distance himself from members of his staff who were tied to the Russia story because once the Left gets you to surrender on one item, they will flood you with additional requests similar to the original item. At this point, I’m surprised the Left hasn’t demanded Trump divorce Melania Trump because she is married to him.

If I were advising the President, I would tell the Left to pound sand when it comes to the collusion allegations. Until they bring some actual evidence the information Russia allegedly gave to the Trump campaign is illegal and not just morally gray, all they’re doing is throwing around a term they don’t understand in an attempt to overturn an election where their candidate lost because, well, she’s Hillary Clinton. And, if he wanted to twist the knife a bit more, he could remind them how the world isn’t black and white, but merely shades of gray. After all, isn’t that what the Left always tells us about moral issues?

Share This:


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The Left has tried everything they could think of to get rid of President Donald Trump, but so far they’ve been unsuccessful. Russia? I’ve seen more evidence of the existence of Bigfoot than I have proof of any collusion between Trump and Russia. Emoluments clause? I’m surprised Leftists can spell “emoluments” let alone figure out how it relates to Trump. Insisting the popular vote should determine who is President? Sorry, but Al Gore took the initiative in inventing that excuse and what did it get him? The title of former Vice President and loser of the 2000 Presidential election.

Impeachment? Calls to step down? Maxine Waters threatening to use her considerable power to bring down Trump under any circumstances? Three strikes, and you’re out.

But now, the Left thinks they have the answer, the silver bullet that will end their Trump-fueled nightmares, the 25th Amendment. But is it the answer to their prayers, or just another Hail Obama? Let’s find out!

25th Amendment

What the Left believes it means – a Constitutional Amendment that will allow them to remove Donald Trump from the White House

What it really means – a Constitutional Amendment that provides for the line of succession should the President be unable to perform the duties of the office

The part of the 25th Amendment the Left is fixating on is Section 4, which reads as follows:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

To put it in simple language, if the Vice President and enough Cabinet members or a house of Congress writes the President incapable of performing the duties of the job, the President is out the door faster than Bill Clinton at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch when he hears Hillary is in town. That’s a pretty tall order. After all, the President is the one who hired his Cabinet and Vice President, and Congress is full of people who aren’t fit to tie their shoes, let alone comment on the fitness of the President. (See the aforementioned Maxine Waters.)

So, what we have here is a failure to remunerate the proof Donald Trump is unfit for the White House. The Left loves to point to his tweets as proof he is mentally unstable, but that’s hardly sufficient proof for me. I mean, Kanye West tweets and he hasn’t been sent to Bellevue yet in spite of being more unhinged than a trailer door during a tornado. Anyone on the Left want to put Keith Olbermann on notice? How about Rosie O’Donnell? Heck, if you wanted to take it that far, most of the “reporters” in the mainstream media who lean Left would have to set up shop at the funny farm. And if that happened, the quality of reporting would automatically skyrocket by subtraction. Hmmm…maybe there’s something to that line of thinking…

The biggest problem with the Left’s obsession with the 25th Amendment is it requires a leap of faith on their part that Republicans will turn on Trump. Granted, some would, others might, but most would not. And, no, it’s not due to “party before country.” It’s because they realize Trump didn’t do anything to warrant removing him from office. On the other hand, the Left is putting party before country by taking the position it has. Plus, it has one major drawback: precedent.

During Barack Obama’s 8 years in the White House, he blundered quite a bit to the point Republicans could have brought up the 25th Amendment to have Obama removed, especially after 2010. They didn’t. Now, Leftists will say it’s because Obama wasn’t mentally incompetent, but let me remind you this is the same man who said he visited 57 states (and had 3 more to visit), couldn’t pronounce corpsmen right, and blamed a YouTube video for the attack on the embassy in Benghazi. Granted, the Left will say these aren’t examples of mental incompetence, but let’s also remember how the Left treated George W. Bush and his numerous miscues, verbal gaffes, and questionable decisions. Yeah, let’s just say they were far more generous with Obama than they were with Bush. The fact Republicans didn’t pull the 25th Amendment trigger on Obama shows incredible restraint, or at least a better understanding of the Constitution.

Another major drawback to what the Left is trying to do with the 25th Amendment is it exists primarily in an echo chamber amplified by people with similar ideological bents. When one Leftist goes off on a Trump tweet (or even a tweet from a parody account for Sean Spicer), it gets circulated and repeated. Then, more Leftists react to it with disgust (and maybe adds the call to impeach/remove/arrest/depose Trump), and the cycle continues.

The problem with an echo chamber is it gives the impression of multiple voices due to volume, but it may not be an accurate impression. Think of the boy who cried wolf. Now, picture that with millions of boys crying wolf millions of times. That’s how a lot of ideas get spread these days. You know, like Hillary Clinton being the most qualified person ever to run for President? With so many people paying less attention to politics and more attention to whichever Kardashian is doing something stupid this minute, correcting false information spread by the echo chamber is a Herculean task.

Guess what I think the whole 25th Amendment discussion with the Left is.

After losing the 2016 election, the Left is desperate to try to change the outcome after the fact. And believe me there are a lot of Leftists who think if you get rid of Trump that Hillary automatically becomes President. Once you stop laughing at the absurdity, you realize they’re not trying to be funny.

This is why it’s important to look at the endgame of any political movement. Once you figure out what the movement wants to accomplish, you can see how the proponents want to achieve its goals. And the 25th Amendment is the latest attempt to undo the 2016 election, and it’s as based in reality and plausibility as a science fiction book written by Cher.

Share This:


But Is It Art?

Although it may be hard to believe, I am a fan of Shakespeare. Drama is one of those art forms that can make a statement, move a heart, or change an opinion. Or it could just be a steaming pile of crap.

Recently, a Shakespeare in the Park performance of “Julius Caesar” found itself knee deep in the latter when it portrayed the main character as Donald Trump. Granted, this has been done by various performing troupes over the years with different political figures, but when you consider the main character in the play gets killed…well, let’s just say it didn’t go over quite as well as you might expect.

Of course, I don’t think Shakespeare in the Park can be blamed for the current environment. When you consider Donald Trump has been shot in rap videos, threatened during Leftist marches, and mock beheaded by a self-described D-list celebrity, it’s safe to say the environment isn’t safe for the President. And when you consider the partisan overreaction on both sides since Bill Clinton used an intern for a humidor, it time for someone to step forward and say what needs to be said.

Knock it off.

Seriously, people, can we not run to the freaky side of our ideological boundaries to make a point? I get it. Trump isn’t your cup of Earl Gray and you have the right to protest, but the First Amendment doesn’t give you license to act like a jackass. There are personal limits to take into consideration. For one, wanting anybody dead for any reason (real or imagined) is horrible. Have we gone so far off the responsibility playbook that we’re cool with calling for the assassination of a political figure in our own country? Like it or not, Trump is President and he is a human being. Plus, he has people better armed than an NRA convention in Texas who can (and most likely will) put you in a world of hurt from which there is no recovery. So, think carefully before you decide to be “edgy.”

Of course, the Left will (and has) defended the Shakespeare in the Park and the D-list celebrity’s actions as art, and with all the self-righteousness they can muster, they shame anyone who didn’t see the obvious artistic value of a President getting assassinated on stage or of said President being mock beheaded. Yeah, you might want to holster that self-righteousness, kids, because art is subjective. What you see as art, other people see as trash (and given some modern art pieces are made from actual trash, the other people may be right). It’s all a matter of perspective. But hopefully there’s one thing both sides can agree on: “Dogs Playing Poker” is a classic. (Well, that, and it’s not cool to kill a President, even if it’s done fictionally.)

I will say this, however. There is novelty in taking a classic play or art piece and setting it in contemporary times. I once saw a performance of “Hamlet” set in 1920s America and it was breathtaking. Ditto with a modern interpretation of Edgar Allen Poe’s “The Masque of the Red Death” set against the backdrop of the AIDS epidemic. Both of these were tastefully done and were edgy in their own ways that didn’t involve causing offense. There may have been some who took offense, but the productions themselves didn’t go out of the way to cause it.

That’s where the Shakespeare in the Park and D-list celebrity went wrong. They purposely tried to cause offense, and that’s when their “art” became agitprop, and that’s when the “it’s just art” justification goes right out the window. When you are provocative for the sake of being provocative, the controversy will overpower the message, leaving the former as the only message people will remember. That’s not a sign of a lack of sophistication on the viewer’s part; it’s a sign that someone didn’t think through the decision to be provocative. And even if it is art, when your message gets drowned out by outrage, the art fails worse than Bill Clinton taking a polygraph test.

So, to artists, wannabe artists, and dabblers in the art world looking to make a scene by being controversial, knock it off. Art can be controversial, but it doesn’t have to be disgraceful at the same time. You can make your point in a way that doesn’t involve more shock moments than a GWAR concert directed by Eli Roth. If you feel passionately about a subject, then let your mind and your soul guide your art so the message you convey can be understood. If you’re just trying to gin up controversy for personal gain, you’ve sold out for temporary fame. Then, after your 15 minutes are up and you’re back where you started (if not a little bit further behind because you’ve managed to piss off potential patrons), you may see the error of your ways. Or not. Just remember, Carrot Top got known as a prop comic, and he’ll never be able to break out of that, no matter how much more material he writes or how much plastic surgery he gets to look more and more like Kathy Griffin without makeup.

On the plus side, I might have just given Anderson Cooper an idea for a new co-host for CNN’s New Years Eve coverage and gotten a new gig for Carrot Top in one fell swoop. You’re welcome, CNN.

Share This:


A Constitutional Crisis That Isn’t

The latest in the Donald Trump Constitutional Crisis Sweepstakes comes courtesy of our good friends at Twitter. Recently, the Knight First Amendment Institute posted a demand on Twitter that President Trump unblock his critics on Twitter, citing…wait for it…the First Amendment.

That’s right, kids. An institute committed to the First Amendment has asserted trolling a sitting President is a free speech issue. And people wonder why I think we’re doomed…

If it were just the Knight First Amendment Institute going out on this limb by themselves, it would be easy to dismiss it, but there are others, including attorney Lawrence Tribe, who take it seriously and are arguing the President should not have the ability to block people because it stifles their free speech. Now, I’m not a lawyer like Mr. Tribe, but I have a little experience with the First Amendment, given that I’m using it right now.

How can I put this so Mr. Tribe, the Knight First Amendment Institute, and others like them can understand? Oh yeah. This isn’t a free speech issue!

Twitter is a private company and, as such, they have rules that each user has to follow. (Whether those rules are enforced evenly or at all is another matter for another blog entry.) Twitter also allows users the ability to block or hide some people’s posts at the discretion of the user. In fact, previous Presidents have blocked Twitter users before Trump, so it would lead me to believe it’s not really a free speech issue so much as it is a don’t-be-an-assbag issue.

The sticking point the Left has with this position is the fact President Trump has a Twitter an official White House Twitter account as well as a private one. Their argument is the fact Trump is President means his private Twitter account is a public forum because he is a government official. Yeah, that’s not how the First Amendment works. The first five words of the First Amendment read, “Congress shall make no law,” which means…well, that Congress can’t act. Since the President is not a member of Congress or the legislative branch, the First Amendment prohibitions would not apply to him, even if he is President.

The most confounding part of the Left’s line of thinking for me is how they can say their free speech rights are being violated by not being able to respond to whatever the President tweets. Hmmm…if only there were a way for these people to respond using the same technology the President uses. Oh, wait, there is. It’s called Twitter! The very forum they use to see what the President says is the same one they can use to issue a response. Trump isn’t stopping them from tweeting; he’s only ignoring what these folks tweet for various reasons. As hate speech critics are so quick to point out, the freedom to speak does not guarantee an audience. And, oddly enough, some of the same people who say hate speech isn’t protected are the same ones who think their tweets are free speech. Things that make you go “what color is the sky in your world?”

In the end, the Left’s treatment of President Trump’s Twitter as a free speech issue is shakier than Michael Moore in a vat of Jello on the San Andreas Fault during a 7.2 on the Richter Scale. No matter how many times they try to make it so, it just doesn’t work. Although I have to admit it’s funny to see people who get offended at insignificant things working so tirelessly to defend the right to troll.

Share This: