Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

facts

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

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

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

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

Anybody want to try to square that circle?

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

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

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

But it doesn’t have to be that way.

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

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

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

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

Just ask Gawker. Oh, wait…

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Within the past week, a new war has flared up. No, not in a foreign country against an evil dictator, but in this country against…billionaires.

Although the Left has always had misgivings about the rich (except, of course, towards those who donate heavily to Leftist causes), with the advent of Bernie Sanders and our favorite Socialist Socialite, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, they’re getting more free with their disdain for people who make lots of money. They’re even trying to spin it into a moral argument, stating it’s an immoral system that allows people to make billions of dollars without sharing because sharing is caring, y’all.

This seems like as good a time as any to delve into the Leftist Lexicon and figure out what we can about billionaires.

billionaire

What the Left thinks it means – someone who makes money and hoards it so others can’t have it, greedy people who exploit workers to make money

What it really means – someone who makes more money than the Left thinks he or she should

That’s right, kids. The Left’s entire argument against the wealthy is based on perception, and more than a little economic illiteracy, which we’ll get into later. The problem with basing an argument on perception is that it may not be reality. (I know this runs counter to customer service training, but hear me out.) Without understanding context or seeking out the facts behind a situation, our perceptions are skewed, and far too often we let out preconceived notions fill in the blanks as a short cut.

Take the Trayvon Martin shooting, for example. There are more than a few stories out there about what happened, and most if not all of them are based on perception. Only two people know for sure what happened, and one is dead and the other is a lying scumbag. Everyone else’s hot takes, including mine, are speculation at best. And when there’s speculation, there is bound to be error.

When it comes to billionaires, the Left has a glaring error in that they assume the only way the wealthy get wealthy is through dishonest means or government loopholes. In fact, an argument I’ve seen more than once lately with regards to billionaires in general is “they didn’t earn all that money.” Again, this is speculation. In some cases, the wealth comes from hard work paying off. In other cases, money getting reinvested and creating more wealth (and, surprise surprise, jobs). In still other cases, people are born into wealth and stay there unless they make incredibly bad decision.

Like, say, voting for Leftists.

In any case, at some point down the line, someone worked for that money the Left covets so much. Now, if the billionaire in question made money through fraud or questionable means (like, say, oh I don’t know…Uncle George Soros?), then the Left has a point. But to paint all billionaires as thieves and grifters isn’t right. Of course, if you Leftists have proof of such, I’m willing to hear it, but I get the feeling your charges are more wind than anything.

The reason the Left is so quick to attack billionaires relies on an economic fallacy called zero-sum. Basically, zero-sum alleges there is a finite amount of money in an economy, so whenever someone has more of it, it’s at the expense of someone else. Let’s use the ever-ubiquitous example of pie. In a zero-sum mindset, there is one pie and only one pie, so whomever has the largest piece is stealing from those who don’t have any pie yet. The problem with this is an economy is not a single pie. It is a number of pies in all different sizes and flavors. All you have to do is look for the table they’re on, say “Hey, there are some more pies over here,” and chow down to your heart’s content. And because of capitalism, as long as there is a demand for pie and the ability to make it, there will be pie.

But the prospect of a potentially infinite number of pies doesn’t stoke enough class envy to suit the Left, so they pretend zero-sum is the only way to go. Ah, I think we’ve hit upon the real reason the Left hates the wealthy: they can’t keep up with the Joneses. Leftist economic theory sounds good to the ear and looks good on paper where you can manipulate the outcomes, but in practice it creates an environment where success is frowned upon and making everyone equally miserable seems to be Utopia. Sounds like paradise, amiright? Where do I sign up?

Actually, I don’t want to sign up because Leftist economics is a bad solution in search of enough suckers to believe it’s a good solution to what amounts to a non-problem. Bill Gates makes more than I do? Good for him! I don’t agree with him politically, but I will never begrudge his success and wealth as a result of it. His operating system, on the other hand…let’s just say Sybil is more stable than the Windows OS, but that’s neither here nor there. We have three choices when it comes to wealthy people: be jealous of them, be inspired by them, or ignore them and choose our own path. The Left thinks option 1 is the only option because they need victims to sustain their ideology. If you choose door number 2 or number 3, you can’t be a victim, so you’re of no use to them.

As far as the morality of being a billionaire is concerned, the only morality in play is how that person made his or her fortune. Ill-gotten gains are certainly nothing to be celebrated, nor are gains made from dumb luck or a lack of talent. Wealth earned through sweat and innovation, on the other hand, should be celebrated, not demonized. That’s one reason I admire Elon Musk. He’s making money the old fashioned way: by looking into our future. (Wait…but that’s…nevermind.)

So, if you’re a Leftist billionaire, be careful who you root for because the next one they attack may be you.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The American Psychological Association recently issued direction on how to conduct their practice with regards to males. Normally, this would be as exciting as an Al Gore burlesque show, but a line in their report caught my eye. The APA stated “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage.” To be fair, I agree with the latter part of their statement, but the whole “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful” bit reminds me of a current Leftist buzz-phrase that often is used interchangeably with “traditional masculinity”: toxic masculinity.

Whether it’s catcalling in the streets or eating meat, Leftists (and especially third wave feminists) have decided being a guy is harmful, and with the APA’s guidelines, they have some scientific heft instead of their usual “men are icky” justifications. How did we get to the point that anyone more masculine than Pee Wee Herman was dangerous to society as a whole? That’s a long and strange story…

toxic masculinity

What the Left thinks it means – the state where men dominate everything and infect society with outdated and cruel notions designed to keep women down

What it really means – men acting like men

In the late 60s and throughout the 70s, women started to come into their own as people. Society started seeing them as smart, capable, and just as competent as men, and thanks in part to first wave feminism, men changed their perspective and some of them…tried to become more like women. This worked for a while until men realized they were missing something (rhymes with “halls”) and started looking for ways to reconnect with their masculinity. Before you know it, men started acting, dressing, and looking like men again, which didn’t sit well with those who wanted us to believe acting, dressing, and looking like men was bad. To combat this, they created a new concept: masculinity wasn’t just bad, it was deadly!

If you’re reaching for the brown Challenge Bullshit flag, you’re not alone. Men have acted far less civilized than we do today for millennia and we survived, mainly because men…acted like men. They didn’t have GrubHub or Starbucks back in the early days of Mankind, so it fell to the men most of the time to find food and shelter while protecting their clans against others who meant to do them harm. In other words, masculinity in its more primitive form proved to be good for society because, without it, there wouldn’t be much of a society.

“But, surely you can’t think today’s society is as primitive as that of our ancestors,” the Leftists who think toxic masculinity is a thing might retort. Of course not. Society today is quite different, but that doesn’t negate the need for a masculine perspective in it. And as society evolved, so has masculinity. Today’s men range from guys who make Ron Swanson look like Pajama Boy to guys who make Pajama Boy look like Ron Swanson. Is it fair to say all of these variations on a masculine theme are toxic?

Seems the feminists don’t have an answer for that, but they do have a response based around the concept of whether men are “allies” to feminist causes. In other words, if feminists can use these men for their own purposes, as tools or just hunks of meat. You know, how they objected to being treated in the 60s and 70s?

Pro Tip for you male feminists out there: you’re not going to get any, no matter what you say or do, because third wave feminists hate men. They may not come out and say it, but they do. As long as they can lead you around by the nose, they will, and you will ultimately get nothing out of it.

Here’s the funny part. A recent survey showed women find manly men more attractive than the Pajama Boy types. That’s going to sting a bit for the “toxic masculinity” crowd because it shows something their ideology can’t overcome: genetics. Locked within the male and female DNA are instincts that may be suppressed, but never completely, that make both sexes want to act a certain way. It’s primal, but it’s part of us. Yet, feminists and Leftists only want to focus on the negative aspects of the primal male because it furthers the “toxic masculinity” narrative. Here’s a radical idea. Maybe if most women don’t find masculinity toxic…it may not be toxic at all. Unless you assume women who don’t agree with you aren’t capable of making their own decisions, which would make you…sexist.

Really, that’s what third wave feminism is. Sexism disguised as an equality movement. And the concept of toxic masculinity is equally as deceptive. Sure, men do suck sometimes…okay, a lot of the time, but even so we have redeeming qualities that more than make up for the crappy things members of our gender do. To ignore the good men do in an attempt to make them appear to be monsters is the truly toxic part, but it has nothing to do with masculinity. It has everything to do with Leftists and feminists wanting to make it bad to be a man.

Screw the APA’s analysis of masculinity. It’s okay to be a man, and you shouldn’t feel ashamed of being one. Just be the best one you can. Whether you’re a lumberjack type who spends hours carving a piece of wood into a perfect toothpick or a guy wearing skinny jeans who can’t get through the day without a soy milk chai tea latte, take pride in your manliness.

Of course if you’re that last guy, we might need to have a talk. And by talk, I mean intervention.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

Women’s March

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Besides, who wants to be associated with Louis Farrakhan?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

government shutdown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, Happy New Year!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Christmas is almost here, and you know what that means, right? People getting offended over stupid shit!

This year the song “Baby It’s Cold Outside” was deemed to be “problematic” because of the line, “Hey, what’s in this drink?” To the offense-mongers, it suggested the male was trying to slip something into the woman’s drink so he could have sex with her. To people with working ears and an idea of context, it doesn’t.

Then, there’s the Huffington Post, who weighed in on an important issue concerning America right now: the old TV special “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” was “problematic” because Rudolph was bullied. And people wonder why I need a vodka IV when dealing with them…

Christmas has been at the center of another controversy, one that has been going on for a while. People on the Right claim there’s a “War on Christmas” while people on the Left claim it’s not a thing. Is it a thing? Let’s find out!

the War on Christmas

What the Left thinks it means – a made-up controversy designed to make Christians look like victims in spite of not being victims

What the Right thinks it means – the Left’s attempt to remove God from the public sector in every form

What it really means – a controversy that neither side really has right

Yep, it’s going to be one of those Leftist Lexicon entries.

To put it mildly, the Left has an issue with Christians and Christianity in general. Part of this stems from the non-belief of those on the Left. These folks see Christianity as one big scam that steals money from the old, the weak-willed, and the ignorant. (Of course, these same Leftists don’t care say this about Islam, but why let a little thing like that spoil a narrative?) To be fair, the Left has history on its side. Back in the Middle Ages, the church was pretty much a branch of any monarchy, holding considerable sway and wealth in the royal courts. One day, the church leaders came up with the idea of selling prayers for loved ones who had passed or who were going to pass one day. And, thus, the selling of indulgences was born.

Since then, the power of the church has fallen off and nobody sells indulgences anymore, except maybe for a few televangelists who wouldn’t know God if He came up to them with a bright neon t-shirt that reads “Hi, My Name Is God. Yes, THAT God.” The issue is the Left hasn’t caught up yet. They’re holding onto a grudge longer than the Hatfields and McCoys.

However, this isn’t the main reason. The Left’s issue with Christianity is that it works outside of a government or regulatory framework. All that is required for Christianity to work is…faith in God. Even then, people of faith falter on the path to Heaven. We make mistakes, sin, and sometimes it winds up online. The Left’s view of Christians is that of the nerdiest person ever, so when a Christian fails, the Left can hold it up as an example of why all of Christianity is flawed and, therefore, not to be trusted. Oddly enough, they don’t apply this line of logic to their big government utopia, but again it’s protecting the narrative.

Today’s Leftists are more concerned about feelings than facts because they can control the narrative better. That’s why they’re trying to take the steam out of “Baby It’s Cold Outside” and “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.” If they can get you to feel the way they do about these and other holiday traditions, they can get you to start thinking like them. Of course, the way they do this is by omitting context, which makes their explanations less plausible than James Comey’s testimony before Congress at any time. The song is flirtatious, but doesn’t automatically lead to date rape…especially if you reverse the genders, as many singing duos have done. And as far as poor Rudolph is concerned, he overcame the bullying and became beloved. How is that not a positive message? Maybe Leftists have lost the ability to have fun, but that doesn’t apply to the rest of us.

Now, before you start writing in about how I’m proving there is a War on Christmas, let me bring things back to the center. Although there is certainly active and passive hostility against Christmas by Leftists, it’s not really a war as such. For one, there isn’t actual violence yet. Given ANTIFA’s “hit with bike locks first, pretend it never happened later” approach, though, that may yet come to pass. Granted, not every war is physical in nature (see the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs), but to use the concept of war for something involving snowmen, talking reindeer, and a Dr. Seuss character is a bit out there, even for me. And that’s saying something!

Another problem I have with the War on Christmas is the opponents. Aside from the aforementioned ANTIFA, they’re more whiny than wicked. That doesn’t give the Right cause to be whiny in response, though. We’re supposed to be the adults here. So what if Starbucks uses a red cup that doesn’t mention Christmas? We’re not their target market! Instead of whining about what color cups Starbucks uses or what messages are and aren’t on said cups, make your own! It will be ultimately cheaper in the long run and, best of all, you won’t have to be dealing with Leftist whiners or people who wait in line for 20 minutes only to try to decide what they want to drink the second they get to the counter.

The biggest issue I have with the Right’s “War on Christmas” rhetoric is it creates an impression of persecution where little actually exists. The Left hasn’t figured out how to completely prevent God from being in the public square, but they’ve figured out how to take the trappings of God away. We should thank God that the Left hasn’t created agnostic reeducation camps for people of faith yet, and I still think that’s a long ways down the road. I mean, these folks can’t even figure out which bathroom to use, for the love of Pete! Do you think they’ll get a handle on how to run a gulag before the next time we see actual global warming?

There is real persecution of Christians out there, no matter what the Left says. Not being able to have a Nativity scene in a public park because of a gross misinterpretation of the First Amendment (thanks, Supreme Court and ACLU), although troubling, isn’t real persecution. When the government in any form decides to remove God from the homes by force, that’s where persecution starts.

The thing that gets me the most is how many Christians let the physical trappings of Christmas become more important than God. A Nativity scene reminds us of Christ’s birth, but it doesn’t replace it. For people of faith, the knowledge God exists and has a hand in our lives should be a balm for whatever ill we see in the world because we know Our Redeemer lives. That’s the best Christmas gift ever, and I say this as someone who got an Atari 2600 back in the day! The world of Man will always find a way to affront us, but walking with God gives us the strength to resist.

So, in the spirit of the holiday, I urge the Left and the Right to drop the War on Christmas talk and just try to enjoy life once before the year ends. Leftists, you’re not going to be forced to go to church and live a Handmaid’s Tale style existence if you let Christians put up a Nativity scene. Rightists, you’re not going to wake up on Christmas Day to Hell on Earth if you don’t complain about the lack of God in the public square. Pick your battles, people!

And Merry Christmas!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

border wall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I hate to admit it, but Congresswoman-Elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is starting to grow on me. For someone who follows politics so you don’t have to and tries to pepper his commentary with humor, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is comedy gold!

Among the various ideas she’s tossed around is something called a Green New Deal, and it’s gaining traction among the greener members of the Left. And, like many of the ideas she’s tossed about, it has far-reaching implications…and is poorly thought out and, thus, mockable. So, let’s do that, shall we?

Green New Deal

What the Left thinks it means – a series of initiatives to address ecological and economic crises with the focus on climate change

What it really means – another attempt to grab green while attempting to go green

If the Left ever started a religion (aside from worshiping failed sociopolitical movements and, oh yeah, themselves), it might look a little like the green movement. No matter what happens, it’s attributable to climate change. And don’t you dare bring stuff like real science and facts into the discussion because that just won’t do. We have to believe climate change is real, is getting worse, and only we can stop it.

Come to think of it, that’s pretty much Leftists worshiping themselves. Anyway…

The Green New Deal has a lot of Leftist gated-community-cul-du-sac cred. First off, it’s based in part on Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, a series of government programs designed to lift our failing economy during the Great Depression. Second, it combines two of the Left’s favorite causes: the environment, and spending other people’s money. And third, it’s guaranteed to increase the size and scope of government. So, to the Left, it’s a win-win-win proposition!

Now, are you expecting me to pour a glacier’s worth of cold water on this idea? If you said yes, I hope you bet the over because there is a lot wrong with the Green New Deal.

First off, the New Deal wasn’t that great overall. In fairness, it did cut into the unemployment rate a bit, so I will give it credit for that. The problem is it didn’t solve the employment or economic problems nearly as much as we’ve been lead to think it did. When you look at the numbers (and I have since my social calendar is emptier than a strip club in Amish country), the New Deal moved unemployment less than a percent after several years of being introduced. Prices were still high for the time and jobs were mostly scarce, even with the New Deal’s make-work programs.

So, if it wasn’t the New Deal that got us out of the Great Depression, what did? A little thing the kids like to call World War II. After Pearl Harbor, our factories needed to produce goods for the war, which meant a need for people to work, and that meant more jobs to be had. FDR might get the credit from Leftists (and he does), but his programs didn’t accomplish what they set out to do in any significant way. Hopefully, there isn’t a world war that comes after the Green New Deal is put in place, but it might be the only way for it to succeed.

I’ve talked at length about the Left’s green hypocrisy, so I won’t go too much into it here. And if you’ve paid attention to federal budgeting in the past few decades, you know all about how the Left loves to spend other people’s money. I will say, however, many people who push a green agenda also have another ideology behind it: some variation of socialism. That’s not to say all of them are, but after seeing enough of them, I’m starting to think it’s a requirement, not an aberration.

Then, there’s the growth of government. Leftists love this idea because it guarantees jobs for people who wouldn’t otherwise be employed and protects them from being fired for the reasons these people wouldn’t otherwise be employed. I don’t know all of the specifics (because not even the Green New Deal supporters have thought it out yet), but I guarantee there will be overlap with existing government programs. How can I make such a bold prediction? Because there already is overlap, and a lot of it. Take the banking industry, for example. You can count on 2 hands the number of agencies that oversee different banking functions and might even need to take off your shoes and socks these days. And they are all doing the same thing. A Green New Deal will only repeat that process, and it won’t get us any cleaner. Just look at SuperFund.

While going green is an admirable goal, the Left simply can’t make it work without coming up with expensive “fixes” that don’t do anything or creating yet another government agency that will spend more on air travel to climate change conferences than on the actual problem of climate change. But before you think I’m just complaining without an alternative, let me roll out my Green New Deal.

Approach Elon Musk, offer him a sum of money upon completion to solve or at least mitigate the climate change problem, and let him go to work.

That idea will make Leftists’ heads explode, but hear me out. The problem with the green movement is that it doesn’t understand what Musk does: environmentalism isn’t sexy. If you want people to become more environmentally friendly today, you have to create a demand for it. Toyota tried doing this with the Prius, and it’s still limping along while others drive by in SUVs so high you need an air traffic controller whenever you go out for a drive. And a big part of that is the Prius looks like an egg. It’s not attractive, but it does fulfill human need, such as being part of a group and having that group think highly of the Prius owner. But ego alone isn’t enough to save the planet. What’s missing is capitalism.

Musk didn’t become rich and famous by settling for the mediocre. He dreamed big, risked big, and won big with the Tesla and with Space-X. We need that kind of daredevil intellect involved in what the Left considers to be the highest stakes of all with climate change, but the Left doesn’t want a solution; they want a problem they can milk for money, power, and occasional guest spots on CNN and MSNBC.

The fate of the Green New Deal is up in the air right now, but if the past is prologue, we know how the story ends before it even begins. Let’s try something new, a more daring approach.

Do it…for the children.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Once again, the eyes of Americans are drawn to our southern border as hundreds of people are heading there to try to enter our country. These potential immigrants are currently moving from Central America through Mexico, fleeing their homelands and requesting asylum.

At least, that’s what we’ve been told. The truth, as they say, it much more complicated.

Since both the Left and the Right have mischaracterized the migrant caravan, I can’t let either side slide on this. So, consider this a Bipartisan Lexicon Word of the Week.

migrant caravan

What the Left thinks it means – poor souls who deserve to be let into our country to start better lives

What the Right things it means – poor people who are trying to invade America and take jobs from us

What it really means – poor souls being used as political pawns or trying to use our immigration system to their benefit

Let’s deal with a few facts here. First, the people currently traveling through Mexico are trying to escape conditions that make “Mad Max: Thunder Road” look like “Heidi.” This is not a healthy environment for cockroaches, let alone human beings. Let me put it this way. If moving to Mexico is an upgrade, your home country sucks. End of story.

Second, Mexico has extended asylum to the caravan, and the members have refused it. On top of that, some have been complaining about the charity they’ve gotten from the Mexican people, saying it wasn’t new or good enough for them. It’s gotten to the point even Mexicans are tired of the migrant caravan. One poll I read showed they had a 49% disapproval rating among Mexicans polled. If it goes any hire, Donald Trump might let them in so he can look good by comparison.

Third, not every person in the caravan wants asylum in the traditional sense. The normal process for asylum or amnesty is through official channels, such as an embassy, consulate, or at the border itself, and it must be crystal clear at the time those seeking it arrive at the aforementioned locations. If you rush the border, get knocked back, and then ask for asylum, that’s not the way to do it. However, that’s the way at least some members of the caravan (and their Leftist supporters) want it to happen, and it makes a mockery of the existing process in place that millions of legal immigrants have used to come here. If getting asylum is as easy as throwing rocks at Border Patrol agents, you’re pretty much negating the need for borders. Which, by the way, is an idea in Leftist circles that has gained traction thanks to influence (and tons of money) from your pal and mine, Uncle George Soros.

Fourth, the media aren’t telling us the truth. Yeah, like that’s a shocker! The photos we see are often of women and children crying or otherwise being subjected to what we’re told is horrible conditions under the direction of that mean ole evil super-racist Donald Trump. I mean, he ordered the Border Patrol to shoot tear gas at those poor innocent migrants! That’s practically chemical warfare! And it’s exactly what the previous President, Barack Obama, did at least once a week on average since 2013. Furthermore, the majority of the people in the caravan aren’t women and children. They are…adult men. Hmmm…I seem to remember another group the media told us were totally peaceful women and children and turned out to be mostly men prone to violence. I wish I could remember who they were. Oh well, I’m sure they haven’t caused any trouble since migrating to various countries…

When it comes down to it, neither the Left nor the Right have taken the right approach to the migrant caravan. They aren’t all innocent, as evidenced by members of the caravan throwing rocks at Border Patrol agents, but they’re not all invaders. From what I’ve seen, unless the caravan has heavy artillery coming behind them, they aren’t in a position to invade an open bar, let alone America. We need to take the time to separate the good from the bad and make sure those who are legitimately seeking asylum here are given a chance to get it.

Here is my step-by-step guide to making that happen.

1) If they want asylum, they have to say it from the get-go. No ambiguity, no throw rocks, get knocked back by tear gas, and then say you want asylum. Call it the Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Peace approach.

2) For those who get past step 1, make sure to have all necessary personnel and logistics in place to process their requests quickly, yet thoroughly. If the asylum seeker’s story checks out, get them in here and under the care of those who will handle the next steps. If the story doesn’t check out, politely decline their request, give them a care package of some sort with food, water, and other supplies, and send them back. And no double-dipping!

3) Respond in kind where appropriate. Yes, I know rocks can be deadly, but for the most part they are non-lethal weapons. Tear gas is a bit much. Try something closer to bean bags or rubber bullets, stuff that won’t cause permanent damage but will be a reminder to behave around the Border Patrol.

4) Stand firm. Leftists are going to make hay out of this issue no matter what happens, so there is a temptation to give in a little bit to keep the heat off. The problem is if you give a Leftist an inch, they will take a light year and complain about it being too short. As long as the position taken can be defended from a policy, logical, and ethical standpoint, stick with it. And, if you want to throw in an extra twist, ask the Leftists to come up with a better plan. They’ll scatter faster than high schoolers at a keg raid.

These are simple short term steps that will hopefully become long term solutions, but they are needed more than ever. The migrant caravan now may turn into a wave of immigrants later, which is exactly what the Left wants because it satisfies two of their main goals: overwhelming the current system to the point it collapses, and a constant stream of voters for Leftist policies. The best way to curtail that is to figure out how to address the problem and stick with it. But until we come up with a solution, let’s not pretend the caravan is squeaky clean or black-hearted until we get more facts. A great man once said, “Trust, but verify.”

And that man…was my Uncle Steve. And now you know the rest of the story. Good day!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Welcome back, my friends, to the blog series that never ends…

I hope you all have a happy Thanksgiving, especially if you had to spend it with Left-leaning relatives. I know they mean well, but hearing diatribes on the current rise white nationalism in America over Grandma’s stuffing is enough to ruin just about anyone’s appetites.

The Left has figured out a way to turn a holiday meant to celebrate the good things in our lives and turn it into a Whine-A-Palooza where everything is problematic, political and ideological stands must be taken, and the worst possible thing you can do is spend time with family who might have different beliefs than you do. It’s almost as if they can’t count their blessings because they don’t see them (while simultaneously being able to see white privilege everywhere even when it doesn’t exist). Why does the Left hate Thanksgiving so much? I’m glad you asked!

Thanksgiving

What the Left thinks it means – a racist holiday based on the subjugation and near extinction of Native Americans at the hands of white people

What it really means – a holiday based at least in part on the fact socialism sucks

We’re going to go into a bit of history here, kids, so make sure you have a beverage and some truck stop speed for this one. After the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock (and exchanged insurance information afterwards), they had an idea. They decided to share everything they had and produced on their own. This idea was codified in the Mayflower Compact, and it worked great for a while. Then, winter came, along with numerous illnesses, and the Pilgrims had to make a choice: continue to live in abject starvation and limp through, or change their approach. Considering we still have stories about Pilgrims today, I think we can safely assume they chose the latter.

The Thanksgiving tradition came about after that rough first year and was meant to commemorate their survival and to acknowledge the divine providence that helped them survive and keep the peace with Native American tribes. Not to mention the Dallas Cowboys played the Green Bay Packers that year, so a good time was had by all.

Since that time, whites and Native Americans haven’t always been the best of friends, due in part to bad treaties, worse diplomacy, and the wholesale slaughter of people on both sides of that divide. These events are a part of our history and should be acknowledged. Having said that, Thanksgiving just isn’t the time to bring up that sort of history, mainly and especially because the Pilgrims had nothing really to do with what their descendants did generations later.

So, why do Leftists bring up the entire sorted history at Thanksgiving? Grievance politics and white-knighting, to put it simply.

The first is easy to understand when you think like a Leftist (not that I recommend it, mind you). A Leftist is in a constant state of outrage, depression, and general bad spirits because they see the world as unfair due to powers well beyond their control. So, when they see something that causes offense, they feel they have to speak up about it, whether it be through marching and wearing ridiculous hats that look like female genitalia or screaming at the tops of their lungs or destroying public and private property because reasons. To them, the fact they’re upset overrules any and all other perspectives. In other words, Leftists act like toddlers.

As for the white-knighting, that stems from the aforementioned grievance politics and gets mixed with a major superiority/savior complex to create the idea only Leftists can speak for Native Americans. And, by extension, they are the only ones who can take offense on behalf of Native Americans. Remember the controversy surrounding the Washington Redskins a few years ago? Guess who were primarily the ones taking offense. That’s right: white Leftists. Sure, there were some Native Americans who parroted the Left’s talking points, but they were outnumbered by whites trying to “help” them. Hmmm…isn’t that what got Native Americans and whites to hate each other in the first place?

With the current political environment, we may not be able to stop people from putting white people on trial every Thanksgiving, but we can do a few things to lessen the stress these folks bring to the holiday. First, make sure you know the facts. Leftist arguments work primarily on emotional reactions, so if you stick to the facts, you won’t be persuaded. Second, decide on how you want to respond. If your family enjoys healthy discussion over cranberries, don’t be afraid to speak up. If not, let the Leftist in the family speak his or her mind and look like the asshole. Finally, stick to your plan, no matter what. Leftists will try to rattle you so you’ll engage and make mistakes because you let your feelings run away with you. The easiest way to counter that is…just ignore them. Leftists hate when they’re ignored almost as much as they hate being mocked. By refusing to fall for their bait, you deny them your emotional response to their emotional tirades and you ultimately win by not playing their game at all.

In the meantime, enjoy your leftovers!