Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

judicial activism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is tired of talking about Planned Parenthood. (And, to be honest, I’m tired of Chief Running Mouth talking, period.) She says she keeps doing it because Republicans keep talking about all the bad stuff Planned Parenthood does and she needs to talk about all the good stuff they do.

And she’s not alone. Millions of men and women take up arms every time Republicans start talking about defunding Planned Parenthood because they feel the group does good work. It’s almost as if they’re Indiana Jones trying to protect the Ark of the Covenant from the Nazis. So, are they right? Let’s find out!

Planned Parenthood

What the Left believes it means – an organization protecting a woman’s right to choose while offering a multitude of services to men and women that are absolutely vital

What it really means – an organization that makes money off killing babies and lying about it

Yep. I went there.

Abortion is one of those hot button issues that people tend to avoid like most people avoid a recent Amy Schumer movie. To adequately discuss Planned Parenthood, however it’s necessary to at least touch it considering it’s what they do. So, let me be crystal clear about what they do.

They kill babies for money while offering other services on the side that don’t generate money by and large.

Sorry I had to sugarcoat it like I did. Hopefully you will forgive me.

Sure, PP defenders will point out only 2-3% of what they do is performing abortions, and if you look at their numbers, you would think that’s right. But as Leftists who propose tax hikes on the rich will point out, it’s not the percentage that matters; it’s the amount of money that does. And when it comes to abortions, Planned Parenthood makes money hand over baby fist. Hey, those exotic sport cars don’t pay for themselves, right?

And that’s why I say Planned Parenthood makes money off lying to people. There is the public face, the one that makes their activities seem as innocuous as a lemonade stand, but there is the private face, where that lemonade stand starts making sausage. And when you have two faces, not only do you go through a lot of face cream, but you also have a vested interest in maintaining the public face and hide the private face.

For many years, Planned Parenthood was able to maintain the public face successfully by painting the people opposing them as religious zealots, moral reprobates, and intellectually backwards. Then, the Center for Medical Progress threw open the curtain to expose PP’s private face, showing them to be all about the money (and exposing their side job: selling baby parts).

Remember how Gollum obsessed over Bilbo’s ring? The Left made him seem like a man in a coma with their reaction to the Center’s videos. Instead of addressing the footage, they threw out every excuse in the book, including their favorite, “they were heavily edited.” Yeah, except for the fact they weren’t.

And that’s what I meant when I talked about the vested interest earlier. Planned Parenthood can’t defend what it does in private, so it has to divert attention away from it in the hopes the public face can be maintained. But it’s working as well as having Bill Clinton leading a couples weekend to work on marital fidelity. Republicans rightly took a look at federal funding for Planned Parenthood in light of the videos, and Leftists screamed about Republicans stripping away health care for women.

Yeah, there’s a tiny problem with that. Planned Parenthood doesn’t do a lot of actual health care. Remember it was only a few years ago that Planned Parenthood and their allies fought a Texas provision that would require their clinics meet minimum sanitary standards that hospitals and medical clinics have to meet. Why would that be?

Could it be…because PP’s clinics would fail miserably? Why, yes…yes it could!

And you don’t have to take my word for it. With a little online research, you can find former PP employees talking about how unsanitary their clinics are. Now, compare that to the PP talking points about them wanting abortions to be “safe.” One would think if PP was concerned about safety, they would want their clinics to be as sanitary as possible. Then again, if PP was really concerned about safety, they wouldn’t be in the abortion business in the first place, but that’s just me.

Let me be perfectly clear. I understand Planned Parenthood does good things for people who may not have another option. I do not have an issue with them providing these services. But it’s dishonest to downplay what they do aside from these services. There needs to be an honest accounting of what PP does and doesn’t do (like mammograms, contrary to what they and their supporters claim) so we can make an honest assessment.

And along with that honest accounting, I think we need an actual accounting of the money Planned Parenthood gets from the federal government. The Left is quick to point out the Hyde Amendment makes it illegal to use federal funds for abortions, but it’s also legally questionable for non-profits to contribute directly to political candidates, and guess what PP does. Yep, they donate to political candidates through their PAC. And in the world of partisan politics, co-mingling of funds is far too common. To make sure Planned Parenthood is following the letter of the law, let’s see their books.

Unless, of course, PP is trying to hide its private face again…

The GOOPS

The Republican National Convention in Cleveland is over, and people are still talking about it, but not in a good way. From the coverage and commentary throughout the week, the Republican Party has made an already seemingly bad situation into a metaphysical certainty of bad decisions that make Kanye West look like Ben Franklin.

Okay, I’m kidding. It really wasn’t that bad. I mean, the Democrats have their chance to match the pure suckitude of the RNC soon when they will have to push a Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine candidate down the throats of the delegates, all while pandering to Black Lives Matter and the Bernie Sanders supporters. Oh, and field questions stemming from Wikileaks finding out the DNC actively tried to undercut Sanders’ campaign. And as Bill Clinton can tell you, Democrats suck best.

That’s not to say the RNC is out of the woods. Donald Trump’s campaign or the Republican National Committee or both made a number of high-profile mistakes that could come back to bite them. Ranging from Melania Trump’s alleged plagiarism from a 2008 Michelle Obama speech to the prime time Ted Cruz speech where he failed to publicly endorse Trump (depending on who you talk to in the Trump campaign) to Donald Trump’s acceptance speech that was darker than George Hamilton at the heart of a black hole while listening to a Sylvia Plath book on CD read by Crispin Glover, it was not the best way to put the GOP’s best foot forward.

At this point, it’s too late to hit the reset button and start the 2016 RNC over because, unfortunately, it’s not like an old school Nintendo. What can be done going forward, however, may erase the memories of how bad the visuals were. Here is a short list of suggestions I have.

1) Do some serious vetting of the campaign staff from top to bottom. Believe me, the Democrats have already started, so the GOP needs to find a way to respond to the worst of what the Dems have planned. Saying “you’re a loser” isn’t going to work.

2) Start figuring out how to strike Hillary where it hurts. Although the email scandal and Benghazi are red meat to voters like me, most people don’t care. What they do care about is easy-to-understand soundbites. Oh, and celebrities.

3) Figure out a way to bring back people turned off by the candidate. Hillary Clinton is beatable, but it’s not good to take a victory in November for granted. Like it or not, Trump has been shedding conservative voters like Julius Caesar shed blood on the steps of the Roman Senate. But it’s not too late to find a way to put Band Aids on the wounds, and the first step is to call a truce and stick to it.

Oh, and to any Democrats reading this, this should also be a concern for you. My best advice for helping Hillary in 2016 is simple: stop being Hillary.

4) Play up Trump’s “fuzzy side.” It’s hard to characterize a man as the second coming of Adolf Hitler (believe me, this is actually a thing right now) if the visuals coming from the campaign counteract it. Visual stimulation in today’s society is hard to overcome, and Trump’s campaign need him to start kissing babies and shaking hands. And you don’t want to get those mixed up, kids.

5) Ignore the fringe players on the Left. Trump’s Twitter war with Elizabeth Warren is entertaining to watch, but it’s counterproductive. Warren isn’t going to stop being the turd in the punch bowl. After so many times of seeing her pop up, maybe it’s time to stop entertaining her online rants and move on to other topics.

The other option would be to hire someone to respond to her with more scathing retorts than “Pocahontas” or “Loser Warren.” As someone with a track record of making scathing retorts, I’d be willing to do it. Call me, maybe?

I’m sure there are more, but these should be good for now.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Recently, a photo of Paul Ryan and Congressional pages made its way through the Internet. No, it’s not the same as the Anthony Weiner pictures, but on the surface it wasn’t seen nearly as positively. In the picture, many people saw a sea of white faces. The Left chided Ryan and all Republicans for a lack of diversity. But what exactly is diversity? Glad you…errr…I asked!

diversity

What the Left believes it means: celebrating and respecting all of the differences in people

What it really means: bean-counting

While the Left thinks it has a slam-dunk squawking point with the Ryan picture, it actually shows just how little they consider actual diversity beyond skin color. Granted, the GOP has been seen as whiter than a polar bear convention in a blizzard at Ice Station Zebra, but have you seen the Democrat leadership lately? I’ve seen more diversity at a twins convention.

Except when they need to show the world just how diverse they are. Then, they bring out “their” people of color to take the lead on important issues like, well…you know…calling Republicans racist! But when it’s a really important issue like, well…you know…calling Republicans evil, it’s whites only, baby!

What the Left doesn’t want you to know is they think of diversity purely in terms of political agreement. If you’re a part of a certain minority that tends to agree with the Left’s world view, they want you to show how much they care about your particular issue. Androgynous albino swordswallowers who walk with a limp and vote straight ticket Democrat? The Left will practically demand you get a month to yourself. Just be glad Tumblr isn’t in charge of the calendars of you’d be lucky to make it to your first birthday in time for your funeral.

Ah, but if you deviate one bit away from the standard Leftist viewpoint, you’re a traitor to your subdivision and must be shunned. That’s how someone like Rachel Dolezal is considered to be closer to a “true black” in the Left’s eyes than Stacey Dash, someone who doesn’t have to wear Extra Dark George Hamilton Skin Bronzer to pass for black.

But that’s where the Left gets creative. They talk a great game about the need for diversity, but when it comes time to deliver, they actually have to produce something. And that something usually doesn’t come in the colors of the diversity rainbow, but something closer to the color of money. The Left loves to buy off different groups to keep them from straying too far away from the rest of the hive. And that, ladies and gentlemen, has given us a concept of diversity that runs counter to what diversity actually is.

Back in the days when colleges actually taught something other than How to Find a Safe Space 101, intellectual discussions of various topics were the norm. Nowadays, you’re lucky if you can find anyone, student or faculty, who isn’t a member of the Microaggression of the Month Club. (This month’s microaggression is Pokemon GO being a tool of the Patriarchy.) Why is that?

Simple. The Left cannot win when their ideas get exposed to contrary opinions. Global warming/global cooling/global climate change/global Sharknado probability/whatever they’re calling it this week is a prime example. The Left built a narrative around faulty data, fudged research, and the lure of easy grant money to get scientists to say manmade global warming is a thing. Oddly enough, they used the same strategy to get Barack Obama elected, but that’s another story for another time. And for a number of years, it actually worked.

Then, the actual temperatures started coming out, and the Left lost their minds…errr mind…okay, brain cell. They couldn’t possibly be wrong! They are the true believers in science. Except when that science showed they were wrong, then it’s “junk science” paid for by Big Oil, Big Pharmaceuticals, the Koch Brothers, the Illuminati, the Bilderburgs, the Fnord Motor Company, and Hitler’s brain in a jar.

Put another way, the Left needs an echo chamber in just about everything it does, including when it comes to diversity. After all, if everyone you know tells you your Chicken Tartar is great, shouldn’t you believe them? They prop each other up to make themselves believe they’re being diverse, just like every other Leftist. And in doing so, they’ve proven they don’t get it. You cannot create diversity by checking off boxes on a list. You actually have to look outside the box and find out how people really are.

Then again, if Harvard had bothered looking outside the box, we wouldn’t have Princess Running Gag, Elizabeth Warren.

Don’t Just Do Something! Sit There!

Yesterday, the House of Representatives made news, but not necessarily the kind of news you want to make. After Senate Democrats failed to pass gun control laws that would have made it illegal for people on the FBI terrorist watch list to own weapons, House Democrats decided to do something and…conduct a sit-in on the House floor. Personally, I think House Democrats are missing a letter in “sit-in” to more accurately describe what they’re accomplishing, but that’s neither here nor there.

What House Democrats and their Senate colleagues are attempting to do is use political theater to drive their agenda to pass more gun control laws in the wake of the Orlando shooting. Of course, the kind of laws they’re trying to pass right now go completely against the Fifth Amendment’s concept of due process under the law, but hey, it’s just the Constitutional rights of people we’re dealing with here! Who cares when we can pass more gun control laws that will only affect people who follow the law?

The ACLU, for one.

In the spirit of transparency (real transparency, not the Obama Administration’s definition of transparency), I have to say the ACLU and I don’t necessarily agree on much. In fact, the ACLU has been pretty much anti-gun in the past few decades and have adopted the Left’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. Yet, the ACLU came out and said the Democrats’ proposed gun control bill was unconstitutional.

Let that sink in for a moment. A left-leaning organization with a history of being anti-gun is telling their fellow Leftists to slow their roll when attempting to erode the Constitutional rights of people. No, you haven’t gone through a dimensional wormhole. Trust me, I checked. What happened is not just a rare moment where I agree with the ACLU, but is also a red flag that the Left is going way off the reservation with this one. (And, no, that’s not a swipe at Senator Elizabeth Warren.)

This is the point where the curtain gets pulled back and we get to see the Wizard of Oz. If Democrats were serious about passing what they call “sensible gun laws,” they would be willing to draft bipartisan legislation where civil liberties could be protected. Instead, they drive to the left faster than a NASCAR driver at the Daytona 500.

That’s because the Left doesn’t want anything sensible in this debate right now. Doubt me? Keep in mind a handful of Democrats have literally said Republicans want to arm terrorists because they refused to vote for the Democrat bill. (Given the fact the current Administration literally has armed terrorists, the irony is richer than Adnan Khashoggi betting on whether Joe Biden will say something stupid.)

When you resort to gross misstatement to make your point, your point might be weaker than a balsa wood love seat at Michael Moore’s house. Then again, it might have been an attempt to divert attention away from how ridiculous the House Democrat “sit-in” looks. When grown adults are sitting and pouting as their colleagues bring in pillows and blankets, comfort foods like M & Ms, and cater in meals (totally not making that up, by the way), they should be called out as the children they appear to be.

This is where Speaker of the House Paul Ryan fumbled the football a bit by trying to get C-Span to stop broadcasting from the House. If anything, I would have allowed the cameras to keep rolling, but with a bit of a twist. I would encourage House Republicans to hold up signs or visual aids mocking the House Democrats for their antics. As it stands, Ryan miscalculated, and the result was the “sit-in” disrupting actual House business by being vocally disruptive. Yes, they have the First Amendment right to assemble, but for members of a party who has accused Republicans of being obstructionist while they are actually disrupting Congress, we have the First Amendment right to tell them to go pluck themselves.

Or a word that rhymes with “pluck.”

My Favorite Leftist

For those of you who read my contributions on a regular basis, you might think I hate all Leftists. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t hate anyone, no matter how horribly they treat me. I may mock the Left…a lot…I mean, a lot lot…okay, I do mock the Left whenever I can, but that’s not the same thing as hating them.

Especially when they provide such great entertainment in the form of Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Out of all the Leftists I’ve observed, Senator Warren is my favorite, but it’s not because I agree with her or admire her rise from obscure Harvard professor and potential Native American to US Senator. I love her because she is so convinced she’s right that she doesn’t bother to see if she’s actually right.

Take the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for example. That regulatory agency was the brainchild of Senator Warren’s. The CFPB was established to regulate the largest banks, a task that was already being done by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, but not to the liking of people like Senator Warren. You see, the OCC was found to have not done its jobs very well (or at least not well enough to punish the big banks for making money). So, instead of trying to fix the OCC’s problems, the big brains in Washington decided to double down.

Without getting too far into the weeds about the mortgage industry, let me just say it worked as well as giving Bill Clinton a key to the Playboy Mansion as a means to help his marital fidelity.

But this week, Senator Warren turned the cluelessness to 11.

It started with Hillary Clinton appearing to sew up the Democrat nomination for President. As one might expect, people who sat on the sidelines started coming out of the woodwork to endorse her. One of those sideliners was…Senator Elizabeth Warren. On the surface, this makes sense (or at least however much sense a Leftist supporting another Leftist can have).

And now, as the late Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story.

Senator Warren has been an outspoken critic of presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. This is consistent with her self-appointed image as a staunch warrior against Wall Street greed, and Trump is the perfect foil. This war of words has exploded on Twitter, where Senator Warren is known to write several posts about Trump, decrying his connections to Wall Street. In fact, Senator Warren Tweeted the following on June 9th:

Government should be accountable to the people, not Wall Street lobbyists, deep-pocketed donors, and secretive Super PACs.

Of course, it should be pointed out to Senator Warren that Hillary Clinton has pretty close ties to…Wall Street, namely Goldman Sachs. You remember Goldman Sachs, right? The company where the current Administration took a lot of people and ideas from on the economy? Yeah, and that worked so well, didn’t it?

But wait! There’s more! The very next day after her Tweet, a news story broke based on emails from the State Department showing a major donor to The Clinton Foundation received a spot on a government intelligence board…without having any field experience in intelligence. And who sought to keep that information under wraps?

Hillary Clinton.

The same Hillary Clinton who just secured Elizabeth Warren’s endorsement.

The same Elizabeth Warren who blasted “Wall Street lobbyists, deep-pocketed donors, and secretive Super PACs”.

The same Elizabeth Warren who accepted funds from Leftist billionaire and economic terrorist George Soros.

The same George Soros who gave $6 million to a pro-Hillary Super PAC.

The same George Soros who funds MoveOn.org, a website that just sent out an email about Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland…using Elizabeth Warren’s name and signature.

So, I guess Senator Warren forgot about her Tweet…from yesterday. In her defense, she was working so hard to defend the little guy that it must have slipped her mind!

And if you believe that, I have a bridge I’d love to sell you.

And now you know why Elizabeth Warren is my favorite Leftist. She can always be counted on for a great belly laugh as she tries to be serious about subjects she knows nothing about.