image_pdfimage_print

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The Left has an interesting relationship with the truth. Sometimes, they deny there is any truth whatsoever (usually when it’s something that makes them look bad). Other times, they cloak themselves in the truth (usually when it’s something that makes the Right look bad).

Lately, they’ve found themselves trying to do both, thanks to a new book titled Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House by Michael Wolff. Leftists have been salivating over the book like Oprah salivates over an all-you-can-eat buffet. Upon further review, however, the book is riddled with factual, editing, and other errors that would cause most rational people to disregard the book as trash. Wolff, and many Leftists, disagree. Wolff himself said if you feel something is true, then it is.

Tell that to my bank account when I feel like a million bucks, but only have around $5 in it.

Prepare the aspirin, because this one’s gonna be painful.

truth

What the Left thinks it means – whatever you want it to be

What it really means – what is

You would think something so simple wouldn’t be so difficult for the Left to grasp. Ah, but the Left has to complicate everything so they can say things are “nuanced” and, thus, puff up their egos without doing anything to earn it.

The Left further complicates the idea of truth because of their belief truth is subjective. They believe everybody sees the same things differently, which is true to an extent, but they say personal experiences, life struggles, and the ever-present oppression creates a new framework through which truth is seen. Although those elements can add to a person’s perspective on truth, they don’t change truth itself. Just because an albino crossdressing little person who walks with a limp says the Earth is flat doesn’t make it so. There is such a thing as observable truth, no matter how much the Left wants to pretend it’s not a thing. For example, an observable truth is Carrot Top is an odd-looking dude. Try arguing against that, Leftists.

There is an underlying reason the Left treats the truth like Ike treated Tina: the truth makes it harder for them to lie. Once people know the facts, Leftists have to work that much harder to get people to disbelieve the truth and believe the lie. This can be done through a number of means, but usually it’s done by denying it until the story is “too old” to be discussed (at least in the Left’s view). Along the way, people who focus on the truth get called a litany of names, from the tried and true chestnuts of racist/sexist/homophobic/right wing nut job to the more popular crazy, obsessed, and bigot.

But nowhere during this process do Leftists acknowledge the truth. That would not only ruin their narrative, but it would damage their egos.

Ahhhh…methinks we’ve stumbled onto a deeper reason for the Left’s contempt for truth. If you are committed to the truth, you have to be committed to all of it, not just the good parts. I may think I’m good enough to be a starting point guard for the Chicago Bulls, but if I don’t have the skill set to be successful, I won’t even be good enough to ride the pine. The Left doesn’t let the negative aspects of truth get to them. They pick and choose what they want and ignore the rest. That’s how Rachel Dolezal and Shawn King can claim to be black when they’re make Edgar Winter look like George Hamilton. Heck, compared to them, I’m James Brown. (And for the record, I got soul and I’m super bad.)

It’s this kind of thinking that makes Leftists believe Wolff’s telling the truth. They want (or in some cases, need) it all to be true so they can justify their beliefs about Trump being an emotional toddler with access to the nuclear codes. If they can “prove” this, it opens up all sorts of other delusions, like being able to prove Trump is mentally unfit to be President, Trump getting impeached, even Hillary being named President (and, yes, they actually believe this will happen). And when none of it happens, the Left will find some other reason to deny the truth.

Which is good, since it gives me more to mock.

Although Leftists aren’t on speaking terms with the truth, it’s important we don’t follow suit. Whether you think the President is the next Hitler or better than two scoops of ice cream, the truth must always be defended against those who would seek to subvert it. If we lose the truth, everything else falls after it.

And no amount of feeling the truth will bring it back.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

You might not know it yet, but we’re totally going to die unless we change our energy sources. Don’t believe me? Ask former Vice President Al “I’m as Much of a Scientist as Bill Nye” Gore and current House Minority Leader Nancy “I Make Pennywise Look Like a Teddy Bear” Pelosi, both of whom came out against President Donald Trump’s decision to allow more offshore drilling. And we know just how much intellectual firepower they both have…

When asked for specifics on how to get the oil monkey off our country’s back, the Left always bring up green energy. Wind, solar, and other energy sources are the future! Oil is the past! We need to embrace the future or else we’re DOOMED, DOOMED I SAY!

Sorry. I channeled my former Leftist self there for a second.

Let’s take a closer look at the green energy phenomenon, shall we?

green energy

What the Left believes it means –  energy sources that are cleaner and better for our environment

What it really means – a source of money for Leftists under the illusion of protecting the environment

The self-professed “Party of Science” has a habit of using science to make it easier for them to line their pockets through a steady stream of misinformation, loaded language, and, oh yeah, ginning up more fear than Vincent Price. This toxic concoction has made actual discussion on the scientific merits (or lack thereof) of green energy hard to come by. Let me start the conversation.

Green energy is great in theory, but sucks in execution.

Your turn, Leftists.

Seriously, green energy has good intentions. When put in the simplest of terms, only the truly mad would want our natural resources to be depleted and our environment destroyed. Yes, my Leftist readers, that includes those allegedly evil corporations because if the environment gets destroyed, it tends to kill people. No people, no customers. Economics 101.

And that’s one element that the Left doesn’t consider when coming up with its green energy approaches. One of the problems with green energy so far is it’s not economical on a large enough scale. Leftists can point to large solar farms and wind farms as evidence to the contrary, but as awesome as they are, they run into a problem: storage. On days when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing, your need for power doesn’t go away. Unless you have a way to store energy from sunny or windy days, you’ll be more in the dark than Paris Hilton spelunking.

That’s where batteries come into the picture. Granted, battery technology has come a long way in the past decade or so, but it’s still a process that requires the use of chemicals that can be damaging to the environment. Hmmm…so in order for green energy to be effective, we have to use things that are…not green? Maybe it’s me, but I think that defeats the purpose of green energy. But I’m sure it’s just me. I mean, who would be dumb enough to support something so ignorant?

Oh, wait…

Until the battery technology catches up to the wishful thinking of the green energy movement, the Left will have to address the reality of the situation. And they do that by utterly ignoring reality. They have a lot invested in green energy, mainly because Leftists tend to be the ones running green energy companies. But since green energy isn’t taking off the way the Left thinks it should, green energy companies often request (and get) federal funds to keep afloat. Then, in order to keep the funds coming in, green energy companies have to keep sucking up to Leftist politicians, which might just involve financial donations, and the cycle continues as long as Leftists keep getting into office and have access to federal funds.

Good thing that never backfires. Say, how is Solyndra doing these days?

As with global climate change, the Left is operating from a position of scientific ignorance with green energy. They keep saying oil is obsolete, but they’re wrong. Biofuels, converting coal into oil, and as yet fully untapped oil reserves exist, and until we exhaust those sources, oil will have a place in the energy conversation. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to find alternatives, but to say green energy is the only source worth exploring is short-sighted. Besides, with people like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi pushing for green energy, I think it’s a safe bet it’s not nearly as good as they make it out to be.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It’s been a while since Minnesota Senator Al Franken announced he would be resigning from the Senate in the light of multiple allegations of sexual assault. At this point, Cher’s farewell tour might wind up being shorter than Franken’s. Of course, Franken’s supporters are upset to see him leave because they feel he didn’t get a chance to address the allegations against him. In legal and Constitutional terms, this is called due process, and as you might expect, the Left sees it a little differently than the rest of us do.

due process

What the Left thinks it means – the steps necessary to obtain a fair and just ruling

What it really means – the steps necessary to obtain a fair and just ruling regardless of who is being accused

Although the Left and the rest of us see due process similarly, there is a vital difference: the Left demands due process for their side, but not for anyone else. I know this is shocking to think about, but Leftists are hypocrites in this area, among many others.

Remember the University of Virginia date rape case? I’m sure Rolling Stone does, considering they paid out for their bad reporting. But the Left used the case as proof of a rape culture on American campuses well before the first allegations were researched. In that particular situation, the narrative was more important than the facts, and they ran with it.

This came to a head again when Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos changed Title IX regulations to allow for more due process with college date rape investigations. The Left were angrier than Rosie O’Donnell on any day ending in a Y during the Trump Administration. How dare DeVos make it harder for the accused to be disregarded! How dare she try to make the investigation process fair for everyone involved instead of just the victim! Women are to be believed because they simply don’t lie about sexual assault!

Then came Al Franken. All of the sudden, the Left cared about the process and making sure the allegations were valid. Wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact Franken is a proud Leftist in a position of power, would it? Nahhhhhhh!

The thing about the Franken situation is he wasn’t denied due process. He chose not to go to court to address the matter and instead tried to weasel out of it by asking for an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. (Senate Ethics? Isn’t that a paradox?) The Senate Ethics Committee is not known for dishing out tough punishments for ethics violations. In recent history, there have been a number of violations brought before them, and only one has resulted in any significant form of punishment (that is, if you consider a light slap on the wrist to be significant).

If the Left were truly concerned about due process, they would have demanded Franken face his accusers in court. Very few did. The majority of them decided the Senate Ethics Committee was the end all and be all of due process when it’s not even close to it.

Due process is vital for two reasons. First, it gives both sides equal footing to make their cases. Second, it allows for an appropriate punishment or lack of punishment depending on what is found. As shocking as this may sound, the Senate Judiciary Committee doesn’t act in the same way as a court of law and has completely different standards. As such, it’s more of a diversion or perversion of due process for Franken to accept that route in lieu of having a day in court.

And it certainly doesn’t make it easier for the Left to demand due process be ignored on college campuses.

Look, if you want due process, you have to want it for everyone across the board, not just for the people you agree with. That ensures everyone has a chance to get it.

Think of it this way. What if Ted Cruz accused you of violently beating an elderly nun in a Whole Foods in Austin? Due process gives you the chance to refute those allegations with a jury of your peers. Partisan due process gives Cruz the chance to railroad you to jail without so much as a peep out of you.

Or if you prefer, talk to Rolling Stone about the importance of due process.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Leftists are hoping for a major Christmas present thanks to their new Santa Claus, Robert Mueller in the form of an obstruction of justice indictment against President Donald Trump. When you consider the multiple problems with the Mueller investigation make it more useless than a corner sofa set in a round building, the Left might be getting a piece of coal in their stockings.

Since the “Trump colluded with Russia” line has run its course (and uncovered actual collusion between Russia and Hillary Clinton/DNC), the Left is pivoting to obstruction of justice using President Trump’s firing of James Comey as proof he was trying to delay or disrupt the investigation into his ties with Russia. Whether these charges have any legal weight to them is questionable, but what isn’t questionable is the Left may not have that great a grasp on what obstruction of justice actually is.

Fortunately, I do, or this would be a really short blog post.

obstruction of justice

What the Left thinks it means – preventing an investigation into a crime, such as Donald Trump has committed

What it really means – hindering an investigation into a crime, not unlike what the Clintons/DNC have done

First off, obstruction of justice isn’t a partisan matter. Neither major party has a monopoly of criminal activity and attempts to cover it up through various means, such as misdirection, lying to investigators, or generally being a smug assbag with good lawyers. Having said that, I have seen more attempts to obstruct justice coming from the Left than I have from the Right in recent years.

But before we jump too much further into the matter, we need to understand what the obstruction of justice charge entails. And that requires a bit more than a sassy definition from a justly underpaid blogger.

The Legal Information Institute states obstruction of justice:

is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that “whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense).” Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to interfere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or interfering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.

  • 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.

    To put it another way, obstruction requires intent, knowledge, and a clear connection between the action to obstruct and the investigation or judicial proceeding.Here’s where the Left gets it wrong with Trump: his actions don’t meet the legal threshold, no matter what their anti-Trump hysteria tells them. FBI Director James Comey was not all that effective, as evidenced by his mishandling of the case against Hillary Clinton. It was so bad even Democrats were calling for him to resign. Then…Trump happened. Overnight, Comey went from Joe Biden level incompetence to Solomon reincarnated, in spite of the fact he didn’t really lose his incompetence. Trump fired Comey, which he had every right to do because, well, he’s the freaking President, and the Left came up with the obstruction of justice story. After all, the only reason Trump got rid of Comey was because he was closing in on proof of Russia’s collusion with the Trump campaign right?

    Oooooh, sor-ray. Seems Comey was fired for the aforementioned incompetence, and the investigation into the alleged collusion continued on unabated. There is even some question as to whether Trump knew he was under investigation based on what Comey has said. So, let’s see…the President had the power to fire Comey and would have known the firing would not have stopped the investigation…and it’s up in the air whether Trump knew he was being investigated…and the investigation didn’t stop as a result of the firing. Kinda puts a damper on the Obstruction-A-Palooza the Left has been dreaming of.

    Collusion is off the table, and now obstruction of justice is off the table, or should be under normal circumstances. Ah, but the Left isn’t on speaking terms with normal, so they’ll continue to make the case for obstruction of justice in spite of the facts. And remember, kids, the Left is fact-based (just ask them). But to those of us outside of the Leftist bubble, it’s hard to see where there is a legal case to be made.

    But there is another element: the political. Even if the legal case is on shakier ground than a sinkhole on the San Andreas Fault, the fact the allegations continue becomes a political cudgel for the Left to use whenever mentioning President Trump. And since the Left preys upon the ignorant, it will continue to pump out stories to make it seem like Trump is hiding something. All it takes is a momentary lapse of common sense to believe it.

    And all it takes to burst the Leftist bubble is to point out the facts. Unfortunately for the Left, I’m kinda partial to facts, which makes me a porcupine. Hey, I’ve been called worse!

 

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Christmas is right around the corner, but there will be an unwelcome surprise in some people’s stockings: a sharp increase in their annual health insurance premiums due to Obamacare.

Ah, Obamacare, the controversial legislation that got the federal government into the health insurance game, and there is no possible down side to that, right? That depends on who you ask. If you talk to people who have benefitted from Obamacare, it’s been a godsend. If you talk to people who have actually had to pay for Obamacare, it’s a tool of the Devil.

And if you talk to me, it’s another in a long list of things the federal government couldn’t get right even with the instruction manual. Oh, and it’s this weeks Leftist Lexicon entry.

Obamacare

What the Left thinks it means – an attempt to insure all Americas through government-run and privately-run insurance programs that have been sabotaged by Republicans

What it really means – a program that turns a trip to the doctor into a trip to the DMV

As you might have guessed, I’m not a fan of Obamacare for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it’s a massive federal overreach for something that should rightly be determined by those affected most by it: the potential patients. Barry Goldwater once said, “You can’t legislate morality,” but Leftists who push Obamacare seem to think you can tax it. Then again, they think they can tax anything, so that’s not exactly surprising news.

What is surprising is how many people don’t think about Obamacare’s implications. At its core, Obamacare forces people to buy a particular product or service based solely on the whims of bureaucrats who don’t know you or your situation. I know our culture has grown lazy, but do we really want government to make all of our decisions for us? (If you’re a Leftist, don’t bother responding. I already know you’re bobbing your heads like a metalhead at a Metallica concert.) If you’re like me, the answer to my question is a resounding “no,” and not by accident. We’ve seen how the federal government could screw up a one-person parade, but if you’re unconvinced, let’s take a trip out to the Golden State.

California is a Leftist paradise. Filled to the borders with affluent Leftists who think the same way. A Governor who’s nickname is “Governor Moonbeam.” More Priuses (Priusi?) per square foot than anywhere outside of a Toyota factory. These are the smart ones (just ask them). If Obamacare was going to work, it would work in California.

And it wouldn’t. Seems health insurance providers saw the law of diminishing returns and got out, putting more pressure on the state exchanges to pick up the slack. And when they couldn’t, it made the existing problem even worse. Who knew that would happen? I mean, aside from everyone who was against Obamacare.

A common argument among Obamacare supporters is that Republicans threw up roadblocks that presented it from being successful. Explain California. You can’t. Republicans didn’t cause problems in California that prevented Obamacare from being implemented lock, stock, and barrel. Republicans didn’t withhold funding for the state exchanges. Republicans had zero to do with how California tried to make Obamacare work. That failure is all on you, Leftists.

Not that you’ll admit it, mind you. Admitting Obamacare was a bigger failure than “The Emoji Movie” would be blasphemy. As with the Left’s view of communism, socialism, or the designated hitter rule, it’s not that the idea was bad; it was just not done right. Listen kids, if California can’t get it to work right when you control the vast majority of the power and resources, it’s never going to be done right, and Obamacare is no exception.

The main problem with Obamacare is the fact it requires the purchase of a product without the benefit of comparison shopping. And when it’s the government dictating what you must buy and where you have to buy it, quality is job none. We saw this in the former Soviet Union where citizens had one choice and that was it because the government said so. This approach treats everyone the same, but we’re not the same.

I wear a size 12 wide shoe. Even in our capitalist society, finding a comfortable pair of shoes can be like trying to find the plot in a Michael Bay movie, but it can be done. In the Soviet Union, I could only get a size 12 wide shoe if the government determined there was a need for it, and even then there would be no guarantee I would get one. If the government’s quota was 14 pairs of size 9s, you were stuck with the size 9s no matter how poorly the shoes fit.

Now, imagine this same “one size fits all” approach to health insurance. Considering Obamacare gave us the wonderful “option” for men to buy female birth control pills, it’s not that hard. In fact, that’s one of the features of Obamacare that no one really talked about: everyone would be required to participate. Whether it be getting health insurance or paying the tax…I mean “fine” associated with not having insurance, we all had skin in the game, and if we danced to the government’s tune, we were seen as cookie-cutter copies of one another, regardless of individual issues. You have a family history of heart issues? Sit over there with the lady with a hang nail and we’ll be with you eventually.

Which brings us to another Obamacare feature: wait times! I know I like sitting in waiting rooms as much as I like listening to Lena Dunham talk about anything, but it is the price I pay for the service I get, which is exceptional. With Obamacare, you may be put on either a waiting list where they’ll get around to you as soon as the wooly mammoths start taking all the spaces in the parking lot, or on another waiting list where they’ll get around to you, oh, never. When the government mandates what type of care you get and when you can get it, there is no real urgency to see you. Once they see you, they’re on the clock, but if they never get around to seeing you and you shuffle off this mortal coil, that clock never starts.

Although Obamacare was started with what could argue was noble intentions, the execution of it has been lackluster at best. And all because Leftists wanted to create another way for people to become dependent upon government bureaucracy for something we can take care of ourselves.

I know I’ve said a lot of bad things about Obamacare, but I do see one major upside. It reminds me of just how good I have it by not being on it.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Last week, President Donald Trump announced America would recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel after decades and 3 previous Presidents promised and failed to deliver. To hear the Left’s reaction to the news, you’d think Trump set a puppy on fire on live television while doing unspeakable things to a picture of Rosie O’Donnell. Trump’s actions are going to start World War 23, cause the Middle East peace process to fall apart like Kathy Griffin’s career, and create mass death, destruction, and mayhem!

And that’s the opinion of the more sensible Leftists, all three of them.

If the Left had a Facebook relationship status with Israel, it would be “It’s Complicated.” Some would say America’s relationship to Israel is complicated, but is it? This week’s Leftist Lexicon takes us into the wonderful world of the only sane place in the Middle East.

Israel

What the Left thinks it means – a fundamentalist conservative country whose existence and actions cause strife for its neighbors and must change to stabilize the region

What it really means – a country resoundingly criticized by the Left for daring to think it deserves to exist

Without going into a long, drawn out explanation of the creation of Israel, let me try my hand at summarizing centuries of discord into an easy-to-understand manner. Once upon a time, there was a country called Israel that got broken up through various wars, invasions, and dating Yoko Ono. After being tossed from country to country, a group of Jews decided to reclaim the former country of Israel, and after some lengthy discussions and some arm-twisting from the US, they got their wish. This angered the neighbors, including a group of people claiming to be from Palestine, a country that doesn’t have any ties to the land where Israel sits today and refuses to stop being jerks to the Jews. The Left, being of big hearts and small minds, support the Palestinians because they’re the Cleveland Browns to Israel’s New England Patriots. Actually, I take that back. The Palestinians have a better running game.

Based upon this, you might think the Left hates Israel, and you’d be right to an extent. They do hate Israel, but they love the money coming from Jewish Leftists to pay lip service to Israel while at the same time working to support those who want to wipe Israel off the map. So, it’s a love/hate relationship in a way, only with more use of military force.

There is another possible reason the Left hates Israel; the Right loves Israel. Whether it’s for religious reasons or because they love the way Israel handles terrorism (Spoiler Alert: Israel makes Chuck Norris look like Lindsey Graham), the Right has Israel’s back. And when you really think about it, the Left hates people of faith (especially those of us who believe in God) and those who treat terrorists like terrorists instead of delicate flowers who were just misunderstood and need jobs. I wish I were kidding, but the Obama Administration actually advanced the idea there would be less terrorism if potential terrorists had jobs. Maybe, but I’m guessing there would be a lot of people calling in sick on a regular basis.

In spite of our history with Israel, we have a vested interest in being on their good side, and not just because of their badassery. They give us a strategic foothold in the Middle East, so our relationship needs to be as good as it can be as a means of protecting us from Muslim extremists. By the same token, Israel needs to be on our good side because we provide them with the technology and firepower needed to fend off those who want them to go the way of Pauly Shore’s Oscar hopes. This viewpoint makes our relationship with Israel feel more like a big brother-little brother dynamic. Sure, our little brothers may annoy us and get in trouble, but when push come to shove we have their backs.

While there are a lot more Leftist Jews than conservative Jews, the latter group is finding its voice and defending Israel while the former group keeps electing people like Chuck Schumer, who is as two-faced as they come when it comes to Israel. Which side ultimately prevails is still up in the air, but for the sake of both of our countries, we should be rooting for the side that supports Israel, not as a potential source of campaign cash or voters, but as a homeland worth protecting.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As someone who has been online since 1996, I can tell you the Internet is a weird place, and it keeps getting weirder. Whether that’s because of me, I can’t say…

Online political discussions have their own lexicon, much of which involves disparaging the other side. Thanks to the allegation of Russian interference with the 2016 election and how it’s alleged they did it, we have two new terms to consider: bot, and Russian bot. I’ll give you three guesses as to who uses these terms most frequently, and the first two guesses are “Leftists still butthurt at Donald Trump beating Hillary Clinton.”

So, let’s put on our digital wetsuits and go all Jacques Cousteau on these terms.

bot/Russian bot

What the Left thinks it means – virtual people spouting pro-Trump sentiments while giving away telltale signs they aren’t real, such as a low number of Twitter followers

What it really means – people the Left can’t defeat, so they defame

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear. There are people out there who have Twitter and Facebook accounts that are fake and should not be taken seriously. Nothing is gained by pretending to be someone you’re not online. I would go further into detail, but my court-appointed attorney has advised me not to go into specifics due to the pending litigation.

Now, this begs the question of whether there is a significant number of fake accounts for the allegations of a poster being a bot or a Russian bot to be true. If you believe the Left, there are so many bots that we might as well be under SkyNet’s digital thumbs. If you believe the Right, bots are as rare as believable Al Franken apologies. If you believe me, don’t because I really don’t have an answer. What I do have, though, is common sense.

Whenever there’s a situation that needs a thorough analysis, I start with a simple question: who benefits? This helps me focus on the matter at hand and strip away the non-essential details. So, who benefits from accusations of people being Russian bots?

Donald Trump? Not really. He’s already won the Presidency and has his own bully pulpit on Twitter, so he doesn’t need outside help to make his presence felt.

Trump supporters? Another swing and a miss. Trump supporters are usually pretty vocal in their defense of the President, and having their viewpoint potentially amplified by alleged Russian agents or bots makes no sense. Just like the President, they’re pretty good at speaking their minds.

The GOP? Possibly, but not likely. For the most part, Republicans are behind the curb when it comes to social media. Some of them have Twitter accounts, but they’re usually managed by interns or people far younger than they are because they’re more adept at the subtle nuances of social media. I’ve heard John McCain doesn’t text because he can’t figure out how to make the letters using the rotary dial.

The Left? DING DING DING! We have a winner! Considering the Left has a cottage industry in making Donald Trump look as bad as Freddy Kruger dipped in sulfuric acid, any even semi-reasonable points made by people outside of their bubble must be discredited. And while the Russian story can be milked, the Left will be yanking on those udders like a milkmaid working straight commission.

And how does the Left determine who is a bot? It depends on the situation. If you have few Twitter followers, it’s proof they’re a bot. If you say anything supportive of President Trump, it’s proof you’re a bot. If you question the Left’s narrative regarding Trump, it’s proof you’re a bot. If you’re breathing, it’s proof you’re a bot. In other words, not being a Leftist makes you a bot, and most likely a Russian bot.

Of course, most of these conditions have nothing to do with one’s botitude, but hey, the Left isn’t exactly known for being deep thinkers.

The funny thing about the Left’s bot obsession is how they ignore their own bot-like tendencies. Let’s review. They say the same things. They think the same way. They don’t deviate from their stock answers. Either the Left is not aware of what it does, or they’ve been taken over by SkyNet. And I haven’t completely ruled out the second one yet. Anyway, the Left must spend a lot of money on Windex to make sure their glass houses are kept up.

I’ve been called a number of things over the years online, and while most of them have been unflattering, they usually came from a position of inferiority or self-consciousness. Being called a bot or a Russian bot is no different. You can choose to either fight back or laugh it off. I personally prefer laughing it off because a) you’ll never get a Leftist to admit they’re wrong, and b) the Left can’t stand when their ideas are mocked. Laughing at their absurd claims is a good way to throw them off their game and give them the respect they’ve so richly earned.

Which is to say less respect than Rodney Dangerfield.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Recently, a gunman shot and killed 26 parishioners at a Texas church. Shortly afterwards, the Left swung into action and started making calls for gun control because…reasons. And with these calls came a familiar refrain: ban assault weapons because…reasons. Hey, nobody said the Left were deep thinkers.

Although the call to ban assault weapons has been repeated more often than allegations of Russians hacking the 2016 election, few attempts have been made to actually ban them, and when they have been banned, it has been with mixed results. But there is one question the Left hasn’t really answered to anyone’s satisfaction but their own: what is an assault weapon? I’m glad you asked…or I asked…since the Leftist Lexicon entry for this week revolves around that very question.

assault weapon

What the Left thinks it means – any automatic weapon that shoots bullets at a high rate of speed, thus being able to kill as many innocent people as possible

What it really means – any gun that makes Leftists crap their pants

During the 1990s, Leftists were all about banning assault weapons and with good reason. It hit all the right notes: high emotional appeal with little intellectual investment, and it made them look like they cared about saving children. From there, their fascination and reach expanded to the point they found assault weapons that were scary-looking and could easily be demonized. Now, if you think I’m exaggerating about this, I assure you I’m not. These are the sentiments of those behind the scenes of the assault weapons ban crowd. Their entire campaign was based around not how lethal a gun was, but how frightening it looked. That would be like determining whether a car was involved in an accident not by its proximity to the accident site, but by how cool it looked.

Like I said, Leftists aren’t known for deep thinking.

Since the 1990s, not much has changed in Leftist strategy on assault weapons. They still rely on the emotional appeal to make gains while focusing on the scariest guns they can find. Lately, their focus has been on the AR-15. To the Left, the AR-15 is the Ferrari of firepower, the Maserati of mayhem, the Porsche of…some gun-related word beginning with P. But what does the Left actually know about the AR-15?

As much as Michael Moore knows about weight loss.

For all of the Left’s talk of how dangerous the AR-15 is, the fact they overlook is it is merely a tool. As with any tool, it’s all about how it’s used to determine whether the results are good or evil. A hammer can be used to build a house or bash in someone’s skull. And an AR-15 can be used to shoot up a church or prevent a mass shooting from getting worse.

You know, like what happened in Sutherland Springs?

Oh, wait. We’re not supposed to know that. Nevermind!

And therein lies the key to the Left’s approach to assault weapons: keeping things murky. By playing fast and loose with the facts, the Left can demonize AR-15s and other weapons and the public can be behind those efforts without fear of anyone listening figuring out they’re being played. But once you start asking a few questions, you can see through their lies and get to the bottom of their tactics.

With the most recent mass shooting in Texas, Leftists came out and started making all sorts of suggestions on what laws we needed to curtail the next shooting (because we all know laws always make things better). Yet, a Google search of, oh, a few minutes reveals many of the suggestions the Left made…are already on the books in one form or another. So…that’s a little awkward, but at least they mean well, right?

Not so much. When you really think about it, the people pushing assault weapon bans need there to be more mass shootings to keep their narrative going, keep the money flowing into their coffers, and keep people whipped up in a frenzy to have them give up their Constitutional rights (and the rights of everyone else, for that matter) for the illusion on safety. Benjamin Franklin had a famous quotation about this. It was “Screw that. Freedom rules because ‘Murca.” Wait, that was me. Either way, I’m not willing to toss aside my right to own a weapon because Leftists are scared of an object, especially an object they can’t even define what makes that object dangerous. Your fee-fees aren’t a good enough reason to ban assault weapons, nor should they be. We need to have cool heads when dealing with a subject like assault weapons because the implications for gun rights, and other rights for that matter, are too important to leave to a whim.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week SPECIAL EDITION!

Your eyes are not deceiving you. You are getting an extra Leftist Lexicon this week because, darn it, I like you.

Thanksgiving is a time for families to come together and be thankful for what we have. Oh, and to eat food, watch football, and try not to bring up politics. Oh, but the Left just has to ruin that, too. To them, Thanksgiving is a time to talk about politics (mainly, why theirs is superior) and how much white people suck. Oh, and how we should be concerned about the hungry and how dangerous and barbaric football is. You know, being total killjoys.

Well, I won’t stand for it. In fact, I’m sitting as I write this just to show you how committed I am to fighting back against the Leftist assault on Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving

What the Left believes it means – a holiday that celebrates religious bigotry, violence against Native Americans, and patriarchy

What it really means – a holiday to remind us to be thankful for the bounty we have

The Thanksgiving story has gone through more changes than Madonna’s image, but the gist of it is the Pilgrims went through a harsh winter before meeting up with some Native Americans who helped them. To celebrate, the Pilgrims had a feast where they could count their blessings at having survived the year before. Now, to most people, this is a fine enough story, but to the Left, it’s not good enough because it didn’t have enough tofu, white guilt, and acknowledgement of the rights of the native people to live without being subjected to cultural appropriation and any number of other Leftist bugaboos they’re offended by this week.

Why, it’s almost as if the Left hates for people to be happy. Maybe it’s because…they hate for people to be happy!

As a recovering Leftist, one of the things I still can’t get my head around is why Leftists get so bothered by other people being happy. Whether they have a permanent case of schadenfreude or they are just big jerkheads, it’s not like there is a finite amount of joy in the world. It is possible for more than one person to be happy at a time, and Thanksgiving is the perfect time for people to be happy by recognizing what we have in our lives to be happy about. Family, friends, health, not being Al Franken right now…or ever, and many, many more sources of gratefulness.

I do think a big part of the Left’s problem with Thanksgiving is how steeped it is in tradition. To them, anything related to tradition is automatically conservative and, therefore, EVIL! Traditions in and of themselves aren’t necessarily evil. Getting together with family to share a meal and good times is a good tradition to have. Getting together with family to sacrifice a virgin to the Aztec gods? Not so much. As with all things, you have to put things into perspective. Just because you have a wishbone up your backside because you think Thanksgiving represents white genocide of Native Americans doesn’t mean it’s a good thing to bring up around turkey and mashed potatoes. Then again, the Left isn’t exactly known for thinking things through.

Which brings us to another relatively recent phenomenon: talking politics at Thanksgiving. Within the past few years, the Left has come up with the great idea of creating talking points to try to win over family members to the Leftist point of view. Remember Pajama Boy, the guy used to promote discussion of Obamacare over the holidays? Not only did he ruin red checkered pajamas for a generation of hipsters, but he made Leonard Hofstadler look like Chuck Norris. And what happened? Obamacare further tanked in the polls. Of course, that might be chalked up to Obamacare sucking harder than Chelsea Handler trying to get another series, but the point remains the Left thought Pajama Boy would be the poster boy for getting people to sign up for one of the worst health insurance scams since I got that policy from Uncle Shifty’s Fly-By-Night Insurance Company and Collection Agency. But at least I got to keep the pen, so win-win.

There seems to be two lines of thought behind bringing up politics during the holiday season. First, in accordance with Leftist thinking documented above, it’s to make everyone miserable. Second, and this one is just as likely, Leftists want to weed out people from their Christmas card/gift lists before Black Friday or Cyber Monday. After all, if you get most of your family miffed at you for spouting ideological drivel, you can save money or buy the family members who agree with you better presents. Well, at least better by Leftist standard. Imagine getting along with Cousin Moonbeam and getting a certificate stating a tree was planted in the Amazon rainforest in your honor. That makes Grandma’s wool socks look like a black American Express card.

But that second point has an ulterior motive: it helps break down families, which is a central tenet of communism and, surprise surprise, Leftist ideology. Between Thanksgiving and Christmas, this time of year brings people together in significant ways. And when there’s togetherness, there’s booze…I mean connecting. (Although you could also connect through booze…) When people get together in the spirit of harmony, it creates strong bonds, bonds that can exist outside of political, racial, spiritual, and sexual boundaries. Now, consider the fact the Left has based its entire existence today on emphasizing our differences. Yeah, it’s a good bet the Left has a vested interest in keeping people at each other’s throats.

This is why it’s important not to lose focus of what makes Thanksgiving so special. Not only will it make the Left into angry little trolls…scratch that, it will remind them there is something stronger than their ideology that will trump them at every turn: love.

Either that or booze.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

Yeah, not a good look.

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

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

victim shaming

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

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

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

That’s victim shaming in a nutshell.

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

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

Like Leeann Tweeden.

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

But Tweeden? Not so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share This: